Early Count of Vote Cards Questioned

In a twist exemplifying the unanswered questions around Proposition 218, Compton officials have touched off a debate over whether they acted properly by extending the balloting period on a city parks assessment that appeared headed for defeat.

Proposition 218 sponsors accused Compton officials of seeking to manipulate the outcome--labeling the move a “perversion of the process”--but stopped short of saying the city had violated the law.

“They see that this particular measure is in trouble and they’re trying to do everything they can to turn it around,” said Joel Fox, president of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which sponsored Proposition 218.

The measure, designed to give taxpayers and property owners greater power to approve local levies, was approved by California voters last fall as an amendment to the state Constitution. One provision requires local governments to let property owners vote on new assessments for services such as park upkeep, street landscaping and sidewalks. Previously, city councils and school boards were able to approve such assessments without a public vote.

But legal experts and state officials said the Compton situation highlights the swirling uncertainty among municipalities over how to implement this portion of the new law--in particular what rules should govern the new assessment votes.

“We really don’t have any guidance just yet on how [the assessment] elections are to be conducted,” said James Sweeney, chief counsel to Secretary of State Bill Jones.

As communities around the state have begun implementing the new law, they have encountered widespread confusion and some anger among taxpayers over the balloting process.

One of the most controversial features of the assessment voting is the ballot itself, which often comes in the form of a postcard and lacks the confidentiality of conventional votes. Property owners have complained that nonconfidential ballots violate their rights and might allow municipal officials to manipulate elections because they could see how the vote is tilting.

Compton officials denied any wrongdoing in opening the ballots early and delaying the June 30 ballot count until July 15. While a city spokeswoman acknowledged that city leaders delayed the count partly out of concern that the mail-in votes were leaning heavily against the parks assessment, officials insisted that the main reasons were a scheduling glitch and widespread public confusion over the process.

Officials said property owners were so baffled by the unusual new mail-in process that some mistook the ballot for a tax bill and sent money--$33.32 per parcel--along with their vote. Although the city had sent a 13-page packet explaining the process in English and Spanish, lingering confusion prompted officials to mail a second, more concise flier to about 20,000 property owners eligible to vote on the assessment.

“Somehow the message was not clear enough,” said consultant Larry Bevington, who was hired to prepare the balloting materials. “It’s an extremely complex thing for people to be able to understand.”

City officials said a crush of business during their June 17 meeting prevented the council from formally approving June 30 as the deadline for accepting ballots as well as the date for counting them. At the June 24 meeting, the council voted to set the July 15 deadline.

But city spokeswoman Arlene W. Williams said Thursday that officials also wanted to extend the voting period because they were worried about early ballot returns.

City Clerk Charles Davis said the measure has been trailing by a margin as wide as 7 to 1 since late May, when the ballots were mailed out. So far, he said, only about 2,000, or 10%, of the ballots have been returned.

“It’s been failing ever since the beginning,” Davis said. He said no one has made an official count, but that ballots were opened and separated into ‘yes’ and ‘no’ stacks.

Davis said his office decided to open the ballots to cut down processing time and determine the extent of voter confusion. Bevington noted that the ballots are not secret.

The assessment ballots are not secret because they are a formal way for property owners to lodge objections to proposed assessments, not part of a conventional election under the law. Before Proposition 218, assessments could be blocked only if a majority of owners filed formal public protests. The new law requires municipalities to get owners’ approval through the mail-in ballots, but treats the ballots as public records.

The nonconfidential ballots have raised the hackles even of those who supported Proposition 218. In a recent vote over a proposed assessment for a San Gabriel Valley school district, a La Verne resident protested to federal officials that the postcard ballot violated his rights to a secret vote.

The secrecy issue has caught the notice of the Jarvis forces and is likely to be taken up by state lawmakers next year.

“Confidentiality is the major issue,” said Diane Longshore, chief of staff to state Sen. Richard K. Rainey (R-Walnut Creek), who authored a bill this year to tie up some loose ends in the law.

Anti-tax activists concede that the ballots are part of the public record, but said Compton officials should not have rescheduled the public hearing for counting votes unless there was a serious emergency.

“We did not anticipate that local governments would open the ballots and take action relative to either specific property owners or property owners generally, depending on how the votes were being tallied,” said Jonathan Coupal, director of legal affairs for the Jarvis group. “That is the perversion of the process.”