Ballot Issue Takes Aim at Election Process That Is Magnet for Lawsuits : Measure A: Backers say plan for filling council vacancies would eliminate litigation. Critics say no, quite the contrary.

Although overshadowed by two growth-related measures on the Nov. 5 city ballot, the passage or defeat of Measure A could have a far-reaching effect on the city.

Supporters contend that Measure A will fix a 1988 election law that has led to lawsuits after each City Council election.

But opponents say it will simply bring more legal tangles as losing council candidates challenge Measure A’s constitutionality.

In Irvine, voters choose two council members and a mayor in each even-numbered election year. Council members serve four-year terms and the mayor serves for two years.

The city’s current election law allows council members with two years left in their terms to run for the elected mayoral seat. Running for mayor does not require them to resign their seat on the council unless they win. If they do win, their resignation creates an unexpected council opening with two years remaining on the term.

The city’s current law calls for that two-year opening to be filled by the third-highest vote getter in the council race, even though voters only cast ballots for two candidates. If enough city residents don’t like that third-place finisher, they can circulate a petition calling for a special election. The petition requires signatures from 7% of the city’s registered voters.

After the 1988 and 1990 elections, losing candidates filed lawsuits over the election law. In the 1990 lawsuit, an appeals court justice said the law seemed of “dubious constitutionality” since it violates the tradition of “one-man, one-vote” by creating the possibility of electing three candidates with two votes. The court’s decision prompted Measure A.

If Measure A passes, it would allow voters to choose three candidates when two council seats are open and one of the sitting council members is running for mayor. Then, if that council member wins the mayor’s race, the top two finishers would take the open council seats and the candidate who ran third would assume the unexpired term of the new mayor.

That solution is the quickest, cheapest and clearest way of filling the possible opening on the council, said Glen N. Greener, chairman of the now defunct Election Reform Committee the City Council created to find a solution to the election law.

People would understand the need for a third vote when a sitting council member ran for mayor because “the possibility of an open seat wouldn’t be a surprise to anybody,” Greener said.

The Measure A solution, though, is almost as bad as the current situation, said Bruce Peotter, an attorney who served on the Election Reform Committee.

“It’s not a clean solution,” Peotter said.

With Irvine politics as heated as it is and the fact that no other city uses a procedure like the proposed Measure A, a lawsuit requiring the city to defend it in court is almost guaranteed, he said.

A better solution would be to follow the procedure used by most Orange County cities, Peotter said. When an opening occurs on the council due to a resignation, the council should have the power to appoint a replacement, he said. If it couldn’t decide on a replacement, it could call a special election.

Although he would rather the city fill council openings by a required special election, the two-year term doesn’t seem to justify the expense to the city or the candidates of having to mount a quick campaign, Peotter said.

The Election Reform Committee considered using a special election as the preferred solution, Greener said, but ruled it out because of the expense and the delay in filling the open seat.

The committee chose the “vote for three” solution as the “easier and cheaper” solution that should be clear enough to avoid lawsuits, Greener said. A majority of the council members have endorsed Measure A.

“I think it will pass,” Greener said. “I think people are tired of the lawsuits.”