District 3 Should Be Decided by an Election

4 Comments
Reads 774

By William Smithers

On January 9, Santa Barbara's city council will convene for the first time in 2018.

It's newly-elected members – Mayor Cathy Murillo, District 4 Representative Kristin Sneddon, District 6 Representative Eric Friedman - will join re-elected District 2 Representative Randy Rouse, re-elected Greg Hart (now representing District 5), and previously-elected District 1 Representative Jason Dominguez.

Since Ms. Murillo's District 3 seat will be vacant due to her election as Mayor, the current (soon to be previous) council voted to replace the District 3 seat via appointment by its members rather than by special election. Only council member Murillo opposed this decision, stating that an election is the only fair way for her constituents to replace her.

Mayor-elect Murillo's position on this issue has since been reinforced by the advocacy of District 4 Representative-elect Sneddon, former judge Frank Ochoa and Santa Barbaran Jaqueline Inda, who are among those asking the council to reverse course on this decision.

It appears that the current council's majority was alarmed at the prospect of what they were told would be the $300,000 cost of a special election. It also appears that they relied on aspects of current law that specify appointed replacement of council members under such conditions.

But, as Mr. Ochoa and his colleagues have pointed out, this law was enacted before district elections were mandated for Santa Barbara. Current conditions were of course not anticipated by these provisions. It's also true that no Santa Barbara council member since the implementation of district elections here anticipated, or addressed, the very evident possibility of a need to provide for council member replacement.

Judge Ochoa and colleagues have pointed out that the cost of such special election, if combined with the June 5 statewide primary ballot, would add only $30,000. In any case he believes the city would be subject to litigation should it not adapt election as the means of replacing the District 3 council seat.

In my view simple fairness, common justice and equal application of the law require that Santa Barbara's District 3 council seat – and all re-occurrences of like council seat replacement – be decided by a vote of those whose representation is at stake.

Login to add Comments

4 Comments

Toggle Comments (Show)
JoeG Jan 06, 2018 02:03 PM
District 3 Should Be Decided by an Election

Let’s break it down. Not sure the number, but probably 15,000 in the district. $10k for ballots, postage. $10k for return envelopes and postage. Even with a liberal estimate of 2,500 hours to tabulate the results (10 minutes per ballot) times a $15 “living wage” paid per hour, the total cost to process the vote would be less than $60k. Even if you double that number for bureaucratic inefficiency, the total cost would be $120,000. Completely justified considering the importance of the issue.

RHS Jan 06, 2018 12:37 PM
District 3 Should Be Decided by an Election

Election will not cost what is claimed by the city and is the most proper way to do this. We spent big $ on silly things, spending small $ on something as basic to democracy as this should not be an issue to start with.

bookman Jan 06, 2018 07:40 AM
District 3 Should Be Decided by an Election

The citizens of District 3 need their voices heard on their council seat representative. Would a mail- only ballot election for those affected residents really cost $300K? That sounds like a suspiciously large figure just for District 3 voters.

a-1518929745 Jan 06, 2018 03:07 AM
District 3 Should Be Decided by an Election

An election does seem the most democratic option. What does the city attorney say about the situation? The council should make every effort to keep the costs down. What ever happened to to Sharon Byrne who was a close runner-up to Murillo in that election? Is she still around, still interested in the position?

Please Login or Register to comment on this.