AB 1150: Community college districts: governing board elections: San Diego Community College District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District.
- Session Year: 2019-2020
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2019-10-08
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes community college districts, administered by a governing board, throughout the state. Existing law provides various procedures for the nomination and election of the governing boards of community college districts.
Existing law establishes requirements for the nomination of an elected official in a city, including procedures for the filing of a nomination paper for the candidate. Existing law prohibits a candidate for a municipal office from filing nomination papers for more than one municipal office or term of office for the same municipality in the same election.
Existing law requires members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to be elected in a manner established by specified statutes. Existing law provides that the terms of office for all members shall begin and end on the first Friday in December, as specified.
This bill would require a candidate for election as a member of the governing board of each of these districts to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for filing nomination papers that apply in municipal elections, as specified, and would prohibit a candidate from filing nomination papers for more than one governing board position for the same governing board in the same election. This bill would change the day of the beginning and end of members terms to the second Friday in December. To the extent this would impose increased duties on the community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and the Charter of the City of San Diego, the number of members, the election of members, and the reapportionment of trustee areas of the governing board of the San Diego Community College District shall be conducted pursuant to this section.
(a)Candidates for election as a member of the governing board of the district shall be nominated by trustee area at a district primary election held on the date of the statewide direct primary election. At the district primary election, the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes within the trustee area shall be nominees for the general district election for that trustee area, and the nominee who receives a majority of the votes cast by the voters of the district in the districtwide general district election shall be elected to represent that trustee area. The general district election shall be held on the same date as the statewide general election.
(b)Candidates for election as members of the governing board shall do both of the following:
(1)File a declaration of candidacy as provided in this code.
(2)File nominating papers following the procedural and substantive requirements in Sections 10220 to 10227, inclusive, of the Elections Code, except to the extent those requirements conflict with the requirements in subdivision (a) or this paragraph. For the purposes of this paragraph, any reference to the city elections official in the Elections Code means the elections official of the county. Each candidate shall be proposed by not less than 40 nor more than 60 voters in a trustee area.
(c)Each member of the governing board elected at the general district election shall hold office for a term of four years commencing on the second Friday in December next succeeding the members election.
(d)The territory of the district shall be divided into trustee areas and one member of the governing board shall be elected from each trustee area. A candidate for election as a member of the governing board shall reside in, and be registered to vote in, the trustee area the candidate seeks to represent.
(e)The governing board of the district shall be composed of not less than five members and not more than nine, as determined by the governing board. Sections 5019 to 5030, inclusive, do not apply to the governing boards determination of the number of members pursuant to this subdivision. If the number of members of the governing board is increased or decreased, the governing board shall establish new trustee areas, abolish trustee areas, or adjust the boundaries of trustee areas so that the number of trustee areas is equal to the number of governing board members. If the number of members of the governing board is increased, the additional members of the governing board shall be elected at the next regular general district election of board members occurring at least 123 days after the governing board approved the increased number of board members. Prior to the next general district election, the governing board shall divide by lot the additional trustee area positions that are created so that the term of one-half of the board members elected to those positions shall expire on the second Friday in December following the next general district election. The term of the other board members elected to fill the remainder of the additional positions shall expire on the second Friday in December following the second general district election succeeding their election.
(f)The governing board shall adjust the boundaries of each trustee area in existence on January 1, 1992, to reflect population changes enumerated in the 1990 decennial federal census. The purpose of the adjustment is to establish trustee areas so that the population of each area is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as each of the other areas. Thereafter, the boundaries of trustee areas shall be adjusted pursuant to Section 5019.5 and may be abolished or rearranged as otherwise provided in this code.
(g)Pursuant to Sections 5019 and 5030, the county committee on school district organization may propose to the district voters that the member residing in each trustee area be elected by the registered voters of that particular trustee area. The proposal shall be submitted to the voters of the district at the next regular general district election occurring at least 123 days after the adoption of the proposal by the county committee on school district organization. If that proposal is approved by a majority of the voters voting in the election, then notwithstanding subdivision (a), there shall be no direct primary election for governing board members at the next election for members. Instead, members shall be elected at a general district election held on the same day as the statewide general election. At that general district election, board member candidates shall be elected to represent the trustee area in which they reside and are registered to vote by the registered voters of that trustee area. The candidate in each trustee area receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected.
SEC. 2.Section 72036.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:72036.5.(a)Notwithstanding any other law, the number of members, the election of members, and the reapportionment of trustee areas of the Governing Board of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District shall be provided for pursuant to this section and in accordance with the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 14025) of Division 14 of the Elections Code).
(b)For purposes of this section, district means the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District.
(c)Candidates for election as a member of the governing board of the district shall be nominated by trustee area at a district primary election held on the date of the statewide direct primary election. At the district primary election, the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes within the trustee area shall be nominees for the district general election for that trustee area, and the nominee who receives a majority of the votes cast by the voters of the trustee area in the district general election shall be elected to represent that trustee area. The district general election shall be held on the same date as the statewide general election.
(d)Each member of the governing board elected at the district general election shall hold office for a term of four years commencing on the second Friday in December following the members election.
(e)Candidates for election as members of the governing board shall do both of the following:
(1)File a declaration of candidacy as provided in this code.
(2)File nominating papers following the procedural and substantive requirements in Sections 10220 to 10227, inclusive, of the Elections Code, except to the extent those requirements conflict with the requirements of subdivision (c) or this paragraph. For the purposes of this paragraph, any reference to the city elections official in the Elections Code means the elections official of the county. Each candidate shall be proposed by not less than 40 nor more than 60 voters in a trustee area.
(f)The territory of the district shall be divided into trustee areas and one member of the governing board shall be elected from each trustee area. A candidate for election as a member of the governing board of the district shall reside in, and be registered to vote in, the trustee area the candidate seeks to represent.
