After months of closed-session meetings between city officials and the committee bringing a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit against the City of Santa Barbara, the city is facing a looming deadline to make a settlement that could permanently alter elections in Santa Barbara. The negotiations have largely taken place within a black box, invisible to concerned residents who are wondering what might be going on inside. Many of us outside that box have worked for years to increase overall voter participation and enhance the voice of Latinos and other disenfranchised groups within the city. We are anxious to ensure that this becomes an open democratic process that maximizes voter participation and fair and meaningful representation for all.
While the principal argument for city district elections is the historically low participation of Latino voters, and in turn the lack of Latino representation on the City Council, one of the greatest contributors to overall low voter participation is that Santa Barbara holds its elections on odd-numbered years. Unlike county, state, and federal elections, which are held in even-numbered years when voters are tuned in and more informed, the City of Santa Barbara holds its elections on odd years like 2011 and 2013. During Santa Barbara City Council elections, voter turnout among all voters is abysmally low, but it is especially low among Latinos. Only 26 percent of registered Latino voters cast ballots in the last city election, compared to 41 percent of whites. This is a far larger gap than in even-numbered years: In the 2012 election, 75 percent of Latinos and 83 percent of whites voted.
Not only do Santa Barbara’s odd-year elections suppress voter turnout and impact meaningful representation; they also cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars per election that could otherwise be spent on parks, libraries, public safety, or fixing potholes. Most people consider switching to even-year elections a no-brainer. That’s why City of Ventura voters just approved a switch to even years by an 83 percent landslide, giving Santa Barbara the distinction of being the only city in the two counties with this costly and unjust system, while also having the lowest voter participation of any city in the region in the last city election. In fact, more city residents are casting votes for Santa Barbara Unified’s school board in even years than for City Council in odd years. We are gravely concerned that city leadership may not be taking this critical issue of the timing of elections seriously and is only addressing the district elections issue to satisfy the basic requirements of avoiding a lawsuit.
Longstanding community leaders and social justice activists, along with CAUSE (formerly known as PUEBLO), the primary organization that has worked to increase Latino voter turnout in Santa Barbara for many years, have come together to form the Santa Barbara Voting Rights Coalition. We propose a 2016 district election for the city. This is critical for three reasons:
• Moving to even-year elections would increase voter participation broadly, significantly strengthening overall civic engagement and representation on the council from communities citywide.
• Moving to even-year elections is vital to tackling the fundamental cause of Latino underrepresentation in Santa Barbara. Without even-year elections, any district drawn with a mixed, diverse population will continue to see an underrepresentation of Latino voters due to low turnout in odd years. And any district drawn that is majority Latino will have so few voters in an odd-year election that a candidate with very little grassroots support could win a council seat with a few hundred votes.
• The districting process must give adequate time for everyday residents to voice their concerns and give public input into the district maps. If district elections are held in 2015, districts will be drawn largely in private, by those who may have conflicts of interest, with little time for the voice of underrepresented communities to be heard. When the state citizens’ redistricting commission drew districts for state legislators and members of Congress, they spent six months gathering public input. If some Santa Barbara voters feel that their neighborhood was disenfranchised by a map drawn hastily without their input, we may simply see another round of lawsuits against the city.
All of these problems can be avoided by holding district elections in Santa Barbara in November 2016. We encourage all Santa Barbara residents who care about fair elections to contact the City Council and mayor and urge them to support a districting process that gives adequate time for public participation and even-year elections that promote cost-efficient, diverse voter participation.
Supervisor Salud Carbajal represents Santa Barbara County’s 1st District, Monique Limón and Dr. Pedro Paz are boardmembers of the Santa Barbara Unified School District, and Dr. Marcos Vargas is executive director of CAUSE (Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy).
Comments
It's not like anyone is stopping Latinos from exercising their constitutional rights. ALL US citizens are free to vote in any election, no matter what year it's held in. Saving a few bucks on election costs seems to be an attractive reason to change though.
Botany (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2015 at 4:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But if we wait until 2016, we cannot get those gerrymandered districts that will lock in a permanent majority of four city council members who are old, affluent, property owners from very safe districts with little or no competitive elections.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2015 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let them all run for governor.
http://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2012/11...
eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2015 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Salud, next week co-author with Cathy Murillo. INDY is boring these days.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2015 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Then again don't.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2015 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! Now if any of these so-called concerned citizens could get off their indignant @$$ and run for a position, then have these so-called constituent's step up and vote for them instead of hiding from ICE or the Federal's maybe their voices could get heard but alas complaining and demanding a new set of privileged rules to best fit their needs is the least they can demand.
dou4now (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 5:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When you cant compete on virtue, you find a way to skew the system in your favor.
