Council Faces Specter That Will Not Die : District Elections Are on City Ballot--Again

If Proposition E, a proposal on the Nov. 8 ballot to change the way that San Diego City Council members are elected, were a movie, an appropriate title, from opponents’ viewpoint, would be: “District Elections V: Nightmare at City Hall.”

Defeated by San Diego voters four previous times, district elections, like the crazed slashers in popular horror films that gain a new Roman numeral each summer, has never quite been killed off, returning again and again over the past two decades to terrorize many civic leaders.

“Each time, you think you’ve driven a stake through its heart, but it keeps coming back at you,” joked Mark Nelson, executive director of the San Diego Taxpayers Assn., whose group opposes Proposition E, being joined in that effort by, among others, Mayor Maureen O’Connor and top Chamber of Commerce executives.

But supporters of the initiative would consider “Revenge of the Neighborhoods” to be a more apt description of the proposed charter revision, which calls for district-only elections in San Diego City Council races. From their perspective, this is one sequel where the good guys might finally win.

Proposition E marks the fifth time in 19 years in which San Diego voters will be asked whether they want to elect council members strictly within individual districts, rather than by the current two-tiered method featuring district-only primaries and citywide general election runoffs between the top two vote-getters in each district.

Handily Rejected

Under the proposition, a candidate could be elected outright by receiving a majority of the votes in the primary. If no one surpasses 50% in the primary, the top two finishers would compete in a November runoff within their district.

In 1969, 1973 and 1981, San Diegans handily rejected similar district-election proposals by margins of 3-to-2 or better. The closest that the measure came to passage was in 1980, when it failed by less than one-half of 1%, losing by only about 1,000 votes out of a quarter million.

Viewed by some as San Diego’s equivalent of perennial presidential candidate Harold Stassen, the topic of district elections has long been an almost constant source of debate within local political circles. It also is the subject of a pending federal lawsuit--on hold until after the election--in which Latino leaders, who feel that the at-large elections unfairly dilute their votes, are seeking a court-imposed district-election system.

Predicting a close contest this year, proponents argue that the lawsuit, recent election results and San Diego’s continuing rapid growth have sensitized more people to the need for district races to enhance minority representation on the council and to give neighborhoods a more direct say in the selection of their representatives.

Opponents, however, profess optimism that the outcome this year will not differ from that of the past referendums on the issue.

“I’m sure, as the voters repeatedly said ‘no’ to this archaic concept, they will continue to do so,” Councilman Ed Struiksma said last July when an openly reluctant City Council, its hand forced by a citizens group that collected nearly 50,000 valid signatures on initiative petitions, placed the measure on the ballot.

Overshadowed by some of the nearly 70 other state and local propositions on the November ballot, the Proposition E campaign has been, to date, a low-key, inexpensive contest and probably will remain so through Election Day, in large part because it is competing for the public’s attention against higher-profile candidate and issue races.

The crowded ballot concerns both Proposition E’s proponents and opponents, with both sides speculating about how voters’ “ballot fatigue” will affect their chances. On that point, there are as many theories as advocates.

Some Proposition E supporters suggest that the lengthy ballot could work to their benefit, arguing that the district election proposal could get lost in the shuffle, rather than being singled out for opposition as occurred in past races. But opponents invoke a political rule of thumb that holds that voters are more likely to vote against proposals that are confusing or unfamiliar.

‘Ballot Drop-Off’

Both sides, expecting substantial “ballot drop-off”--meaning that more votes typically are cast in, say, the presidential race than in contests lower on the ballot--also suggest that their respective backers will be more likely than casual voters to wade through the lengthy ballot to vote on the measure. Another imponderable factor being widely debated in both camps is, with controversial propositions covering subjects such as growth, auto insurance and cigarette taxes on the ballot beside major national and state races, will more liberals or conservatives be drawn to the polls?

“That’s the $64,000 question,” said former San Diego City Councilman Bill Cleator, one of the leaders of Citizens for Voter Rights, a predominantly business-oriented group formed to try to defeat Proposition E. “Who comes out to vote in some of these other races is going to say a lot about what happens on this thing.”

The battle over Proposition E is centered on the by-now familiar civics lesson-styled debate over which electoral system would produce better representation, save money and improve city government.

The pro-district election forces, which include the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego) and a wide array of Latino and black community leaders, see many flaws in the current citywide elections, with the most egregious being that it denies city voters the right of direct representation that they enjoy at every other level of government.

County supervisors, state legislators and members of Congress are elected by district without ratification by some broader jurisdiction, supporters note, arguing that city voters would be better served by the same kind of district representation. Allowing citywide voters to select, for example, the council representative from Southeast San Diego makes no more sense, they contend, than permitting statewide voters to pick San Diego’s congressional delegation.

‘A Definite Anger’

“If a council member is going to represent a particular district, the voters in that district should be able to pick who that is,” said Ruth Duemler, co-chair of Neighborhoods for District Elections, the group that gathered the initiative signatures and heads the pro-E campaign. “There’s a definite anger in neighborhoods where people feel that voters in other areas dictate who their councilman will be.”

Half of the present council members--Abbe Wolfsheimer, Ron Roberts, Gloria McColl and Wes Pratt--were defeated within their own districts, but gained their seats by beating the primary victors in the subsequent citywide runoff. If voters feel their ballots have a greater impact in the selection of their representatives, turnout and public participation in politics may increase, supporters add.

