In the recent Primary election, approximately 20% of Irvine’s registered voters favored Irvine’s change to District Elections and adding two Council members, with 13% opposed. I had hoped that more residents would recognize the deceptive, false and outrageous claims made in this process and reject the measure, as District Elections are un-necessary, divisive, and un-democratic.
Conspicuously absent from the ballot argument was any mention of the need for this measure — stating only that it “ensures fair and equal representation for all”, implying that the current arrangement does not provide fair and equal representation, but providing no evidence of any shortcomings. There have been no claims that specific voting interests have been ignored or otherwise improperly represented in the City. Unlike many cities with aging central business districts, localized crime problems, ethnic enclaves and/or perceived marginalized voting interests or concentrations of protected classes, Irvine has none of these issues.
The ballot argument also claimed that it would enable candidates to campaign solely in their own neighborhoods and not have to rely on massive funding from developers and special interests that might be required to fund a campaign for an at-large candidate. Do we really want Council members who care only about their own neighborhood? Further, it seems obvious that special interests would find it easier and cheaper to sponsor a candidate, or candidates.
The suggestion that unless one is a member of the under-represented group or area, he/she cannot properly represent its interests, and therefore requiring a Council candidate to reside in the District, is without merit. All Council members should represent the entire City. The geographic restriction will produce a less than optimal choice of Council candidates. The eventual result of District Elections is a City Council with members accountable only to residents in their district of residence, perhaps to the detriment of the City as a whole.
Knowing full well that Irvine has none of the demographic or geographic issues leading some cities to change to District Elections, the Council, without voter input, decided that District Elections was the solution to the non-existent problem.
If the concern is that certain geographies are improperly represented, the Council could easily assign a Council member to be the primary contact for a District and design guidelines to optimize awareness of the needs in all areas. More than likely, continuing at-large elections would result in members from multiple districts, enabling a few Council members to be assigned to their resident Districts. Some might argue that District Elections assist in avoiding legal action relating the Voters Rights Act. There is no evidence that any violations exist, and the City Attorney should be prepared to defend the City against frivolous legal action, like the City Attorney in Huntington Beach is ready to do if needed.
Without voter input, or reviewing other options such as the above, or evaluating alternative numbers of Districts, the Council decided that six Districts would be required, and proceeded to spend a considerable amount of taxpayer funds to prepare a Charter Amendment to solidify the Council’s decisions, and to do it immediately.
The Council then took advantage of a generally un-informed and/or apathetic voting public and arranged the process to ensure quick passage by combining District Elections with the likely un-opposed Council expansion, and using the low-turnout Primary Election, not the General, as the first step, partly to avoid requiring any Council candidate having to defend the decision.
The winners here are those who want the City to regulate more of what we do, those who want to assure that future elections produce the desired results, and special interests which now have an easier task in electing a Council member. The losers are Irvine voters, each now with a voice in the election of only 2 of the seven Council members. These voters have now been placed in competing Districts, with future Council representatives that possibly have little concern for the City as a whole. This is not “better” representation.
The Council’s deception and haste in this matter was a dis-service to the community, and nearly impossible to overturn. It is an illusion of the democratic process, and an example of government of the people, by the government, and for the government. This action will change Irvine, and not in a good way.
Scott Perley is an Irvine resident of more than 50 years. He is retired from a career in Commercial Real Estate. He has degrees in Engineering and Bus. Admin. from the Univ. of Colo., and an MBA from Cal State Fullerton. He has served on the Board of Directors for two Irvine HOAs.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
