TUESDAY’S CITY BALLOT MEASURES

The proposed Charter amendments on the Los Angeles ballot have produced few political fireworks. The most active campaigns have been waged over Charter Amendment 1, which would limit campaign contributions in the city, and over Charter Amendment 2, which would increase the number of council districts from 15 to 17.

Charter Amendment 1: Limitations on campaign contributions in city elections WHAT IT WOULD DO Would limit individual loans and contributions to City Council candidates to $500. A $1,000 limit would apply to candidates for mayor, city attorney and controller.

If a candidate contributes more than $30,000 to his or her own campaign, limits on contributions to opposing candidates would be relaxed enough to let them match the sum in excess of $30,000.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would curb spiraling campaign costs by setting reasonable and enforceable limits on amount and use of contributions. Since contributions would be limited, candidates would have to find more contributors, thus encouraging more people to participate in elections.

Supporters: Mayor Tom Bradley, council members Ernani Bernardi and Joy Picus, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Instead of bringing real campaign reform, would merely enhance the advantage incumbents already have in elections.

The contribution limits could be circumvented by funneling money through politically active groups. Some provisions also may prove unconstitutional.

Opponents: City Council members David Cunningham, Gilbert Lindsay, Robert Farrell and Joan Milke Flores.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 2: Increase in number of council districts. WHAT IT WOULD DO Would add two new City Council seats, increasing the council from 15 to 17 members, starting in 1987.

Would leave actual redistricting boundaries for the City Council to determine.

ARGUMENTS FOR At a reasonable cost, would provide the additional seats needed to better represent a growing and more ethnically diverse population.

Supporters: Mayor Tom Bradley, Council President Pat Russell and Los Angeles Coalition for Fair Representation.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Is an ill-considered version of previously rejected proposals. Would cost more money and promote divisiveness without guaranteeing increased minority representation.

Opponents: Councilman Marvin Braude, Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn., Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 3: Revision of procedures governing recall of Board of Education members. WHAT IT WOULD DO Would simplify the formula for determining whether attempts to recall school board members qualify for the ballot. Present formula for determining the number of valid signatures needed on recall petitions is based on vote count in last school board election. This proposal would require valid signatures from 15% of registered voters in a particular board member’s district, the same method now used in recalls of elected city officials.

Would shorten the time allowed for signature gathering--from six months to four months.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would make it easier to qualify recalls for the ballot and simpler for the city to administer the recalls.

Supporters: Councilwoman Peggy Stevenson, chair of council’s Charter and Elections Committee.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST No ballot arguments filed in opposition.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 4: Revision of procedures governing recall of mayor, city attorney, city controller and City Council members. WHAT IT WOULD DO Similar to Charter Amendment No. 3 but would not change the number of signatures required to qualify a petition. Eliminates 10-day grace period to collect additional signatures if original petitions are found to contain inadequate number of valid signatures.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would delete obsolete sections and clarify others. Would reduce by a third the time needed to determine whether a recall can be placed on the ballot.

Supporters: Councilwoman Peggy Stevenson, chair of the council’s Charter and Elections Committee.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST No ballot arguments filed in opposition.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 5: Revision of procedures governing initiatives. Would speed up verification of signatures on initiative and recall petitions by allowing city clerk to verify a “random sample” of signatures rather than proceed name by name.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would eliminate such outdated requirements as specifications on the size and weight of petition papers. Also would allow administrative appeals if city clerk rejects petitions. There is no such appeal now.

Supporters: Councilman Ernani Bernardi and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST No ballot arguments filed in opposition.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 6: Increase the limit on misdemeanor fines. WHAT IT WOULD DO Would make the maximum fine for misdemeanor violations of city laws--now set at $500--coincide with fines allowed under state law for misdemeanors, currently $1,000.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would bring city misdemeanor fines into conformity with those levied for misdemeanors under state law.

Higher fines would be a deterrent to those who easily can pay a $500 fine.

Supporters: Councilman Hal Bernson.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST No ballot arguments filed in opposition.

THE MEASURE Charter Amendment 7: Rapid transit assessments WHAT IT WOULD DO Would prevent city officials from levying benefit assessment taxes for Metro Rail subway or other transit needs on residential properties in use or under construction before April 9, 1985.

Would keep city from releasing any funds for Metro Rail if the transit district levies benefit assessments on residential properties.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would protect homeowners and renters, who receive little or no financial benefit from being near subway route, from being taxed by the Southern California Rapid Transit District to help build Metro Rail.

Supporters: Council members Joel Wachs and Zev Yaroslavsky, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and a federation of homeowner groups in the Santa Monica Mountains.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST No ballot arguments filed in opposition.