It’s Time for a New Look at City’s Election Laws

The question of how easy government should make it to vote or to run for office is a permanent part of the American political dialogue.

At some level of the debate, the question generally revolves around determining the point at which ease of access to the electoral system gives way to ease of manipulating the outcome.

In California, fortunately, it’s not difficult to register to vote. But here in San Diego there seems to be no shortage of controversy over other aspects of local elections.

Twice in the last six years, San Diegans have rejected proposals to switch to selection of City Council members by districts.

And in 1981 the city used a controversial mail-in ballot for a referendum over the construction of a downtown convention center. The legality of the mail-in ballot was challenged but was upheld by the California Supreme Court.

The most recent debate has been over the city’s prohibition against write-in candidates in municipal elections. For nearly 25 years, write-ins were not allowed at all. Then, in June, after a legal challenge was mounted against the ban, the council voted to allow write-ins in primaries only. Last week, the state Supreme Court struck down the prohibition entirely, saying it “renders the election process too restrictive.”

This is a laudable decision. Write-ins are not likely ever to become a major force in determining elections, but they serve as important safeguards in unusual circumstances, such as the death of a candidate.

Voters in this area have seen two situations in the last four years that point to the need for the write-in. In 1982, voters turned to the write-in ballot when the Republican nominee in the 43rd Congressional District ran such a sleazy campaign that they realized he was not the man they wanted representing them. And in 1984, as details of the criminal case against Mayor Roger Hedgecock became better known, a strong write-in candidate might have defeated Hedgecock and challenger Dick Carlson had one been allowed.

Because San Diego’s City Charter requires that a candidate receive one vote more than 50% in order to win an election, and the presence of a write-in candidate in the general election could prevent that from happening, the court ruling will necessitate some changes in the city’s election ordinances. City Atty. John Witt has said the decision could affect the city’s hybrid system of nominating two candidates in a district, then electing one at large.

This is the time for the City Council to make a thorough examination of San Diego’s electoral process. The court has made the decision about write-ins, but the council could show real leadership by bringing back to the agenda the issue of district elections.

Defending the write-in ordinance in oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a deputy city attorney said the city “does not want a system whereby someone who represents Council District 8 does not have the support of the voters of Council District 8.” That is very sound logic--but hypocritical as long as the city’s system allows candidates to be rejected, sometimes by wide margins, in their home district, but elected to the council by the entire city. Three of the eight council members in office today have lost primaries in their districts but won citywide. Admittedly, it will take courage for those council members to keep an open mind about district elections.

Holding some elections by mail is another potential change that should be explored, though very cautiously. The advantages of the mail ballot are that it can save hundreds of thousands of dollars, particularly in special elections, and that, by making it easier to vote, more people vote than in traditional polling-place voting. There are still serious concerns about the integrity of the process, however, when ballots are no longer under the control of election officials.

During 1986, the City Council will take up the recommendations of a citizens panel appointed to study the campaign financing ordinances. Once the council has dealt with those issues, it makes sense for it to turn its attention to the elections themselves.