(g)The governing board of the district shall be composed of not less than five members and not more than nine, as determined by the governing board. Sections 5019 to 5030, inclusive, do not apply to the governing boards determination of the number of members pursuant to this subdivision. If the number of members of the governing board is increased or decreased, the governing board shall establish new trustee areas, abolish trustee areas, or adjust the boundaries of trustee areas so that the number of trustee areas is equal to the number of governing board members. If the number of members of the governing board is increased, the additional members of the governing board shall be elected at the next regular district general election of board members occurring at least 123 days after the governing board approved the increased number of board members. Prior to the next district general election, the governing board shall divide by lot the additional trustee area positions that are created so that the term of one-half of the board members elected to those positions shall expire on the second Friday in December following the next district general election. The term of the other board members elected to fill the remainder of the additional positions shall expire on the second Friday in December following the second district general election succeeding their election.
(h)Boundaries for trustee areas established by a resolution of the governing board of the district or adopted by the county committee on school district organization prior to January 1, 2012, to reflect population changes enumerated in the 2010 decennial federal census shall be in effect when this section becomes operative. The boundaries of each trustee area shall be set so that the population of each area is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as each of the other areas. Thereafter, the boundaries of trustee areas shall be adjusted pursuant to Section 5019.5 and may be abolished or rearranged as otherwise provided in this code.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2019 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 624, Statutes of 2019. |
| Oct 8, 2019 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 11, 2019 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. |
| Sep 5, 2019 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 27, 2019 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 29 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Aug 26, 2019 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Aug 13, 2019 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 12, 2019 | From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8. |
| Jul 5, 2019 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 3, 2019 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (July 2). |
| Jun 5, 2019 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on E. & C.A. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 5). Re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A. |
| May 22, 2019 | Referred to Coms. on ED. and E. & C.A. |
| May 9, 2019 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 9, 2019 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 2, 2019 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 1, 2019 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 4.) (May 1). |
| Apr 10, 2019 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (April 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 3, 2019 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on E. & R. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on E. & R. |
| Mar 20, 2019 | Re-referred to Com. on HIGHER ED. |
| Mar 19, 2019 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HIGHER ED. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 11, 2019 | Referred to Coms. on HIGHER ED. and E. & R. |
| Feb 22, 2019 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 24. |
| Feb 21, 2019 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2019 | AB 1150 Gloria Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 26, 2019 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB1150 Gloria By Hueso | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jul 2, 2019 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments |
Passed |
|
| Jun 5, 2019 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Elections and Constitutional Amendments] | Senate Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
|
| May 9, 2019 | AB 1150 Gloria Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 1, 2019 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 10, 2019 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Elections and Redistricting |
Passed |
|
| Apr 2, 2019 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Elections and Redistricting] | Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1150
Author:(Gloria)
As Amended Ver:July 5, 2019
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Requires a candidate for election as a member of the governing board of each the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD) and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD (GCCCD), respectively, to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for filing nomination papers that apply in municipal elections, as specified.
Major Provisions:
- Requires candidates for election as members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to file nominating papers by following the procedural and substantive requirements that apply in municipal elections.
- Requires each candidate to be proposed by at least 40, but at most 60, voters in a trustee area.
- Extends, by one week, the date by which newly elected members of the San Diego or Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts governing boards are to assume office after an election (from the first Friday in December to the second Friday in December).
- Deletes obsolete provisions related to the date the term ends for a member of the governing board.
The Senate Amendments:
Amendments taken in the Senate reduce the number of voters required when filing nominating papers from at least 100, and not more than 120 voters, to at least 40, and not more than 60 voters.
COMMENTS:
What is involved in filing nomination papers? State law generally requires candidates for elective state and county offices to file a declaration of candidacy, file nomination papers containing the signatures of voters, and pay a filing fee (or collect signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the fee). In contrast, candidates for school district governing boards and community college district governing boards are typically only required to file a declaration of candidacy, and are not required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. In some school districts whose elections are governed by a city charter, candidates are required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee; for example, candidates for the governing board of the San Francisco Community College District must collect at least 20 valid signatures on nomination papers and are required to pay a filing fee of $500 or collect 1,000 signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the filing fee.
According to the Author:
According to the author, "In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures showing support for their candidacy. For the two community college districts in San Diego, this is not the case. Any person can get on the ballot without having to show they have sufficient community support or buy in."
"In the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego Community College Districts, current law does not require candidates to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures in support of their candidacy. In order to have candidates that are more connected to their community, we need to amend Sections 72035 and 72036.5 of the Education Code to resolve this issue. These sections of the Education Code apply only to these two Districts."
Arguments in Support:
The American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931, notes that "…the San Francisco Community College Board requires 1,000 signatures in lieu of a $500 filing fee. The San Diego Unified School District Board requires candidates to produce 100 signatures as part of their application for candidacy. Candidates for statewide office in California require anywhere from 1,000 to 7,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. However, in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego CCDs, this is not the case. Any person who fills out the required paperwork is automatically added to the ballot, with absolutely no signature requirement or filing fee. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support and ensure that candidates running for these positions have at least minimal support in the districts they seek to represent."
Arguments in Opposition:
No opposition on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Senate Appropriation Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
VOTES:
ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 10-0-2
YES: Medina, Choi, Jones-Sawyer, Bloom, Gabriel, Irwin, Levine, Low, Santiago, Weber
ABS, ABST OR NV: Kiley, Patterson
ASM ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING: 6-1-0
YES: Berman, Calderon, Low, Mayes, Mullin, Weber
NO: Gallagher
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-4-1
YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Friedman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Jones-Sawyer, Robert Rivas
NO: Bigelow, Brough, Fong, Obernolte
ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-13-6
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
NO: Bigelow, Brough, Cunningham, Diep, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Waldron
ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Chen, Choi, Dahle, Flora, McCarty
SENATE FLOOR: 31-6-3
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk
NO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Stone
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bates, Leyva, Nielsen
UPDATED:
VERSION: July 5, 2019
CONSULTANT: Kevin J. Powers / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0001540
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 1150 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1150
Amended: 7/5/19 in Senate
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/5/19
AYES: Leyva, Wilk, Chang, Glazer, McGuire, Pan
NO VOTE RECORDED: Durazo
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 7/2/19
AYES: Umberg, Hertzberg, Leyva, Stern
NOES: Nielsen
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-13, 5/9/19 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Community college districts: governing board elections: San Diego Community College District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
SOURCE: American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931
California Federation of Teachers
DIGEST:
This bill requires candidates for election as members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to file nominating papers.