Another statistic that the Yes-on-E supporters often cite is that, with a population of more than 1 million, San Diego is more populous than 12 states. Council candidates, therefore, face an electorate larger than many statewide congressional candidates.

“Running for San Diego City Council is like running for governor of some states,” Bates said. “Local government is supposed to be the level closest to the people, but the at-large system works against that in San Diego.”

The pro-E ballot statement that will be mailed to voters also points out that, of the 10 largest U.S. cities, Detroit is the only other city that still elects its council members by a citywide vote. Citywide elections may be fine, Proposition E supporters argue, for small, cohesive communities with uniform concerns, but not in cities as large and complex as San Diego, where the problems and priorities of one part of the community often are substantially different than those of other parts of the city.

Opponents, however, warn that district elections would inevitably produce “Chicago-style ward politics” in which council members worry more about their individual political fiefdoms than citywide issues. Conjuring up images of back-room deals and vote-trading on pork barrel projects, they paint a picture of a council where members would be working more in competition with each other for scarce city dollars than in concert on pressing city needs.

The existing election system, they add, offers a balance that captures the best of both at-large and district representation. The district primaries, they argue, compel candidates to stay closely attuned to specific neighborhood concerns, and the citywide runoff prevents rampant parochialism by forcing candidates to address broader issues and to consider the citywide effect of their actions, rather than simply making decisions based on a narrow district perspective.

“There’s a strong prophylactic effect to the system we have now,” said William Nelson, chairman of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. “I don’t want to say there’s no logrolling at City Hall. But, at least the actions that are taken are arrived at in a way that ensures they’re as acceptable as possible to the entire city, not just one district.”

Launching a frontal assault on supporters’ claims that Proposition E would give neighborhoods and individual citizens a stronger voice at City Hall, opponents argue that the measure would, in fact, dramatically diminish neighborhoods’ political clout. Although San Diegans now get to vote for all eight council members, the establishment of district elections would limit voters to casting ballots in only one council race.

“Why throw away seven of your votes?” the opponents’ ballot argument asks rhetorically. “Let’s face it, if a council member doesn’t need your vote, why should that council member care about your problems?”

Turning that argument back upon its advocates, Proposition E supporters say, yes, it’s true that voters will be giving up seven votes, but perhaps they will not be losing much by doing so.

“Most people usually know little about the council members outside their own districts, so these often are not terribly informed votes,” said Alice McCauley, president of the San Diego League of Women Voters.

“This is a case where to have more is to have less,” Bates added.

Since voters not knowledgeable about individual candidates are more likely to simply pick out recognizable names, the existing system is heavily tilted toward incumbents, Proposition E supporters contend. In response, opponents argue that that would be no less true of district-only races, and point out that incumbents occasionally have been defeated under the combined district-citywide method now used.

Supporters of district elections also claim that Proposition E would reduce election and campaign costs.

Reduced printing costs could save the city more than $100,000 per election, officials in the city clerk’s office estimate. Supporters also predict that the now-commonplace six-figure council campaigns could be scaled back by confining races to relatively small districts where expensive TV and radio ads would not be needed to reach voters. That change, in turn, would put a premium on precinct walking and candidate-to-voter contact, as well as reduce the impact that money has on local elections, they say.

Opponents Disagree

Opponents, however, disagree, arguing that candidates with plenty of money would be able to overwhelm poorly financed candidates even more easily in a single district than in a citywide election. Money not spent on TV or radio ads might simply be diverted, they say, to sending out more and glitzier mailers or hiring consultants. And, as far as the city coffers are concerned, any money saved in reduced ballot-printing costs likely would be more than offset by inducing council members to be more preoccupied with gaining funds for their districts than in holding down citywide expenses, opponents charge.

In the Latino communities of southern San Diego, where support for district elections is particularly strong--in large measure because no Latino now serves on the council--leaders argue that much of the debate over the pros and cons of the method of elections obscures the essence of the question.

To Latinos, what is at stake in the Proposition E campaign and federal lawsuit “is not just the mechanics of elections, but the very meaning of democracy,” said Jess Haro, chairman of the Chicano Federation of San Diego County.

It was Haro’s group that early this year filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court here arguing that San Diego’s use of at-large elections and its inequitable distribution of councilmanic districts have disenfranchised Latino voters. The lawsuit notes that no Latino has ever been elected outright to the council, with the only three who have served--Haro, Uvaldo Martinez and Celia Ballesteros--initially gaining their seats through appointments. The group also has filed similar lawsuits against Chula Vista and National City.

“Like many things, this isn’t an important issue with you until it touches home,” Haro said. “Most Anglos take voting rights for granted, so many of them probably think this doesn’t make much of a difference. That’s because they’ve never had poll taxes, been turned away from the polls, been deported or been victims of slavery. . . . To us, this isn’t just a matter of procedure and technicalities. It’s a question of basic voting rights.”

Proposition E’s approval would alter the Chicano Federation’s lawsuit but not render it moot. Even if voters decided to institute district elections, the lawsuit also calls for the council to be increased in size to 12 members and for district lines to be drawn in a more equitable manner. The last redrawing of the eight districts in 1980, the suit charges, caused the “fragmentation” of Latino communities and created “districts with substantial imbalances.”

“One way or the other, I think we’re finally going to get district elections in San Diego,” Haro said. “It’s just a question of how and when. . . . But, whatever happens, I hope this doesn’t get lost on the ballot. It’s too important for that.”