California Legislature’s Continuous Insanity

Nearly every two year legislative cycle in the California Legislature,  among the thousands of new laws proposed by its 120 inhabitants, there are always a few to micromanage local governments.  You see, many of the undereducated people that somehow get elected to the State Assembly and State Senate, often think that because they got elected, they know better than the other 32 million of us how things should be.

So, they propose laws to fix problems that often don’t exist or that actually force failed examples onto the rest of the state.

That is the case with AB 278 by Assembly Member Roger Hernandez (D-Covina).  Hernandez has proposed that all general law cities over 100,000 in population be required to elect members by council districts instead of having what is referred to “at-large” elections.  The author of this misguided bill thinks that breaking a city up will provide the well-intention goal of increasing direct representation of constituents and greater participation of minorities in the election process.

It has worked so well in the City of San Bernardino, heck, let’s just copy and paste that successful model everywhere in California.  Colton, Moreno Valley, Pomona, and San Bernardino all have wards or districts from which their council members are elected.  It is working so well, Assemblyman Hernandez and 42 of his wise colleagues want to impose it on everyone else.

If the Inland Empire is an example, the system of balkanizing cities by breaking the city leadership into districts with their own subset of interests is probably the best way to make sure a city won’t run right. The only example of where it has worked alright recently is in the City of Riverside; just don’t watch their election cycles because it’s like watching sausage being made.

Of course the examples of financially and socially successful cities with at-large election are abundant.  The cities of Fontana and Ontario elect their city leaders at-large, and they appear to be doing quite well.  They are financially successful, have developed and redeveloped wonderful neighborhoods with successful commercial projects and job-producing businesses.  Both cities have, over the last two decades, escaped from difficult financial and crime problems.

Ontario and Fontana even have (Gasp) Mayors and Council members who happen to be minorities.  The Mayor of Ontario, Paul Leon, is Hispanic.  The Mayor of Fontana, Acquanetta Warren, is African American.  Go figure.

Successful governance, as with most endeavors, is built on consensus which is best attained when everyone gets to vote for everyone.  Elected Officials in at-large cities have to be responsive to everyone in their city, not just a small group of voters who may vote in a ward or district.

San Bernardino is the case study for governance of cities by district.  Seven elected people elected in seven different areas of the city by different folks with entirely different interests is not the way to build consensus.  Additionally, when only a handful of voters in one ward (San Bernardino’s version of districts) can elect a council member while another ward requires the vote of thousands it creates a natural problem of fairness.  The small number of voters in one ward have far greater representation of their collective opinion than voters of another.

Then there is the unfortunate tendency in San Bernardino to identify certain wards as being racialized.  It is well known that San Bernardino’s Sixth Ward is the “Black” ward and that the First Ward is the “Hispanic” ward.  That tendency used to be just as blatant in Pomona.

The problems also work in the reverse.   Leaders in cities with districts often defer decisions on projects or issues in certain areas to the council member representing that area, whether it is best for the entire community or not.

When it comes to actual elections, there is obvious evidence that it is much easier for special interests to game elections in low-turnout districts as was evidenced by the recent recalls in Moreno Valley and San Bernardino.  Let’s also not forget that most of the recent corruption issues emanated from these locations.  Does anyone think that is a coincidence?

It’s time for Assemblyman Hernandez and his colleagues to drop the legislative quackery that imposes a “cure” for a problem that doesn’t exist.   They should not turn every city above a certain population level into the next San Bernardino.