Is this affirmative action for elections?
Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Moving local elections to even years might be effective on a cost basis, but doing it to get a particular group to vote seems purely political.
And district elections? Seems to me that if a particular ethnic group wanted to be represented it would be better for them to gather votes from all over the city.
The real issue hear is voter apathy.
BTW, isn't this article a form of racism?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it interesting that the three elected officials co writing this opinion along with veteran out of town social justice hero Marcos Vargas have twisted the District Elections argument to include even year elections. The point they serve to make is not only to increase Latino voter turnout but to really support the work of the Democratic Central Committee. In recent years, the DCC had worked hard to ensure their darling candidates were elected by co-opting the work of PUEBLO, which was their brain child from the very beginning. The DCC was shocked that Cathy Murillo was elected over their Anglo candidates in 2011 and are now using the scare tactic that district elections will lock 4 conservative candidates every election.
With the addition of even year voting and the hard work that Vargas and CAUSE will have to do during district elections, the DCC feels more comfortable funding their darling candidates under the impression that Latino residents will have political representation.
Well the DCC has a horrible track record of recruiting Latino candidates and were miffed that Murillo was elected by calling it a "Fluke".
Voters are fed up with the idea that the DCC represents the progressive liberal agenda in SB when all along rents are 70% over value, Latino workers continue to be exploited and educational attainment for all Latinos suffers. These examples did not happen over night. The margins are well defined and the DCC has not done anything meaningful to change it. I would even say they have allowed it.
Littleduke_11 (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's strike at the root of the problem. The problem has been identified, now, what must be done about it?
First of all, who are the "other" disenfranchised groups?...or is that a Red Herring to simply get us away that we are only talking about one group? What has happened is that the traditional standard that expecting people who immigrate to the U.S. to assimilate into American culture has been waived for the demographic in question. No longer does the concept of the Melting Pot exist, no longer are these people expected to learn the language of the land, or do as well in school, yet the people who are behind the double standard of which I speak cry "racism" when their social engineering policies result in failure.
Look at the history of Jews and Asians in the United States and all the discrimination they went through. Moreover consider the much greater language barriers they had to overcome--which they did--and not only that, they excelled and did better than those who oppressed them. Why was this?...this was because there were no "advocacy" groups spreading the idealistically-fueled lie that "we must unite" which is code for "we must reject the dominant paradigm" which results in isolation from the culture of the country in which one lives. Instead, the unspoken message was that literacy/education was power, and that was the only way one was going to get ahead. I realize this is offensive to idealists, but life isn't always easy--or fair.
We can keep feeding into the Nanny State concept and providing everything in Spanish, pass more affirmative action laws, and continue trying to appease the collective feelings of guilt which have resulted from historical racism in the U.S., and the problem will not be solved--it will only get worse. We can however, face the fact the Mexico is a mismanaged dystopia of corruption and poverty, and embrace what is good about this country, and hold *all* who immigrate here to the standards which have made this country--for all of its faults--a place where people are still willing to risk their lives to enter.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some good news outta Mexico. The President has withdrawn permission from the Chinese to build and operate a giant trade facility which would've included housing for 700 Chinese Nationals at the core. This saved Mexican AND US industries, if not all of the Americas as well as regional jobs. Not to mention the enviro damage that would've happened.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are two latinos on city council right now; Francisco and Murillo. What is your problem Salud. No one is disenfranchised if they are just too lazy to vote.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you can guarantee district elections will guarantee four property owner, conservative votes on council in perpetuity, all the sudden you have my attention.
I personally think our current system does not work, but district elections will make it even worse. Additionally, there are no singular district issues this small town faces anyway. If we stop being a city of the whole, heaven help us.
Our system fails now for the same reason it will fail with district elections unless the above conservative voting block scenario can be a given.
It fails now because employee-unions are able to muscle the election of employee-union friendly city council majorities. How will that primary voter disconnect change with district elections?
Having "your" representative who is one voice among seven is inherently worthless. This is a pure identity politics which we have painfully learned these past six years is just plain bad policy and bad government.
Don't make things worse,, like the "reform" of term limits did to the state government and has also ruined city government.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2015 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)