IRVINE : Ballot Measures’ Wording Criticized

The City Council voted this week on the wording of three measures for the Nov. 5 election after several officials criticized the ballot language as confusing.

The biggest of the three measures is a referendum on whether the Irvine Co. may go ahead with the proposed 3,850-home Westpark II community approved by the council last December.

The second measure offers voters a potential solution to an election-law problem that resulted in lawsuits in the last two elections, and the third will ask voters if they still support a 1988 initiative that outlines land the Irvine Co. can develop in exchange for donating thousands of acres of open space to the public.

The issues aren’t necessarily clear cut, and neither is the ballot language, critics said this week.

The measure addressing the election-law problem would be more understandable if the subject and verb weren’t separated by several lines of explanatory text, said Councilwoman Paula Werner, a former English teacher.

The measure reads:

“Shall the amendment to the City Charter enabling voters to cast ballots for no more than three candidates for the office of council member; that at least two council offices shall be filled by election; and that if a council member whose term of office has not expired is elected to the office of Mayor, the vacancy in the office of that council member shall be filled by the candidate for council member receiving the third highest number of votes, be adopted?”

Translation:

“Do you want to change the city’s election law to allow for a mid-term vote if an extra council seat becomes open due to a council member’s being elected mayor?”

Blame state law for the confusing wording. The law says the substance of ballot measures must fit between the opening “shall” and the ending “be adopted,” City Clerk Nancy C. Lacey said.

The City Council could change Irvine’s election law to override the state requirement, City Atty. John L. Fellows III said. But that would require scheduling a special council meeting this month and adopting an emergency ordinance, he said.

The language adopted by the council for the Westpark II referendum is shorter, but not much clearer:

“Shall Ordinance 90-23, previously approved by the Irvine City Council, which changes the zoning in Planning Area 38 to zoning consistent with the General Plan of the city of Irvine, be adopted?”

The referendum won its place on the ballot after Irvine Tomorrow, a slow-growth group, circulated petitions calling for the special election. The City Council approved the Westpark II development (Ordinance 90-23), but the referendum will give voters a chance to overturn the council’s decision.

The council voted to put the open-space measure on the ballot to poll voters. The measure is advisory only and will not force the council to take action.

Councilman Bill Vardoulis said the measure is necessary to determine if voters still approve of more development in Irvine in exchange for the Irvine Co.’s giving away about 9,000 acres of permanent open space. Voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative in 1988.