Existing law:
- Requires candidates for election as a member of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District or Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to be nominated by trustee area at a district primary election held on the date of the statewide direct primary election. (Education Code § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Requires candidates for election as members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District or Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to file a declaration of candidacy, as specified. (EC § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Provides that each member of the governing board elected at the general district election are to hold office for a term of four years beginning on the first Friday in December next succeeding the member’s election. (EC § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Provides that the members of the governing boards in office at the time that prior legislation became effective are to hold office until the first Friday in December of the year in which their respective term of office would otherwise have terminated, or until a successor qualifies therefor. (EC § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Requires the first members of the governing board of a newly formed community college district to take office on the third Monday following their election, and the term of office of subsequent members of the board is to begin on the second Friday in December following their election. (EC § 72027)
- Provides that the majority of the members of the first elected board of any newly formed community college district are to serve until the second Friday in December of the second succeeding odd-numbered year. Existing law provides that the terms of the other members expire on the second Friday in December of the first succeeding odd-numbered year. (EC § 72027)
- Establishes requirements for the nomination of an elected official in a city, including procedures for the filing of a nomination paper for the candidate. (Election Code Sections 10220, et seq.)
This bill:
- Requires candidates for election as members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to file nominating papers by following the procedural and substantive requirements that apply in municipal elections.
- Requires each candidate to be proposed by at least 40, but at most 60, voters in a trustee area.
- Extends, by one week, the date by which newly elected members of the San Diego or Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts governing boards are to assume office after an election (from the first Friday in December to the second Friday in December).
- Deletes obsolete provisions related to the date the term ends for a member of the governing board.
Comments
Need for the bill. According to the author, “In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures demonstrating support for their candidacy. For the two community college districts in San Diego, this is not the case. Any person can get on the ballot without having to show they have sufficient community support or buy in. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support and ensure that candidates running for these positions have at least minimal support in the districts they seek to represent.”
What is involved in filing nomination papers? State law generally requires candidates for elective state and county offices to file a declaration of candidacy, file nomination papers containing the signatures of voters, and pay a filing fee (or collect signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the fee). In contrast, candidates for school district governing boards and community college district governing boards are typically only required to file a declaration of candidacy, and are not required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. In some school districts whose elections are governed by a city charter, candidates are required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee; for example, candidates for the governing board of the San Francisco Community College District must collect at least 20 valid signatures on nomination papers and are required to pay a filing fee of $500 or collect 1,000 signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the filing fee.
This bill statutorily requires candidates for two community college districts to file nomination papers. While this appears to be consistent with election processes in several community college districts in large cities, this bill codifies this process for only two community college districts.
According to the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee analysis of this bill, “the procedural requirements that candidates must meet in order to appear on the ballot serve, in part, as a means of limiting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot. Restricting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot (and thus, restricting the size of the ballot itself) can help reduce voter confusion, protect against overwhelming voting systems, and allow the electorate to focus attention on a smaller number of candidates in order that elections may better reflect the will of the majority. Courts have long recognized that states have a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot for these reasons.
“Because one of the primary purposes of requiring candidates to comply with these procedural requirements is to limit the number of candidates who appear on the ballot, it is common for more extensive procedural requirements to apply to offices that draw larger numbers of candidates. For example, candidates for statewide office generally must collect a larger number of signatures on nomination petitions and must pay higher filing fees than candidates for the state legislature.
“Historically, however, the San Diego and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts have had a relatively modest number of candidates who have run for seats on their governing boards. Specifically, in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, only one candidate has qualified to appear on the ballot in six of the 10 trustee elections since the district started electing governing board members by trustee area (instead of at-large) in 2012. In each of the other four trustee elections (including all three trustee area elections that were on the ballot in 2018), three candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. Over the same time period, the San Diego Community College District has also held 10 trustee elections: three elections featured a single candidate on the ballot; three elections had two candidates; one election had three candidates; and three elections had four candidates.”
Date terms of office begin and end. This bill affects only two community college districts because those are the only community college districts for which statutes provide for governing board members terms to begin on the first Friday in December.
AB 2449 (Arambula, Chapter 146, Statutes of 2018) modified the beginning and end dates of the terms of office for governing board members of school districts, county offices of education, and community college districts, from the first Friday in December to the second Friday in December. Governing board elections may occur in odd or even years. In even-year elections, county elections officials have up to 30 days after Election Day to complete their official canvas: the tallying, auditing, and certification of the vote. Even-year elections have a slightly longer time periods for certification due to their consolidation of many jurisdictional elections. The first Friday in December precedes the Election Code’s 30-day deadline to certify the vote after even-year elections.
Prior legislation did not make the corresponding change to two sections of the Education that relate specifically to the San Diego and Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts. This bill makes those changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931 (co-source)
California Federation of Teachers (co-source)
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
San Diego Mesa College Academic Senate
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/19)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-13, 5/9/19
AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Cunningham, Diep, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Chen, Choi, Dahle, Flora, McCarty
Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. /
8/14/19 14:56:49
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular
Bill No: AB 1150 Hearing Date: 7/2/19
Author: | Gloria | ||
Version: | 3/19/19 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Scott Matsumoto | ||
Subject: Community college districts: governing board elections: San Diego Community College District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
DIGEST
This bill requires candidates for the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD) and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (GCCCD) to collect at least 100 signatures on nomination papers in order to qualify to appear on the ballot.
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
- Requires community college district elections to be governed by the Elections Code, except as otherwise provided in the Education Code.
- Requires the name of a candidate for community college district board to be printed on the ballot whenever the candidate has filed a declaration of candidacy. State law does not require nomination signatures or a filing fee when seeking ballot access for community college district boards.
