Here are 30 frequently asked questions (FAQs) that have come up in the public discourse, and the answers to address them.
Read the full FAQs as a PDF file with live links to the embedded references.
----------------------------
The 30 Frequently Asked Questions (responses below this list)
- What is Measure A all about?
- Why should Santa Barbara shift its elections to the even-numbered years?
- Just how much money will the City taxpayers save if Measure A passes?
- What do opponents of Measure A say about saving taxpayer money?
- How will voter turnout increase with Measure A, and based upon what evidence and from which reliable source?
- Why is higher voter turnout good for Santa Barbara?
- What are some specific City examples of an increase in voter turnout?
- Won’t local issues get diluted, obscured, clouded, or lost in the shuffle if the City election happens at the same time as County, State, and Federal elections during the even years?
- Although higher voter turnout is true during even-year elections, how can anyone know if voters have the attention span to spend two more minutes to vote their way down to the bottom of the ballot where City election items are?
- Why does the prior County Registrar of Voters, Ken Pettit, support Measure A?
- What does former Mayor Hal Conklin have to say about Measure A?
- Tell me it’s not true: The City is in charge of running its own election?!
- What is wrong with the City in charge of running its own election?
- How is the election process going so far this year, with the City in charge of running its own election?
- Why do the terms of the Council members need to be extended by a year?
- Why not just reduce the term lengths of the Council instead of adding a year?
- Why not just wait until after all the current City Council members are out of office before shifting the elections to the even years?
- Isn’t the one-time extra year for the Council members just a way to get around term limits?
- If any challenger candidates were elected to the Council in 2007, would they also be subject to the one-time addition of 1 year added to their first term?
- What is the best way to hold the Council accountable to the voters?
- Will Measure A end term limits?
- Isn’t the additional year in office just a way for the City Council members to make more money through an extra year of their City Council salary?
- Why are not District elections for Council also included in Measure A?
- Would Measure A be better if it got on the ballot through an initiative process instead of placement on the ballot by the City Council?
- Why would anyone oppose Measure A?
- Do the opponents of record against Measure A think that higher voter turnout would be bad for Santa Barbara?
- What is Santa Barbara Clean Elections Working Group and why does it support Measure A?
- Are the proponents of Measure A just the lackeys, toadies, and/or insider friends of the current City Council?
- Are the supporters of Measure A just sympathetic to the current City Council?
- How can someone learn more about Measure A?
----------------------------
The 30 FAQs with Answers1. What is Measure A all about?
Measure A serves as the necessary approval by the voters for shifting Santa Barbara City elections from their current schedule during November of the odd-numbered years to the November election during the even-numbered years. Because the City elections are locked into odd years as part of the City Charter, a simple majority vote is required to amend the Charter. The City Council
placed Measure A on the ballot through a series of decisions deliberated at length during several Council Meetings from April to July 2007,
following a well-attended public meeting and lengthy discussion the prior January, all available as free video archives. The full Ballot Measure and associated Charter Amendment are available for review at
the City election website.
2. Why should Santa Barbara shift its elections to the even-numbered years?
As described in detail through answers to other FAQs here, Measure A will save Santa Barbara City taxpayers money and will increase voter convenience and efficiency by shifting elections from odd- to even-numbered years. Shifting elections to even years will build upon past improvements that make voting more fair and convenient for voters, such as extending the hours of the day when voting can occur, allowing permanent absentee ballots via mail, and maintaining the number of polling places where ballots are cast. By consolidating City election items (Council, Mayor, Ballot Measures) with the County, State, and Federal (President and/or Congress) items every 2 years,
voters would maintain their enthusiasm for voting and experience less
voter fatigue, an effect where voters do not bother to vote because elections happen too frequently. Measure A also will give voters a year off from the repetitive ads and junk mail of an election. Some political wonks and editorialists may like political ads, but most voters do not.
3. Just how much money will the City taxpayers save if Measure A passes? A YES vote on Measure A will save City taxpayers approximately $245,000 (net) each election. When City elections are consolidated with County, State, and Federal elections, the City typically would need to spend only $35,000 per election, saving 87% off the $280,000 cost of running a separate election during the odd years. After only 10 years, savings will be more than $1 million (actually, $1.47 million), to become available for other important City budget needs. This
cost savings determination is described in detail at the
Yes-on-Measure-A website and
in staff reports. The election costs to the City
are noted in correspondences from the County Elections Division.
