February 12, 2021 The Honorable Dave Min Member, California State Senate State Capitol, Room 2048 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Senate Bill 286 – OPPOSE As Introduced February 1, 2021 Dear Senator Min: On behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), I regret to inform you of our opposition to your Senate Bill 286, which would require the top-two vote-getters seeking election to a county office to face-off in a General Election. RCRC is an association of thirty-seven rural California counties, and the RCRC Board of Directors is comprised of elected supervisors from each member county. Under current law, statewide election primaries, where county offices are voted upon, are held in March for presidential years and June for gubernatorial years. Subsequently, statewide general elections are held in early November. Successful candidates, regardless of certification in either the Primary Election or the General Election, are traditionally sworn into office in early January. A candidate for a county office (i.e. county supervisor, county sheriff, etc.) who, at a primary election, receives an absolute majority of votes can be certified to win that office and assume the role at the beginning of the term. When there is no candidate that receives a majority of the votes cast in a Primary Election, the top two vote-getters advance to the General Election. SB 286 would change the current election model for elected county offices. First, SB 286 would require the top-two vote-receiving candidates for a county office in a Primary Election to advance to a run-off in the General Election, including candidates who receive more than 50 percent of the vote in the Primary Election. Second, SB 286 would require that any election for an office determined by a plurality be held during the General Election. SB 286 is very similar to legislation – Senate Bill 1450 - introduced nearly a year ago by Senator Tom Umberg. When that legislation was put forth, RCRC conducted a review of supervisorial elections occurring in 2020 within its thirty-seven member counties. 1215 K Street, Suite 1650, Sacramento, CA 95814 | www.rcrcnet.org | 916.447.4806 | Fax: 916.448.3154 ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA DEL NORTE EL DORADO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO LAKE LASSEN MADERA MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC MONO MONTEREY NAPA NEVADA PLACER PLUMAS SAN BENITO SAN LUIS OBISPO SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SONOMA SUTTER TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE YOLO YUBA The Honorable Dave Min Senate Bill 286 February 12, 2021 Page 2 Based on our analysis from the 2020 election cycle, a number of supervisorial election races that occurred in RCRC member counties during the March 3rd Primary Election would have been impacted had SB 286 been in place. The impacts include: • 27 incumbents who sought re-election without an opponent, but had an election day write-in opponent would have faced a run-off in the General Election; • 17 incumbents who won re-election with at least 60 percent of the vote in a two- candidate race would have faced a run-off in the General Election; • 8 supervisorial seats whereby there were no incumbents seeking re-election and there were only two candidates would have faced a run-off in the General Election; • 3 supervisorial seats whereby there were no incumbents seeking re-election and there were more than two candidates, and a candidate received more than 50 percent +1 of the vote would have faced a run-off in the General Election; and, • 10 incumbents who lost re-election in a two-candidate race would have faced a run-off in the General Election. For the most part, incumbents are at a disadvantage under the SB 286 dynamic since 32 of the 55 incumbents who faced a contested re-election would have to proceed to a run-off election. In addition, the following were observed in RCRC member counties during the November 3rd General Election: • 5 of the 8 incumbents who were top vote-getters in the Primary Election remained as top vote-getters in the General Election; • 4 incumbents who placed second during the Primary Election failed to obtain 50 percent + 1 of the vote during the General Election; and, • 2 of the 14 supervisorial seats whereby there were no incumbents seeking re- election and there were more than two candidates placed 2nd in the Primary Election, but obtained the highest number of votes in the General Election. According to our analysis, top vote-getters in the Primary Election generally remained as top vote-getters in the General Election. Incumbents who were not the top voter-getter in the Primary Election generally do not win in the General Election. Under the SB 286 dynamic, nearly half of all RCRC member counties’ supervisorial elections would no longer be decided in the Primary Election. As such, RCRC believes SB 286 is unnecessary and would prolong an already lengthy and expensive campaign, especially for seats on the Board of Supervisors. Counties, along with other locally-elected offices, have operated under the current election model for several decades, and it is generally agreed that county government has worked well. As such, we do not see the need to alter the elections The Honorable Dave Min Senate Bill 286 February 12, 2021 Page 3 process for county officers and believe the attempt put forth in SB 286 would be counter-effective in seeking functional governance at the county level. For the above reasons, RCRC opposes your SB 286. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (916) 447- 4806. Sincerely, PAUL A. SMITH Senior Vice President Governmental Affairs cc: Members of the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee Consultant, Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee Members of the Senate Governance & Finance Committee Consultant, Senate Governance & Finance Committee Cory Botts, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus Ryan Eisberg, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus Attachment: RCRC Presentation at the December 2020 Board of Directors Meeting on County Elected Officials: Top-Two Advance COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS: TOP-TWO ADVANCE Rural County Representatives of California 1215 K Street, Suite 1650 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-4806 www.rcrcnet.org Primary Election March 3, 2020 82 out of the 110 rural supervisorial seats were contested with the incumbent seeking re-election. The remaining 28 rural supervisorial seats were “open” and most of these seats had several candidates. 27 incumbents sought re-election without an opponent, although there were several who had a write-in opponent. However, none of these incumbents received less than 74 percent of the vote. 3 non-incumbents sought election without an opponent Nevada County Mariposa County • Hardy Bullock • Tom Sweeney • Wayne Forsythe 17 incumbents won re- election with at least 60 percent of the vote in a two- candidate race Candidate Primary Election 14 incumbents Ron Hames, Alpine County 55.38% Gary Tofanelli, Calaveras County 59.02% won re-election Bob Berkowitz, Del Norte County 57.14% Luis Plancarte, Imperial County 55.37% (received more Alfredo Pedroza, Napa County 54.53% than 50 percent Belia Ramos, Napa County 53.17% Heidi Hall, Nevada County 54.06% +1), but received Jim Holmes, Placer County 53.87% Mark Medina, San Benito County 57.57% less than 60 Adam Hill, San Luis Obispo County 51.36% Debbie Arnold, San Luis Obispo 52.34% County percent of the Leonard Moty, Shasta County 51.27% Amy Shuklian, Tulare County 59.90% vote Gary Bradford, Yuba County 53.16% 8 incumbents were top vote-getters, but Incumbent Percentage of Vote received less than 50 Lori Cowan, Del Norte County 40.59% John Hidahl, El Dorado County 43.04% percent of the vote. Estelle Fennell, Humboldt County 47.57% Chris Gallagher, Lassen County 41.36% Lee Lor, Merced County 37.15% These candidates Kevin Goss, Plumas County 43.61% Mat Conant, Sutter County 47.64% advanced to a run- Jim Provenza, Yolo County 48.43% off at the November 3 rd General Election 4 incumbents placed second and the top Incumbent Percentage of Vote vote-getter received Steve Morgan, Shasta County 22.17% less than 50 percent of Kuyler Crocker, Tulare County 37.09% Sherri Brennan, Tuolumne County* 37.83% the vote. Karl Rodefer, Tuolumne County 34.39% *Supervisor Brennan withdrew her candidacy, but name These candidates remained on the General Election ballot advanced to a run-off at the November 3 rd General Election Incumbent Percentage of Vote Dennis Mills, Calaveras County 46.07% 10 incumbents David Teeter, Lassen County 47.43% Kirk Uhler, Placer County 48.27% lost re-election Jamie De La Cruz, San Benito County 47.68% Jim Bread, Sierra County 44.96% in a two- Shirlee Zane, Sonoma County 47.61% Ron Sullenger, Sutter County 30.35% Bobbi Chadwick, Trinity County 46.88% candidate race Duane Chamberlain, Yolo County 47.63% Doug Lofton, Yuba County 46.76% Nancy Ogren – 61.67% Catherine Gilbert – 38.33% Tod Kimmelshue – 64.09% Darrin Short – 61.15% Sue Hilderbrand – 35.91% 8 supervisorial seats John Pritchett – 38.85% Wendy Thomas – 60.30% whereby there were Brian DeBerry – 39.70% Irvin Jim, Jr. – 48.08% no incumbents Stacey James – 44.23 % Thomas Arnold – 57.56% Marlene Silveira – 42.44% seeking re-election, Ken Hahn – 56.29% Gee Singh – 43.71% and there were only two candidates Greg Hagwood – 78.90% Melissa Bishop – 21.10% 3 supervisorial seats Jill Cox – 71.65% Melanie Miller – 19.21% whereby there were Thomas Fox – 9.18% no incumbents seeking re-election Leticia Gonzalez – 60.55% Ricardo Arredondo – 30.63% and there were more Eddie Block – 8.81% than two candidates, and a candidate Kathleen Haff - 62.54% Dameion Renault – 32.10% received more than Mike Suess – 16.66% 50 percent +1 of the vote 14 supervisorial seats Supervisorial Seat # of Candidates whereby there were no Colusa County 4 incumbents seeking re- El Dorado County 7 Glenn County 3 election and there were Inyo County 3 more than two candidates, Lake County 4 and none of the candidates Mendocino County (District 1) 4 received 50 percent + 1 of Mendocino County (District 2) 3 the vote.