- Requires each member elected to the governing board of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to hold office for a term of four years commencing on the first Friday in December following the member’s election.
- Provides that the majority of the members of the first elected board of any newly formed community college district are to serve until the second Friday in December of the second succeeding odd-numbered year. Provides that the terms of the other members expire on the second Friday in December of the first succeeding odd-numbered year.
- Requires a candidate for elective city office to file nomination papers, containing the signatures of a specified number of voters, in order to qualify to appear on the ballot. Specifies requirements and procedures for the issuance of, format of, circulation of, and deadline for filing nomination papers for elective city office.
This bill:
- Requires candidates for the governing board of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to file nominating papers consisting of at least 100, but not more than 120, signatures from voters within a trustee area, as specified. Requires that the nomination papers follow the procedural and substantive requirements of provisions of state law governing nomination papers filed by candidates for elective city office, expect as specified.
- Extends, from the first Friday in December to the second Friday in December, the date by which newly elected members of the SDCCD and the GCCCD governing boards are to assume office after an election.
- Makes technical and corresponding changes.
BACKGROUND
Candidate Qualification Requirements. The requirements under California law for a candidate to qualify to appear on the ballot vary depending on the office being sought. A candidate for elective office generally must be a United States citizen and at least 18 years of age at the time of the election, and for most elective offices, a candidate must also be a resident and registered voter in the jurisdiction where they are seeking office. Candidates also generally must comply with various procedural requirements, which may include requirements to file a declaration of candidacy, to file nomination papers containing the signatures of specified numbers of voters, or to pay a filing fee. (For offices where candidates are required to pay a filing fee, state law generally allows a candidate to collect signatures of voters on a petition in lieu of paying the filing fee.)
The procedural requirements that candidates must meet in order to appear on the ballot serve, in part, as a means of limiting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot. Restricting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot (and thus, restricting the size of the ballot itself) can help reduce voter confusion, protect against overwhelming voting systems, and allow the electorate to focus attention on a smaller number of candidates in order that elections may better reflect the will of the majority. Courts have long recognized that states have a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot for these reasons.
Because one of the primary purposes of requiring candidates to comply with these procedural requirements is to limit the number of candidates who appear on the ballot, it is common for more extensive procedural requirements to apply to offices that draw larger numbers of candidates. For example, candidates for statewide office generally must collect a larger number of signatures on nomination petitions and must pay higher filing fees than candidates for state legislature.
State law generally requires candidates for elective state and county offices to file a declaration of candidacy, file nomination papers containing the signatures of voters, and pay a filing fee (or collect signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the fee). By contrast, candidates for school districts (including community college districts) and special districts typically only are required to file a declaration of candidacy, and are not required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. It should be noted that in some school districts whose elections are governed by a city charter, candidates are required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. For example, candidates for the governing board of the San Francisco Community College District (SFCCD), for instance, must collect at least 20 valid signatures on nomination papers and are required to pay a filing fee of $500 or collect 1,000 signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the filing fee.
By requiring candidates for the governing board of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to collect signatures on nomination papers in order to qualify to appear on the ballot, this bill creates an additional barrier to candidates running for those offices, and has the potential to reduce the number of candidates running in those districts. However, the SDCCD and the GCCCD have had a relatively modest number of candidates who have run for seats on their governing boards. Specifically, in the GCCCD, only one candidate has qualified to appear on the ballot in six of the 10 trustee elections since the district started electing governing board members by districts (instead of at-large) in 2012. In each of the other four trustee elections (including all three trustee area elections that were on the ballot in 2018), three candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. Over the same time period, the SDCCD has also held 10 trustee elections: three elections featured a single candidate on the ballot; three elections had two candidates; one election had three candidates; and three elections had four candidates. Requiring candidates for those districts to collect signatures in order to appear on the ballot could further reduce the number of candidates running for the GCCCD and SDCCD boards.
Start of Terms. Current law requires the term of office for governing board members of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to begin on the first Friday in December following the member’s election. Both the SDCCD and the GCCCD conduct district primary and general elections that are consolidated with the statewide primary and general elections held in even-numbered years. As a result, governing board members from those two districts typically are elected in early November.
In response to various changes in the way that elections are conducted, state law recently was amended to extend the amount of time that elections officials have to finalize election results after an election. It is also increasingly common for elections officials to take the full amount of time allowed under the law to finalize election results after statewide general elections. As a result, election results from SDCCD and GCCCD elections may not be finalized by the first Friday in November. Accordingly, this bill moves back the start of terms for SDCCD and GCCCD governing board members by one week to ensure that election results are finalized before the new terms begin.
COMMENTS
- According to the author: In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures demonstrating support for their candidacy. For the two community college districts in San Diego, this is not the case. Any person can get on the ballot without having to show they have sufficient community support or buy in. AB 1150 will require candidates to collect at least 100 signatures of voters in order to qualify for the ballot. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support.
- Argument in Support. In a letter supporting AB 1150, the California Federation of Teachers stated, in part, the following:
In most large cities, school board members are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures from the community that they are seeking to represent. For example, the San Francisco Community College Board requires 1,000 signatures in lieu of a $500 filing fee.
However, in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego Community College Districts, this is not the case. Any person who fills out the required paperwork is automatically added to the ballot, with absolutely no signature requirement or filing fee. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support and ensure that candidates running for these positions have at least minimal support in the districts they seek to represent.
- Need for the bill? For offices that have a signature requirement, there may also be a filing fee requirement as well. Depending on the jurisdiction, the filing fee can sometimes be offset by collecting signatures in-lieu of the filing fee. It should be stressed that these are different processes and gathering signatures in-lieu of a filing fee is optional. Some jurisdictions allow for signature in-lieu of a filing fee to count towards the nomination signature requirements, but it ultimately depends on the jurisdiction or existing law. For example, if a candidate is running for a seat on the SFCCD, candidates are required to submit at least 20 and no more than 30 valid nomination signatures and pay a $500 filing fee. For the SFCCD, to offset the filing fee, a candidate could collect 1,000 signatures, and may, if requested, count those signatures toward the number of signatures required for nomination. Another contributing factor to SFCCD having nomination signatures is that the City and County of San Francisco considers the SFCCD a city elective office and falls under the nomination signature requirement for city elective offices pursuant to existing law.