4. What do opponents of Measure A say about saving taxpayer money?In their carefully-worded rebuttal argument, promoted by Santa Barbara News-Press
and published as its August 28th editorial, the opponents of Measure A wrote: “With a City budget exceeding $100 million, we can afford local elections that are not obscured by Federal, State and County elections”. Clearly, they believe that the City has plenty of money already with never any budget shortfalls or competing financial needs, and they think the City can afford to spend $245,000 more in taxpayer money on the unnecessary extra costs of conducting separate elections each odd-year cycle. That attitude is fiscally irresponsible with taxpayer money.
5. How will voter turnout increase with Measure A, and based upon what evidence and from which reliable source?The County Elections Division Supervisor, Suzanne Jackson,
provided a report in late June 2007 that documents the voter turnout combined for all 33 precincts in Santa Barbara. For the past 12 years, the average voter turnout during the even-year elections has been nearly double the average turnout during the odd-year elections.
Elections since 1995 _________ Voter Turnout
EVEN-YEARS average turnout __ 66.8 %
ODD-YEARS average turnout ___ 37.8 %
Additional information about this increase in voter turnout is described in detail at the
Yes-on-Measure-A website, including
an illustrative chart of the past 12 years of Santa Barbara voting data and
Statewide research that verifies consistently higher voter turnout during even-year elections.
6. Why is higher voter turnout good for Santa Barbara?
People are more enthusiastic about voting when State and Federal issues also are on the same ballot. Increasing voter turnout is basic democracy and is good for Santa Barbara, providing a more representative and accountable government for all. As drama critic
George Jean Nathan observed: “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.”
7. What are some specific City examples of an increase in voter turnout?
The City precinct (no. 12-1235) in the Lower Westside neighborhood represents how widely voter turnout can range, depending upon whether the election is consolidated with State and Federal election items or if the election is a stand-alone, odd-year event with only City items on the ballot. Results will vary slightly in other precincts, but this
example from the past 7 years shows how consolidated elections consistently inspire higher voter turnout, even when a rare consolidated election with State ballot items is held during an odd year.
even 2000 Nov.
Presidential consolidated election 57% voter turnout
odd 2001 Nov.
City Council stand-alone election 23% voter turnout
even 2002 Nov.
Governor consolidated election 41% voter turnout
odd 2003 Oct.
Governor Recall special election 55% voter turnout
odd 2003 Nov.
City Council stand-alone election 25% voter turnout
even 2004 Nov.
Presidential consolidated election 71% voter turnout
odd 2005 Nov.
City Council with special State Props. 52% voter turnout
even 2006 Nov.
Governor consolidated election 56% voter turnout
8. Won’t local issues get diluted, obscured, clouded, or lost in the shuffle if the City election happens at the same time as County, State, and Federal elections during the even years?This is a classic but flawed argument to justify the status quo, with its increasing financial costs and consistently lower voter turnout. The ultimate verification of whether voters really understand or are interested in any election is whether they bother to vote at all. Because
average voter turnout levels in Santa Barbara during the even-year elections (66.8%) are nearly double the average turnout levels during the odd-year elections (37.8%), City election items --such as City Council, Mayor, and local ballot measures-- cannot, by definition, be getting “diluted”, “obscured”, or “lost” if significantly more people actually will be voting on those same City election items during the even years, when County, State, and Federal (President or Congress) items also are consolidated on the same ballot. In this the 21st Century Internets Era, candidates and voters also can find each other more readily through many free and space-unlimited media besides traditional snail-mailing, old-style newsprint, or commercial TV.
