The potential change to district elections has probably caught a lot of people in this community off guard. I had always opposed district elections, believing that they weren’t needed and that this community did not need to have the divisions.
The reality is that Matt Rexroad has a case that can prove that Davis has RPV (Racially Polarized Voting). As explained last week, RPV exists “when there is a difference in how members of a protected class vote versus members not within the protected class.” This is not a high bar by any means.
The evidence is fairly overwhelming, as we discussed last week. That isn’t necessarily something unique to Davis – but it is why California has passed the law they did to give racial and ethnic minorities more power in the electoral process. It’s also a reason why no one has successfully won a challenge to a claim of RPV.
There are many who argue that district elections will not make a huge difference in Davis or that they have to go to seven or nine districts. I don’t agree.
Just looking at last year’s council election – and the Gloria Partida versus Dan Carson match up – disproves that theory. Going from four percent Latino in a precinct to 20 percent changed the expected margin in that race from a Carson +5 to a Partida +20.
As we noted in our previous data analysis, the range in Davis is clearly a lot wider than many people think, with precincts that range from 60 percent white voters to 88 percent white voters. We saw in numerous races that even that small change from four to 20 percent Latino makes a very broad difference.
In the Feinstein-De Leon Senate race, the numbers move from Feinstein +22 to Feinstein +8.
In a multi-candidate race those percentages are sufficient to elect a good deal more people of color than we have had in the past.
The data therefore debunks the belief that (A) there is no RPV in Davis, and (B) that district elections won’t make it more likely for people of color to get elected.
The reality is that the city is not going to fight this challenge – because they most certainly will lose.
Beyond that, the council has to make a number of decisions.
First question is when they will change to district elections. Originally, the city’s belief was that they could wait for 2022 to make the change. Matt Rexroad told the Vanguard early on that they would fight that and they thought they would prevail.
November makes a lot more sense if the concern is getting the maximum Latino and Asian voters out. Just looking at 2016 and 2018 – in the general election Latinos and Asians are less than 15 percent of voters in 
primaries, whereas they are around 18 to 19 percent in the general. While that is not necessarily earth shattering, it is about a 30 percent increase.
But even more than that, the voter turnout across the board is vastly different. Most primaries have less than 50 percent voter turnout, versus general elections with upwards of 70 percent overall turnout. Even forgetting the issue of RPV, the participation rates during the general demonstrate a need to consider the change.
Truth is, Davis was the only city in the county still voting for council elections in June as opposed to November.
The staff report makes it clear that a move to November 2020 is possible. Staff also addresses the issue of the sales tax renewal, finding that they could put the sales tax renewal on the ballot for March, while putting the council elections on for November.
To me the case for November is fairly overwhelming if you believe more participation in local elections is more valuable. True, the council election would get wrapped into state and national trends, especially in a presidential year. And the voters who participate will be less informed than the group that participates in June – but that’s the nature of the local community anyway.
Three more issues that should be addressed. I’m not a big fan of the idea of going beyond five council members at this time. I know some are arguing for it. I have seen smaller communities with more members on a governing body, I’m not convinced that it is a great thing, and it would actually serve to prolong meetings because there will be more members needing to speak and it could take longer to gain consensus.
It is something that in the long term we should consider, however, as it could provide not only more diversity in terms of ethnic and racial make up, but also the possibility of a student district with a student councilmember.
On the selection of the mayor. The easiest way to go about doing this would be to rotate. There is the possibility of an at-large mayor with a district election council.
Contrary to some claims, that does not make a strong mayor system. San Luis Obispo, the example I am most familiar with, still has a weak mayor and a city manager system of government. The mayor is elected at large and separately, but only serves two years rather than the four years of councilmembers, and also has the same vote as those on the council.
My guess is the city will go to a rotational basis, which is what the school board does and the board of supervisors. The advantage there, everyone gets a chance to be mayor during their term of office.
On the sequence of elections, I don’t have any ulterior motive – I just believe that Dan Carson and Gloria Partida were elected to four-year terms and should be allowed to serve four years. You simply change the districts as they come up for election.
Finally, someone suggested we might consider term limits down the line. Philosophically, I’m opposed to term limits as I believe the public has the right to vote for whom they want for as long as they want. I’m not convinced that the legislature is advantaged by that move – although it seems a bit better with the reforms to allow people to serve longer in a given body.
