Low voter turnout rates in local elections are an embarrassing problem that paints an inaccurate picture of the people of Los Angeles and what they want from their elected officials. Part of the reason behind these low rates, though, is fatigue from voters being regularly dragged to the polls.
Fortunately, there are two measures on the March 3 ballot which attempt to fix this endemic issue. Voters should turn out and support Charter Amendments 1 and 2 to create a smarter and more efficient voting process which means fewer, but more effective, trips to the polls in the future.
The amendments attempt to boost voter participation in municipal and school board elections by bringing them in line with gubernatorial and presidential elections in even-numbered years, which have a higher turnout than local elections do.
Charter Amendment 1 would put council and mayoral elections on the same ballot as national and state elections. Charter Amendment 2 would do the same with the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. Each set of changes would start in 2020, but both measures need to pass in order for either to take effect.
The proposals act on a simple concept: Voters who go to the polls for what they consider higher-stakes elections will also be offered a choice for municipal and state board elections.
Currently, municipal elections take place in odd-numbered years with primaries in March and general elections in May, leading to a tired constituency that is less and less willing to go out to vote.
The runoff election for Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti in 2013 only brought out 23 percent of registered voters, and yet it cost the city millions.
The difference comes into sharp focus when compared to the more than 70 percent of registered voters that turned out for the presidential election in 2012.
A quarter of eligible citizens voting for the city’s chief executive is an affront to the democratic process that allows interest and lobbying groups to hold more sway and influence the outcome of elections. Creating a consolidated election would mean more money and airtime being spent on the larger contests, leaving less room for fluff and propaganda in the local elections.
Election consolidation measures have been passed in other cities across Southern California and have been shown to work, boosting voter participation rates by double digits in some cases.
But as with anything that snakes through municipal government bureaucracy, there are issues with the amendments.
For one, some elected city officials will serve an extra-long term while the election dates are changed to even-numbered years.
The proposals have also come under fire for drawing attention away from local elections among the hubbub and excitement of the big national contests.
But these minor issues don’t draw away from the fact that the amendments would increase civic engagement in Los Angeles. If that happens, a city of nearly 4 million people would have a larger hand in determining its own future.