9. Although higher voter turnout is true during even-year elections, how can anyone know if voters have the attention span to spend two more minutes to vote their way down to the bottom of the ballot where City election items are?Voting is not that hard. This downballot dropoff effect does happen to a highly limited degree, where voters will vote for President or Governor and other items at the top of the ballot, but not vote as consistently for local items towards the bottom of the ballot. However, this downballot dropoff effect is extremely minimal in Santa Barbara, as verified
in a July 2007 report by Billie Alvarez, the County Deputy Registrar of Voters. That report analyzes election returns from Carpinteria, Lompoc, and Santa Maria for the 4 even-year elections since 2000, and concludes that voters did not bother to vote for something on the ballot only about 5% of the time, but which contest or ballot item (local or not) was subject to this undervote still is uncertain. That discrepancy for a 5% undervote is a tremendously smaller difference when compared with the nearly double or 78% increase in voter turnout (37.8% boosted to 66.8%) during even-year elections in Santa Barbara,
based upon the past 12 years of voting information. Therefore, even if all the downballot dropoff and undervote were for a City election item, which they are not, the increase in voter turnout still should be approximately 73% higher (78 minus 5) during even years. Downballot dropoff and an undervote during the even-year elections actually is much more likely not to be related to a City issue but rather to something on the ballot regarding an obscure or confusing State Proposition or a Judicial election of unknowns.
10. Why does the prior County Registrar of Voters, Ken Pettit, support Measure A?Elected 4 times and serving 16 years (1986-2002) until voluntary retirement,
Ken Pettit had this to say in support of Measure A: “People have crossed oceans to come to America and seek a better life. However, we can’t seem to cross the street to vote on election day. For whatever reasons --being distracted, apathy, or confusion-- we are not voting like democracy requires. Measure A helps to eliminate the confusion of election day and simplifies when and where to vote. It is much like an orchestra where all instruments are tuned and playing in harmony.”
11. What does former Mayor Hal Conklin have to say about Measure A?In a Santa Barbara Daily Sound
article published on August 29th, Hal Conklin observed: “Having served on the City Council for 18 years, I think we need to do everything we can to increase voter participation.” “Democracy doesn’t work if people don’t participate”
Conklin added.
12. Tell me it’s not true: The City is in charge of running its own election?!Yes, sad but true. Last January, the Santa Barbara City Council
formally discussed taking over the elections from this task that always has been overseen by the independently elected County Registrar of Voters (presently Joe Holland) and his capable army of assistants. Because all the other local jurisdictions in Santa Barbara County, except for a few obscure special districts, have made the shift to conducting their elections during the even years, the City was the last municipality standing with something on the ballot during the odd years. With no costs to be shared with other jurisdictions,
the price the County would charge the City kept rising, estimated to be nearly $650 thousand to be paid by the City for a single, stand-alone election held during an odd year, including 2007. To avoid those ballooning costs,
last April the City formally decided to conduct its own elections --without the County oversight but with several pricey outside consultants instead--
for a total cost to the City of at least $280 thousand for the 2007 election.
13. What is wrong with the City in charge of running its own election?What’s right with it? Besides the financial cost to taxpayers being 8-times greater if the City kept conducting its own elections during the odd years ($35K vs. $280K), the City staff and their outside consultants would be in charge of counting the votes for their own City Council bosses. This raises a potential conflict of interest and a temptation for hanky-panky to influence the outcome. No one now has a reason to believe such problems exist, but they could arise in the future. In
an August 29th article in Santa Barbara Daily Sound, a signatory to the Argument Against Measure A, Dale Francisco, actually argued why a YES vote would be a good idea: “I think it’s a huge problem that employees of the City Council are regulating the city election,” he said.
14. How is the election process going so far this year, with the City in charge of running its own election?The election process has been bumpy, to put it mildly. City staff often do not have answers to basic questions, and if they do they take days to respond. In addition, the
“Impartial Analysis” written by the City staff --as part of the sample ballot for all voters-- cites incorrect figures for the cost savings because the financial comparison in that analysis is with the now-obsolete costs charged by County, not the current City costs. And worse, the
procedure and pre-election filing schedule set up by the City prohibits Rebuttal Arguments to be filed about ballot measures, including Rebuttals from advocates on both sides of same ballot measure. That
prohibition of Rebuttal Arguments has infuriated the opponents of Measure A, which is highly ironic because their complaint could be resolved if Measure A succeeds, resulting in the elections being run by the County instead the City. Ballot Measures overseen by the County process could include Rebuttals simply if the schedule were moved up for the filing dates.