Looking back on the history of Davis, there are remarkably few people who have served as many as three terms. Sue Greenwald served three terms until 2012 and was defeated for a fourth term in 2012. Other than that, it appears that Tom Tomasi, Gerry Adler and Dave Rosenberg appear to be the only others to serve three terms in the last 50 years.
It will be interesting, as both Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee are likely to seek their third terms next year some time, depending perhaps on the configurations of districts.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From Parkinson’s Law:
Empirical evidence is drawn from historical and contemporary government cabinets. Most often, the minimal size of a state’s most powerful and prestigious body is five members. From English history, Parkinson notes a number of bodies that lost power as they grew:
The first cabinet was the Council of the Crown, now the House of Lords, which grew from an unknown number to 29, to 50 before 1600, by which time it had lost much of its power.
A new body was appointed in 1257, the “Lords of the King’s Council”, numbering fewer than 10. The body grew, and ceased to meet when it had 172 members.
The third incarnation was the Privy Council, initially also numbering fewer than 10 members, rising to 47 in 1679.
In 1715, the Privy Council lost power to the Cabinet Council with eight members, rising to 20 by 1725.
Around 1740, the Cabinet Council was superseded by an inner group, called the Cabinet, initially with five members. At the time of Parkinson’s study (the 1950s), the Cabinet was still the official governing body. Parkinson observed that, from 1939 on, there was an effort to save the Cabinet as an institution. The membership had been fluctuating from a high of 23 members in 1939, down to 18 in 1954.
Is this really the best way to pick the ‘leader’ of government? Are we trying to get what’s best or what’s easiest?
On a completely different note, I believe one advantage of district elections is that it will reduce the cost of a potentially-winning campaign. With the increase in maximum contribution by 50% in the last election cycle, we essentially increased the range of viable campaign expenditures by around 50%. ($12,000-$30,000 going to $18,000-$45,000). A city-wide mailer is about the biggest individual expense of a campaign and costs about $6,000. Two mailers, $12,000. But with district elections, the cost of the mailer drops significantly – probably to about 1/5th or $2,400. Contributions can still come from the entire city and beyond. The candidate walking an entire district is also much more achievable.
My feeling is that this makes it more possible for someone who lives in the lower economic strata of our community to have a successful council campaign. Thus, while it won’t ‘take money out of politics,’ it may make it less important. And that – in my mind – is a good thing.
“Is this really the best way to pick the ‘leader’ of government? Are we trying to get what’s best or what’s easiest?”
I don’t know. The argument would be that the Board of Supervisors, School Board, and Woodland does it this way.
The other option is elections which seems to work alright in San Luis Obispo.
The key is finding a “leader”… the Mayor does have a good deal of influence as to setting the agendas, and being “traffic cop” of discussions during meetings… not just an ‘equal’… to focus on “sharing” the post is NOT good government…
I’d rather go to an at-large elected Mayor, or Mayor selected by other CC members (historical precedence), rather than a ‘rotation’… it is NOT about “turns”, it’s about leadership…
The current system, highest vote-getter, at large, becoming Mayor Pro-tem, then taking the mayor position two years later, was an adequate ‘compromise’… with district elections, not sure (in fact, doubt) that would be a good way to proceed… but it would be better than ‘taking turns’… that makes NO sense! I’d rather go towards the current protocol, than ‘taking turns’… it’s a kindergarten mindset. Good in that venue, not so much in City governance.
This is based on watching Davis City Councils for 40+ years…
Just saying…
Comparing SLO to DAV is not useful… different dynamics…
Gotta disagree on the last – I’m able to follow SLO because I have so many people I still know there (even 25 years later), I’m amazed by how similar the issues are there to here.
Was familiar with SLO for 5 years, and if you compare SLO CC agendas with DAV agendas, you’ll find them quite different… I stand by what I wrote, and we can agree to disagree…
Oh, and when I visited in SLO, from DAV, generally took the train/bus… those are the station codes… Alan M could confirm…
Confirmed, sir.