On the state level, seeking election to become a United States Representative, State Senator, State Assemblymember, or a member of the Board of Equalization, a candidate is required to submit nomination papers containing at least 40, but not more than 60 signatures. Candidates are allowed to submit signatures in-lieu and those signatures, if valid, are allowed to county towards the nomination signature requirement.
Finally, as mentioned in the author’s statement, the bill’s intent have a candidate show a basic level of community support in order to be placed on the ballot. However, as mentioned in the BACKGROUND, there has not been a high number of candidates seeking to become board members of either the SDCCD or the GCCCD. Currently, in San Diego County, there are no nomination signature requirements or filing fee requirements for any of the community college districts in the county.
The author should consider whether having a nomination signature requirement is necessary when other community college districts in San Diego County, such as Southwestern and MiraCosta, do not currently have a signature requirement. The author should also consider whether this is a large enough problem to change state statutes, especially when a majority of recent SDCCD and GCCCD elections have only one or two candidates seeking to become a board member. Finally, if the author still desires to have a nomination signature requirement, is the number of nominating signatures currently prescribed by this bill too high?
- Double-Referral. Prior to the bill being heard by this committee, the Senate Education Committee approved AB 1150 at its June 5th hearing on a vote of 6-0.
RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION
AB 684 (Block), Chapter 614, Statutes of 2011, among other provisions, provided for the number of members, the election of members, and the reapportionment of trustee areas for the governing board of the GCCCD.
AB 2526 (Chacon), Chapter 451, Statutes of 1992, provided for the number of members, the election of members, and the reapportionment of trustee areas of the governing board of the SDCCD.
PRIOR ACTION
Senate Education Committee: | 6 - 0 |
Assembly Floor: | 61 - 13 |
Assembly Appropriations Committee: | 13 - 4 |
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: Assembly Higher Education Committee: | 6 - 1 10 - 0 |
POSITIONS
Sponsor: California Federation of Teachers
Support: American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
San Diego City College Classified Senate
San Diego Community College District
San Diego Continuing Education Academic Senate of the San Diego
Community College District
San Diego Continuing Education Classified Senate
San Diego Mesa College Academic Senate
San Diego Mesa College Classified Senate
San Diego Miramar College Classified Senate
Oppose: None received
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Connie Leyva, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular
Bill No: AB 1150 Hearing Date: June 5, 2019
Author: | Gloria | ||
Version: | March 19, 2019 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Lynn Lorber | ||
Subject: Community college districts: governing board elections: San Diego Community College District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District.
NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Elections and Constitutional Amendments. A "do pass" motion should include referral to the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.
SUMMARY
This bill requires candidates for election as members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to file nominating papers.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
- Requires candidates for election as a member of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District or Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to be nominated by trustee area at a district primary election held on the date of the statewide direct primary election. (Education Code § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Requires candidates for election as members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District or Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to file a declaration of candidacy, as specified. (EC § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Provides that each member of the governing board elected at the general district election are to hold office for a term of four years beginning on the first Friday in December next succeeding the member’s election. (EC § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Provides that the members of the governing boards in office at the time that prior legislation became effective are to hold office until the first Friday in December of the year in which their respective term of office would otherwise have terminated, or until a successor qualifies therefor. (EC § 72035 and § 72036.5)
- Requires the first members of the governing board of a newly formed community college district to take office on the third Monday following their election, and the term of office of subsequent members of the board is to begin on the second Friday in December following their election. (EC § 72027)
- Provides that the majority of the members of the first elected board of any newly formed community college district are to serve until the second Friday in December of the second succeeding odd-numbered year. Existing law provides that the terms of the other members expire on the second Friday in December of the first succeeding odd-numbered year. (EC § 72027)
- Establishes requirements for the nomination of an elected official in a city, including procedures for the filing of a nomination paper for the candidate. (Election Code Sections 10220, et seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
- Requires candidates for election as members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to file nominating papers by following the procedural and substantive requirements that apply in municipal elections.
- Requires each candidate to be proposed by at least 100, but at most 120, voters in a trustee area.
- Extends, by one week, the date by which newly elected members of the San Diego or Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts governing boards are to assume office after an election (from the first Friday in December to the second Friday in December).
- Deletes obsolete provisions related to the date the term ends for a member of the governing board.
STAFF COMMENTS
- Need for the bill. According to the author, “In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures demonstrating support for their candidacy. For the two community college districts in San Diego, this is not the case. Any person can get on the ballot without having to show they have sufficient community support or buy in. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support and ensure that candidates running for these positions have at least minimal support in the districts they seek to represent.”
- What is involved in filing nomination papers? State law generally requires candidates for elective state and county offices to file a declaration of candidacy, file nomination papers containing the signatures of voters, and pay a filing fee (or collect signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the fee). In contrast, candidates for school district governing boards and community college district governing boards are typically only required to file a declaration of candidacy, and are not required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. In some school districts whose elections are governed by a city charter, candidates are required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee; for example, candidates for the governing board of the San Francisco Community College District must collect at least 20 valid signatures on nomination papers and are required to pay a filing fee of $500 or collect 1,000 signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the filing fee.
This bill statutorily requires candidates for two community college districts to file nomination papers. While this appears to be consistent with election processes in several community college districts in large cities, this bill codifies this process for only two community college districts.
According to the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee analysis of this bill, “the procedural requirements that candidates must meet in order to appear on the ballot serve, in part, as a means of limiting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot. Restricting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot (and thus, restricting the size of the ballot itself) can help reduce voter confusion, protect against overwhelming voting systems, and allow the electorate to focus attention on a smaller number of candidates in order that elections may better reflect the will of the majority. Courts have long recognized that states have a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot for these reasons.