15. Why do the terms of the Council members need to be extended by a year?A one-time, 1-year addition to their current 4-year term is necessary to transition and catch up with the even-year election cycle so the benefits of Measure A can be attained, as described in other FAQs here. Therefore, the election originally planned for 2009 would be shifted to 2010, and City elections would be held every 2 years after that.
16. Why not just reduce the term lengths of the Council instead of adding a year?While perhaps a nice idea for some who dislike the Council for other reasons, that would mean the next City Council and Mayoral election would happen again only a year later in 2008. More importantly, reducing the term of a Council member or Mayor by a year would cause Constitutional and other legal conflicts, because the voters in prior elections intended for the current Council members to be in office for at least the full length of the term for which they were elected.
17. Why not just wait until after all the current City Council members are out of office before shifting the elections to the even years?
While that also seems a nice idea for some who dislike the Council for other reasons, some of the current City Council members could (likely?) be elected to Mayor in 2009 (if Measure A did not apply) and still be in office until 2017. Waiting until they are all gone in 2017 --10 years from now-- negates the benefits of Measure A. For instance, if Measure A did not apply until 2017 after all the current incumbents termed out, the City would have to spend nearly $1.5 million of additional taxpayer money to conduct 5 separate, stand-alone elections, with low voter turnout, and with City staff and consultants also in charge of counting the votes for their own City Council bosses.
18. Isn’t the one-time extra year for the Council members just a way to get around term limits?
Hardly, but that claim and associated disinformation are becoming a desperate distraction from what Measure A really is about: saving taxpayer money and increasing voter turnout. Some people actually do not seem to want higher voter turnout, and will say and write anything to distract from that most basic, pro-democracy issue. With Measure A, the limit of 2 terms for each Council member or Mayor still applies under the City Charter and law. The only way to catch up and transition to the election cycle shifting to even years is through a one-time addition of 1 year onto the current 4-year term of all the Council members.
19. If any challenger candidates were elected to the Council in 2007, would they also be subject to the one-time addition of 1 year added to their first term?Absolutely YES! This one-time, 1-year addition also would apply to any new Council members who may successfully challenge the incumbents during the Nov. 2007 election. The critics of Measure A, who include some Council challenger candidates, never seem to mention that any challengers elected also would receive that extra year added to their first term. Also,
many critics who complain about this necessary one-time, 1-year addition to the terms also
have been consistent advocates in the past for no term limits at all.
20. What is the best way to hold the Council accountable to the voters?Besides winning an election fair and square, the best way to attain a more responsive and accountable City Council should be through higher voter participation so people are more invested and engaged in their local government. As a result of higher voter turnout --as would be attained through Measure A-- the elected Council members should become more concerned about the broader base of Santa Barbara citizens who elected them, or can un-elect them, instead of groups with narrow agendas or large campaign contributions
that yield disproportionably higher influence because of low voter turnout.
21. Will Measure A end term limits?Again, NO! Under
Section 1300.1c of the City Charter, the limit still will be 2 terms for Mayor and City Council, despite all the spin or disinformation insinuating otherwise. To catch up and transition to the even-year election cycles, a single year has to be added to one of the terms, just once.
As reported by Santa Barbara Daily Sound, Steve Amerikaner, a well-known local attorney, told the City Council on July 03 that voters will be aware that the Council seats in the upcoming election will come with an single 5-year term, but that would not influence voter choices. “It’s difficult for me to imagine that people would be influenced by that factor,” Amerikaner said during that City Council meeting.
22. Isn’t the additional year in office just a way for the City Council members to make more money through an extra year of their City Council salary?That claim is a whopper but it is
implied in the ballot argument against Measure A. Like them or hate them, the current City Council is comprised of people who, if they had a different job, all easily could earn way more than their City Council salary of about $40 thousand per year. They hardly seem to be on the Council just for the salary.
23. Why are not District elections for Council also included in Measure A?District elections for City Council are a totally separate issue for another time on the ballot, and Measure A does nothing to prevent any future Charter amendment about District elections. Because Measure A will nearly double the voter turnout, the public desire for a more responsive and accountable City Council also can be helped through a YES vote on Measure A.
