TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ryan J. Alsop, Chief Executive Officer
REPORT BY: Andrew M. Mize, Legislative & Policy Analyst
SUBJECT: Elections Consolidation Discussion
RECOMMENDATION
title
Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the consolidation of all local countywide elections to the Presidential election cycle, moving the elections of the positions of Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk, Auditor-Controller, and Treasurer-Tax Collector from the gubernatorial election cycle (next slated for June 2, 2026 [primary election], and November 5, 2025 [general election]) to the presidential election cycle (next slated for March 7, 2028 [primary election], and November 7, 2028 [general election]), thereby extending the terms of those offices one time by two years from expiring on January 5, 2027, to expiring on January 2, 2029. (No Fiscal Impact)
body
BACKGROUND
This matter is before the Board on referral to the CEO at the Board’s September 16, 2025 special meeting. In 2022, the Legislature and Governor amended California’s Elections Code Section 1300 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 743) to require that elections for Sheriff and DA be held during the presidential election cycle. The new law additionally authorized local Boards of Supervisors to move the elections for Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk, Auditor-Controller, and Treasurer-Tax Collector from their current gubernatorial election cycle to the presidential election cycle (Elections Code Section 1300(b)(2)).
At the time, the author of the bill argued that “county officers should be elected in presidential election years rather than gubernatorial election years because presidential elections tend to have higher and more representative turnout,” so “electing county officers in presidential election years will promote political equality and enhanced citizen participation.” (Heidom, Nicolas, Legislative Analyst’s Office, Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments Analysis of AB 759 (McCarty), prepared for 6/28/21 hearing). The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) noted that “it is generally true that voter participation in presidential elections in California exceeds voter participation in gubernatorial elections. Over the last eight election cycles, from 2006 through 2020, voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters has averaged 23.5% in gubernatorial primary elections compared to 33.7% in presidential primary elections, a 10% increase on average.”
On the flip side, the LAO also noted that “these percentages represent overall turnout changes between gubernatorial and presidential elections, which may differ from the turnout for county offices held at the same election, because many voters will vote in higher-profile contests like Governor or President but will leave their ballot blank for lower-profile contests, like local elections.”
Nonetheless, the LAO concluded that “the academic literature on local election timing generally supports that consolidating local elections with statewide elections can significantly increase local voter turnout.” The LAO cited to a 2002 Public Policy Institute of California study of California municipal elections which found that compared with city elections that are not held concurrently with a statewide election, local voter turnout is 36% higher in presidential general elections, 26% higher in gubernatorial general elections, and 21% higher in presidential primary elections.” Notably, the study did not analyze local contest turnout between gubernatorial primary elections and presidential primary elections, the most apt comparison for this particular bill.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office expressed the potential concern that “notably, candidates for countywide office would have to compete for attention with candidates for president, which could make it harder and more expensive for those county candidates to communicate their message to voters.” In 2022, the Board’s Legislative Subcommittee heard but did not act on a related item.
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.