Oh, David… SLO is a charter City… Davis is not… big difference right there… resting my case as to comparisons…
If you want to espouse Davis becoming a charter city, then it would be much more analogous…
Just saying…
https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Resources-Section/Charter-Cities/Charter_Cities-List
In other words, when the sky is blue, even behind the clouds.
Still trying to understand why some people are more equal than others, why some POC’s are more equal than others, and how such a phenomenally moronic bar can be used as a legal precedent.
My hope is that statewide efforts to overturn this law at the state level succeeds, and Davis leaves itself a wide path to reverse the district elections if and when the state law is overturned.
Alan, since it was a pair of statewide propositions passed in 2008 and 2010, I suspect that it would take another statewide proposition vote to overturn.
One thing that would be interesting to know – figure out – if whether people who actually live in areas that went to district elections – whether they don’t like it. Because right now it’s theoretical. I really haven’t heard a lot of complaints from people who live in Woodland.
It would be interesting to know if the voters of Davis would approve this change if it was put before them.
I hope I voted against those.
Or David, complaints from people in Yolo County about the way Supervisors districts have been handled.
Ask of the City Council for Tuesday, August 13, 2019:
• Give in to bad state law.
• Give in to extortionist lawyers.
• Give in to race baters.
• Rush things.
• Have a good evening.
Blessings,
Alan C. Miller
You’re right, they should fight a losing battle against the law and pay millions. That makes a lot of sense.
First they came for the . . .
. . . and then they came for me and there was no one left to . . .
I believe there is substantial evidence to the contrary in the other Yolo County jurisdictions that use districts. The key to why it actually takes LESS time in Yolo County is that multiple Supervisors often defer to the Supervisor(s) of the district(s) affected by the item being considered.
Take the Mace Mess for example, and imagine that the City has five districts West, North East South and Central. Using the County’s speaking protocol, after the staff presentation, the Council member who would speak first would be from the affected South Davis district. The voters from the West Davis and Central districts are unaffected by the Mace Mess, so there would be very little political capital to be gained by the Council members for those districts “needing to speak.” North Davis voters might have some interest in how WAZE sometimes routes I-80 commuters up CA 113 and then across Covell back to I-80 at Mace. North Davis voters might also see some parallels between the Covell-F Street Mess and the Mace Mess and/or the Covell-L Street Mess and the Mace Mess. But, no longer would you have all five Council members vying to get “air time” speaking to the South Davis constituents they all currently have.
Further, consensus building amongst the Supervisors is also much easier, because their protocol is to openly and overtly defer to the Supervisor’s judgement of those representing the affected district.
I’m wondering how many issues that come before the Council truly impact only one district, even if the issue is geographically located in a particular district. A decision to approve an affordable housing project proposal, as an example, shouldn’t be deferred to the local district, where there may be local opposition. Deferring to local reps may make more sense at the county level because it is largely comprised of separate, non-contiguous municipal entities. The city is a geographically compact political entity where impacts are not likely to be as localized.
More members means that meetings would need to be more efficiently run.
Yes, indeed they would need to be more efficiently run.
Unless of course, financial capital to solve, results in less money available to be spent for needs in other districts. We’ll see how divisive the allocation of funds, per district, will become… should be “fun” to watch…
My dad was on the early project team furthering development of the nuclear bomb before the tests were undergrounded.
Surface nuclear explosions are “fun” to watch, too.
I didn’t know you were a comedian.
The die is cast.
Now the fun begins… “manner” of implementation… and, perhaps, timing… pretty evident 3 CC members will have their times of service extended by 5-6 months…
One form of comment, made more than once, was the ‘timeliness’ of the demand letter… “worst timing” was oft said… suspect that was the intention of Mr Rexroad and his ‘potential plaintiffs’ all along… max pressure… bullying… this could have been brought up July 1, 2018… it wasn’t… yes, j’accuse!
Another comment, brought up by Wagstaff… at some point, identification of the PP’s… if I’m allowed to vote for either, should they run, I’d vote NAY… and if not in my district, might well support an opponent and/or campaign against them… let’s go for ‘transparency’ as to the PP’s…
Seldom have I agreed with Ken W. Here I do, 100%…
And another interesting presumption appears, that ONLY a member of a “protected class” can effectively represent a ‘protected class’… and the other presumption is that a member of a ‘protected class’ will ALWAYS represent that PC. Facts not in evidence…