24. Would Measure A be better if it got on the ballot through an initiative process instead of placement on the ballot by the City Council?No, not really; the ultimate test of a democratic idea is what all the voters decide through a vote on the ballot, instead of what some voters first request through signatures on a petition for an initiative that later may get on the ballot. Instead of debating the real issues of increasing voter turnout and saving taxpayer money, opponents of Measure A
have brought up this irrelevant question by posing whatever complaint they can imagine to see what sticks. Ballot initiatives are designed to promote a policy or position that the legislative body first does not have the courage or smarts to place on the ballot itself. The City Council placed Measure A on the ballot directly, instead of being forced to do so through an initiative process, which would have been a backwards approach.
25. Why would anyone oppose Measure A?While some opponents
continue to feign ignorance about cost savings and actual voter turnout data, many others who oppose Measure A eventually acknowledge that turnout will be significantly higher through the shift to even-numbered election years. However, as they further grope for reasons to oppose Measure A, they typically then admit --but only in private or through anonymous comments-- that the “wrong kind of voters” end up voting more often or those voters “do not know what they are doing” or words to that effect. Basically, some people oppose Measure A because they think they gain a political advantage by low voter turnout, or they know they actually do gain political advantage. In a true democracy, voters who bother to vote always are the right kind of voters.
26. Do the opponents of record against Measure A think that higher voter turnout would be bad for Santa Barbara?Yes, apparently they do, based on what they have said in published articles. In a Santa Barbara Daily Sound
interview published on August 29th, one of the people who signed the Argument Against Measure A, James Kahan, said: “Turnout figures don’t mean anything. Numbers don’t really do it.” The Daily Sound writer concluded that Kahan “also said an increase in voter turnout shouldn’t be automatically accepted as positive”. Furthermore, in their carefully-worded rebuttal argument, promoted by Santa Barbara News-Press and
published as its August 28th editorial, the opponents of Measure A wrote: “Bigger turnout by itself does not mean better.” Clearly, the opponents of Measure A believe that some voters are more important than others and some voters possibly should not vote at all. That attitude is cynical and undemocratic.
27. What is Santa Barbara Clean Elections Working Group and why does it support Measure A?
This is an informal, growing, and nonpartisan group of local citizens who support open elections and accessible government. The Group has advocated for permanent and convenient accessibility to City meeting archives, objective free-speech criteria for
the Candidate Video program, and
frequent disclosure of local election campaign finance reporting, among other issues. Supporting Measure A and facilitating the Ballot Argument in Favor of Measure A are a natural extension of the Group’s goals about open elections and accessible government.
28. Are the proponents of Measure A just the lackeys, toadies, and/or insider friends of the current City Council?Hardly, but that claim and associated disinformation and personal attacks have recently become a desperate distraction from what Measure A really is about: saving taxpayer money and increasing voter turnout. Participants in Santa Barbara Clean Elections Working Group and other supporters of Measure A routinely and conspicuously disagree with City policies and decisions by the City Council, and they often speak out during Council and other meetings, only to be rejected or ignored despite the merits of their comments and concerns. The
disappointing, toothless outcome of the Municipal Election Campaign Disclosure Ordinance is
just one example from earlier this year.
29. Are the supporters of Measure A just sympathetic to the current City Council? No, supporters of Measure A probably
are as displeased with City Council decisions as much as anybody, depending upon the issue. However, just because proponents and supporters of Measure A have a cordial and civil relationship with the City Council does not mean that they are sympathetic lackey surrogates doing the Council’s bidding, as some have insinuated. The merits of Measure A stand on their own for being worthy of support.
30. How can someone learn more about Measure A?All the issues about Measure A, including analyses, endorsements, news coverage, references, etc., are featured at the
Yes-on-Measure-A website:
http://www.yesonmeasurea.blogspot.com/To contact the proponents of Measure A, send an email or call the Co-Chairs of Santa Barbara Clean Elections Working Group:
- David Pritchett, tel. 805-403-8830
- Emily Allen, tel. 805-403-5224
