Correspondence - #28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Second, the Court of Appeal determined that because San Francisco is a charter city, it did not need to wait for the California Legislature to authorize noncitizen voting to expand the electorate. Id. at 12, 28. Voters in San Francisco instead had the power to enact noncitizen voting on their own through an amendment to the city charter. Because the San Francisco amendment applied to school board elections, and public education has been determined to be a statewide concern for some purposes, see id. at 20-21, the Court of Appeal spent a fair amount of time in the Lacy decision discussing what it called the Constitution's Charter City School Board Provision, Article XI, section 16, and specifically the part of that provision bestowing upon charter cities the power to determine the "manner in which" school board members shall be elected or appointed. See id. at 21-22. Charter cities' authority to determine who may participate in elections for municipal officers is even clearer. In fact, the Constitution describes charter cities' power over the "manner in which" municipal officers shall be elected or appointed as "plenary." See id. at 22-23. The Court of Appeal ultimately found that charter cities had no less authority to determine who may vote in school board elections than municipal officer elections, but the authority to determine who may vote in municipal officer elections was never in question; it was treated as a given by all parties. See id. at 25. Santa Ana can also rely on the Lacy decision even though it is not both a city and a county like San Francisco. Throughout the decision, the Court of Appeal refers to the power of charter cities. See, e.g., id. at 17 (describing the rationale behind"confer[ring] on charter cities the authority to expand the electorate where, as here, the city's voters determine that doing so would better serve local needs"). The decision makes barely any mention of San Francisco's additional status as a county. The proposal by Councilmembers Hernandez and Vazquez would allow the City Council to consider whether voters of Santa Ana should be given the choice to follow in the footsteps of San Francisco and other cities. There remains little question that Santa Ana can take this step. It will ultimately be up to the voters to determine if expanding the electorate would better serve local needs of the City. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Annie Lai, Director Jenna Narahara, Law Student Amy Al Salek, Law Student Immigrant Rights Clinic UC Irvine School of Law