“Because one of the primary purposes of requiring candidates to comply with these procedural requirements is to limit the number of candidates who appear on the ballot, it is common for more extensive procedural requirements to apply to offices that draw larger numbers of candidates. For example, candidates for statewide office generally must collect a larger number of signatures on nomination petitions and must pay higher filing fees than candidates for the state legislature.
“Historically, however, the San Diego and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts have had a relatively modest number of candidates who have run for seats on their governing boards. Specifically, in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, only one candidate has qualified to appear on the ballot in six of the 10 trustee elections since the district started electing governing board members by trustee area (instead of at-large) in 2012. In each of the other four trustee elections (including all three trustee area elections that were on the ballot in 2018), three candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. Over the same time period, the San Diego Community College District has also held 10 trustee elections: three elections featured a single candidate on the ballot; three elections had two candidates; one election had three candidates; and three elections had four candidates.”
Does this bill create an unnecessary barrier to people who may wish to run for office? Could this bill further reduce the number of candidates who run for office in the San Diego or Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts? - Date terms of office begin and end. This bill affects only two community college districts because those are the only community college districts for which statutes provide for governing board members terms to begin on the first Friday in December.
AB 2449 (Arambula, Chapter 146, 2018) modified the beginning and end dates of the terms of office for governing board members of school districts, county offices of education, and community college districts, from the first Friday in December to the second Friday in December. Governing board elections may occur in odd or even years. In even-year elections, county elections officials have up to 30 days after Election Day to complete their official canvas: the tallying, auditing, and certification of the vote. Even-year elections have a slightly longer time periods for certification due to their consolidation of many jurisdictional elections. The first Friday in December precedes the Election Code’s 30-day deadline to certify the vote after even-year elections.
Prior legislation did not make the corresponding change to two sections of the Education that relate specifically to the San Diego and Grossmont-Cuyamaca community college districts. This bill makes those changes. - Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would impose minor reimbursable state-mandated local costs, likely under $10,000 annually (General Fund).
SUPPORT
American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931 (co-sponsor)
California Federation of Teachers (co-sponsor)
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
San Diego Mesa College Academic Senate
OPPOSITION
None received
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 1150
Author:(Gloria)
As Amended Ver:March 19, 2019
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Requires a candidate for election as a member of the governing board of each the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD) and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD (GCCCD), respectively, to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for filing nomination papers that apply in municipal elections, as specified.
Major Provisions
- Requires a candidate for election as a member of the governing board of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for filing nomination papers that apply in municipal elections, as specified in the Elections Code.
- Specifies that each candidate shall be proposed by not less than 100 nor more than 120 voters in a trustee area.
- Changes the day of the beginning and end of members' terms from the First Friday to the second Friday in December.
- If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to the Government Code.
COMMENTS:
By requiring candidates for the governing board of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to collect signatures on nomination papers in order to qualify to appear on the ballot, this bill creates an additional barrier to candidates running for those offices, and has the potential to reduce the number of candidates running in those districts. Historically, however, the SDCCD and the GCCCD have had a relatively modest number of candidates who have run for seats on their governing boards. Specifically, in the GCCCD, only one candidate has qualified to appear on the ballot in six of the 10 trustee elections since the district started electing governing board members by districts (instead of at-large) in 2012. In each of the other four trustee elections (including all three trustee area elections that were on the ballot in 2018), three candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. Over the same time period, the SDCCD has also held 10 trustee elections: three elections featured a single candidate on the ballot; three elections had two candidates; one election had three candidates; and three elections had four candidates. Requiring candidates for those districts to collect signatures in order to appear on the ballot could further reduce the number of candidates running for the GCCCD and SDCCD boards.
According to the Author:
According to the author, "In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures showing support for their candidacy. For the two community college districts in San Diego, this is not the case. Any person can get on the ballot without having to show they have sufficient community support or buy in."
"In the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego Community College Districts, current law does not require candidates to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures in support of their candidacy. In order to have candidates that are more connected to their community, we need to amend Sections 72035 and 72036.5 of the Education Code to resolve this issue. These sections of the Education Code apply only to these two Districts."
Arguments in Support:
The American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931, notes that "…the San Francisco Community College Board requires 1,000 signatures in lieu of a $500 filing fee. The San Diego Unified School District Board requires candidates to produce 100 signatures as part of their application for candidacy. Candidates for statewide office in California require anywhere from 1,000 to 7,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. However, in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego CCDs, this is not the case. Any person who fills out the required paperwork is automatically added to the ballot, with absolutely no signature requirement or filing fee. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support and ensure that candidates running for these positions have at least minimal support in the districts they seek to represent."
Arguments in Opposition:
No opposition on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor reimbursable state-mandated local costs, likely under $10,000 annually (General Fund).
VOTES:
ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 10-0-2
YES: Medina, Choi, Jones-Sawyer, Bloom, Gabriel, Irwin, Levine, Low, Santiago, Weber
ABS, ABST OR NV: Kiley, Patterson
ASM ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING: 6-1-0
YES: Berman, Calderon, Low, Mayes, Mullin, Weber
NO: Gallagher
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-4-1
YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Friedman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Jones-Sawyer, Robert Rivas
NO: Bigelow, Brough, Fong, Obernolte
ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep
UPDATED:
VERSION: March 19, 2019
CONSULTANT: Kevin J. Powers / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0000354
Date of Hearing: May 1, 2019
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1150
Author:(Gloria) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2019
Policy Committee: | Higher Education | Vote: | 10 - 0 |
Elections and Redistricting | 6 - 1 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires candidates for the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD) and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (GCCCD) to collect at least 100 signatures on nomination papers in order to qualify to appear on the ballot. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires each candidate for the governing board of the two community college districts to file nominating papers containing the signatures of not less than 100 and not more than 120 voters in the trustee area in which the candidate is seeking election.
- Requires the nomination papers to follow the procedural and substantive requirements of provisions of state law governing nomination papers filed by candidates for elective city office, except as specified.
- Changes the date terms begin for governing board members of the two community college districts, from the first Friday in December following the member’s election to the second Friday in December following the member’s election.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Minor reimbursable state-mandated local costs, likely under $10,000 annually (General Fund).
