LA City Council Is Already A Democratic Super-Super-Majority

The California Constitution Article 2, Section 1 states

SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

Also, according to the Constitution of California, all judicial, school, county and city offices, including those of chartered cities, are nonpartisan. Then in 1986, California voters passed Proposition 49 to add this to the Constitution “….... This measure would add a provision that no political party or party central committee may endorse, support, or oppose a candidate for such a nonpartisan office."

Therefore, political party affiliation should not surface in City offices elections. But it does, when needed to support partisan candidates, or the office holders run for higher office, and need the backing of their party machine.

An interesting paper was written in 2007, by David Schleicher of Yale,

“Why Is There No Partisan Competition in City Council Elections?”

“The lack of competition in local elections was once a national issue. Early 20th-century Progressives pushed for nonpartisan elections, where party names do not appear on the ballot, among other reforms as a solution to the problem of one-party rule in the cities. They were successful in instituting nonpartisan elections in a majority of American cities, but the reforms have not solved the problem of a lack of competition. In fact, a substantial literature has shown that these elections feature even less competition, that voter turnout is substantially lower, that incumbents are safer and that there is no indication that candidates engage in any substantial policy competition. However, little work has been done examining the underlying question of why is there no partisan competition in big city local elections.”

Then in 2008 he goes on to say:

“This paper argues that the explanation for the lack of partisan competition in city council elections lies in the laws governing these elections. Several laws - by my definition "unitary party rules" - serve to ensure that the national parties are on the ballot in local elections and that candidates, activists and voters do not defect from dominant national parties during local elections. When combined with the little information available about individual council candidates, the existence of the national party heuristic on local ballots crowds out other information and the laws create severe barriers to entry for potential local parties. The result is that the vote in city council elections directly tracks the vote in national elections, despite strong empirical evidence that voters have very different beliefs about local and national issues. In cities in which one party dominates at the national level, there is no competition. Thus, local legislatures are extremely unrepresentative of voter preferences and have little democratic legitimacy. Repealing the unitary party rules would spur a rearrangement of the two-party system at the local level and create party competition at the local level."

* Why is there an unyielding, nonpartisan super-majority favoring the Democratic Party, even when combined Independent and Republican registration would suggest it could not remain as such in Los Angeles for over 40 years?

There has been a single party, single legislative profile, aka supermajority bias on the nonpartisan Los Angeles City Council for more than 40 years. Republican taxpayers, who traditionally vote in favor of smaller government resulting in less taxes, have a 6.66 percent representation (one seat), except when they had 13.33 percent representation (two seats) in the six-years, between 1979 and 1985, and then nine-years, from 2003 until 2012.

* Why is so much money being spent by eight Democratic Party members, out of 15 candidates, in a special election for the 12th District seat of the Los Angeles City Council?

* What significance is there for the Democratic Party to own the 12^th district seat, out of 15, when they already have a super-super-majority in the Los Angeles City Council legislative decisions?

If, David Schleicher is correct when he suggests “these elections feature even less competition, that voter turnout is substantially lower, that incumbents are safer” then the issue is NOT the election of a City Council member but rather insuring perpetual low voter turnout, to guarantee a certain outcome for issues (propositions) on the ballot AND OTHER candidates running in partisan races.

A current example of a candidate who is not part of the current super-super-majority party machine, is Brandon Saario. He felt compelled to run for office, in order to represent his neighbors in an elected seat of government. Born and raised in the San Fernando Valley he is currently walking the district, meeting people face-to-face to ask for their vote, and listen to their concerns.