COMMENTS:
Background and Purpose. The requirements under California law for a candidate to qualify to appear on the ballot vary depending on the office sought. A candidate for elective office generally must be a United States citizen and at least 18 years of age at the time of the election. For most elective offices, a candidate must also be a resident and registered voter in the jurisdiction in which they are seeking office. Candidates also generally must comply with various procedural requirements, including the filing of a declaration of candidacy and nomination papers containing the signatures of specified numbers of voters, or the payment of a filing fee. (For offices in which candidates are required to pay a filing fee, state law generally allows a candidate to collect voters’ signatures in lieu of paying the fee.)
Candidates for school districts (including community college districts) and special districts typically only are required to file a declaration of candidacy and are not required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. According to the author:
In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures demonstrating support for their candidacy. In the San Diego and Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Districts, this is not the case. AB1150 will require candidates to collect at least 100 signatures of voters in order to qualify for the ballot. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support.
State law was recently amended to extend the amount of time elections officials have to finalize election results after an election. Accordingly, this bill moves back the start of terms for SDCCD and GCCCD governing board members by one week to ensure that election results are finalized before the new terms begin.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2019
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Marc Berman, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1150 (
Author:Gloria) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2019
SUBJECT: Community college districts: governing board elections: San Diego Community College District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District.
SUMMARY: Requires candidates for the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD) and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (GCCCD) to collect at least 100 signatures on nomination papers in order to qualify to appear on the ballot. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires each candidate for the governing board of the SDCCD or the GCCCD to file nominating papers containing the signatures of not less than 100 and not more than 120 voters in the trustee area in which the candidate is seeking election. Requires the nomination papers to follow the procedural and substantive requirements of provisions of state law governing nomination papers filed by candidates for elective city office, except as specified.
- Changes the date that terms begin for governing board members of the SDCCD and the GCCCD from the first Friday in December following the member’s election to the second Friday in December following the member’s election.
- Makes technical and conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires community college district elections to be governed by the Elections Code, except as otherwise provided in the Education Code.
- Requires the name of a candidate for community college district board to be printed on the ballot whenever the candidate has filed a declaration of candidacy, unless the candidate has died and that fact has been ascertained by the officer charged with the duty of printing the ballots at least 68 days before the election.
- Requires a candidate for elective city office to file nomination papers, containing the signatures of a specified number of voters, in order to qualify to appear on the ballot. Specifies requirements and procedures for the issuance of, format of, circulation of, and deadline for filing nomination papers for elective city office.
- Requires each member elected to the governing board of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to hold office for a term of four years commencing on the first Friday in December following the member’s election.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures demonstrating support for their candidacy. In the San Diego and Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Districts, this is not the case. AB [1150] will require candidates to collect at least 100 signatures of voters in order to qualify for the ballot. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support.
- Candidate Qualification Requirements: The requirements under California law for a candidate to qualify to appear on the ballot vary depending on the office sought. A candidate for elective office generally must be a United States citizen and at least 18 years of age at the time of the election, and for most elective offices, a candidate must also be a resident and registered voter in the jurisdiction where they are seeking office. Candidates also generally must comply with various procedural requirements, which may include requirements to file a declaration of candidacy, to file nomination papers containing the signatures of specified numbers of voters, or to pay a filing fee. (For offices where candidates are required to pay a filing fee, state law generally allows a candidate to collect signatures of voters on a petition in lieu of paying the filing fee.)
The procedural requirements that candidates must meet in order to appear on the ballot serve, in part, as a means of limiting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot. Restricting the number of candidates who appear on the ballot (and thus, restricting the size of the ballot itself) can help reduce voter confusion, protect against overwhelming voting systems, and allow the electorate to focus attention on a smaller number of candidates in order that elections may better reflect the will of the majority. Courts have long recognized that states have a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot for these reasons.
Because one of the primary purposes of requiring candidates to comply with these procedural requirements is to limit the number of candidates who appear on the ballot, it is common for more extensive procedural requirements to apply to offices that draw larger numbers of candidates. For example, candidates for statewide office generally must collect a larger number of signatures on nomination petitions and must pay higher filing fees than candidates for state legislature.
State law generally requires candidates for elective state and county offices to file a declaration of candidacy, file nomination papers containing the signatures of voters, and pay a filing fee (or collect signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the fee). By contrast, candidates for school districts (including community college districts) and special districts typically only are required to file a declaration of candidacy, and are not required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. (In some school districts whose elections are governed by a city charter, candidates are required to collect nomination signatures or pay a filing fee. Candidates for the governing board of the San Francisco Community College District, for instance, must collect at least 20 valid signatures on nomination papers and are required to pay a filing fee of $500 or collect 1,000 signatures on a petition in lieu of paying the filing fee.)
By requiring candidates for the governing board of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to collect signatures on nomination papers in order to qualify to appear on the ballot, this bill creates an additional barrier to candidates running for those offices, and has the potential to reduce the number of candidates running in those districts. Historically, however, the SDCCD and the GCCCD have had a relatively modest number of candidates who have run for seats on their governing boards. Specifically, in the GCCCD, only one candidate has qualified to appear on the ballot in six of the 10 trustee elections since the district started electing governing board members by districts (instead of at-large) in 2012. In each of the other four trustee elections (including all three trustee area elections that were on the ballot in 2018), three candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. Over the same time period, the SDCCD has also held 10 trustee elections: three elections featured a single candidate on the ballot; three elections had two candidates; one election had three candidates; and three elections had four candidates. Requiring candidates for those districts to collect signatures in order to appear on the ballot could further reduce the number of candidates running for the GCCCD and SDCCD boards. - Start of Terms: As detailed above, current law requires the term of office for governing board members of the SDCCD and the GCCCD to begin on the first Friday in December following the member’s election. Both the SDCCD and the GCCCD conduct district primary and general elections that are consolidated with the statewide primary and general elections held in even-numbered years. As a result, governing board members from those two districts typically are elected in early November.
In response to various changes in the way that elections are conducted, state law recently was amended to extend the amount of time that elections officials have to finalize election results after an election. Furthermore, it is increasingly common for elections officials to take the full amount of time allowed under the law to finalize election results after statewide general elections. As a result, election results from SDCCD and GCCCD elections may not be finalized by the first Friday in November. Accordingly, this bill moves back the start of terms for SDCCD and GCCCD governing board members by one week to ensure that election results are finalized before the new terms begin. - Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, the California Federation of Teachers writes:
In most large cities, school board members are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures from the community that they are seeking to represent. For example, the San Francisco Community College Board requires 1,000 signatures in lieu of a $500 filing fee. The San Diego Unified School District Board requires candidates to produce 100 signatures as part of their application for candidacy. Candidates for statewide office in California require anywhere from 1,000 to 7,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot.
However, in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego Community College Districts, this is not the case. Any person who fills out the required paperwork is automatically added to the ballot, with absolutely no signature requirement or filing fee. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support and ensure that candidates running for these positions have at least minimal support in the districts they seek to represent.
- Double-Referral: On April 2, 2019, this bill was approved by the Assembly Higher Education Committee by a 10-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931
California Federation of Teachers
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
San Diego Community College District
San Diego Mesa College Classified Senate of the San Diego Community College District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2019
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Jose Medina, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1150 (
Author:Gloria) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2019
[Note: This bill is doubled referred to the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT: Community college districts: governing board elections: San Diego Community College District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
SUMMARY: Requires a candidate for election as a member of the governing board of each the San Diego Community College District (CCD) and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD, respectively, to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for filing nomination papers that apply in municipal elections, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a candidate for election as a member of the governing board of the San Diego Community College District (CCD) and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for filing nomination papers that apply in municipal elections, as specified in the Elections Code.
- Specifies that each candidate shall be proposed by not less than 100 nor more than 120 voters in a trustee area.
- Changes the day of the beginning and end of members’ terms from the First Friday to the second Friday in December.
- If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to the Government Code.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes the California Community Colleges (CCC), a postsecondary education system consisting of CCDs established, as specified, and the Board of Governors of the CCC. The board of governors, local CCDs, and the California Online Community College shall carry out the functions as specified. (Education Code (EDCC) Section 70900)
- Requires the majority of the members of the first elected board of any newly formed community college district, the members of which majority received the highest number of votes, to serve until the second Friday in December of the second succeeding odd-numbered year. The terms of the other members expire on the second Friday in December of the first succeeding odd-numbered year. Those members shall continue in office until their successors are elected and qualified. (EDC Section 72027)
- Requires members of the governing boards of the San Diego Community College District and the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District to be elected in a manner established as specified, and provides that the terms of office for all members shall begin and end on the first Friday in December, as specified. (EDC Sections 72035 and 72036.5)
- Establishes requirements for the nomination of an elected official in a city, including procedures for the filing of a nomination paper for the candidate. (Election Code Sections 10220, et seq.)
- Existing law prohibits a candidate for a municipal office from filing nomination papers for more than one municipal office or term of office for the same municipality in the same election. (Elections Code Section 10220.5)
- If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to the Government Code.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS: Double-referral. This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee.
Need for the bill. According to the author, “In most large cities, candidates interested in running for their community college board are required to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures showing support for their candidacy. For the two community college districts in San Diego, this is not the case. Any person can get on the ballot without having to show they have sufficient community support or buy in.”
“In the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego Community College Districts, current law does not require candidates to either pay a filing fee or produce signatures in support of their candidacy. In order to have candidates that are more connected to their community, we need to amend Sections 72035 and 72036.5 of the Education Code to resolve this issue. These sections of the Education Code apply only to these two Districts.”
Background. San Diego and Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCDs are in the unique position of being one of a handful of districts that have Education Code sections which specify the election process to be used, as well as specific candidate declaration policy. Both districts specify that a candidate be nominated by trustee area.
Existing law generally authorizes community college district boards to be organized so members are either elected at-large or by trustee areas. In districts having trustee areas, the district can be organized such that the registered voters in the entire community college district vote for trustees from each of the trustee areas, or the district can be organized so that only the registered voters in a trustee area vote for the trustees from that area. In either case, candidates for a trustee area must reside in and be registered to vote in that trustee area.
AB 1150 would require, in addition to a candidate residing in their trustee area, which a candidate must that each candidate shall be proposed by not less than 100 nor more than 120 voters in a trustee area. Candidates would also be required to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for filing nomination papers that mirror those required in municipal elections.
Arguments in support. The American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931, notes that “…the San Francisco Community College Board requires 1,000 signatures in lieu of a $500 filing fee. The San Diego Unified School District Board requires candidates to produce 100 signatures as part of their application for candidacy. Candidates for statewide office in California require anywhere from 1,000 to 7,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. However, in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and San Diego CCDs, this is not the case. Any person who fills out the required paperwork is automatically added to the ballot, with absolutely no signature requirement or filing fee. Collecting signatures is a common sense and democratic way to demonstrate community support and ensure that candidates running for these positions have at least minimal support in the districts they seek to represent.”
Prior legislation. SB 628 (Lara), Chapter 243, Statutes of 2017, deleted the requirement that the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) members be elected at large, and instead authorizes the members to be elected by trustee area.
AB 450 (Jones-Sawyer, 2013) required the LACCD, beginning in 2015, to have district governing board members elected by trustee area instead of at-large. The LACCD board was to provide for the establishment of seven trustee areas by July 1, 2014 and hold a public hearing prior to adopting the boundaries of each trustee area. AB 450 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 684 (Block), Chapter 614, Statutes of 2011, established a procedure for the governing board of a CCD to change election systems, including moving from at-large elections to elections by trustee area, without voter approval, and required members of the governing board of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD to be elected by trustee area.
AB 1252 (Davis, 2011) required the LACCD members to be elected by trustee areas. AB 1252 was never heard.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931
California Federation of Teachers
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
San Diego Community College District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Kevin J. Powers / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):