13,666 / 63.3% Yes votes ...... 7,938 / 36.7% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

• Candidates must be residents of their district at least thirty days before the first day that candidacy papers may be filed.
• The City Charter prohibits a person from being a candidate only for the offices of Mayor and City Council at the same time.
• According to the City Charter, a “termed-out” candidate (who had already served the limit of two full terms in the office) who was among the top two contenders as a write-in candidate at a primary election may campaign for the office for a run-off election, but must remain a write-in candidate in the run-off election. The candidate’s name may not appear on the ballot.

• Residency requirement: The proposed change would require that candidates be residents of their districts at least thirty days before the last day they may file their papers (rather than the first day). This change became necessary because of a California Supreme Court decision relating to candidates' residency.
• Two offices: Proposition D would prohibit a person from being a candidate for any two City elected offices at the same time.
• Write-in Candidates: Proposition D would permit the name of a write-in candidate who has been nominated at a primary election to appear on the ballot for a run-off election, even though that candidate had already served the limit of two full terms in the office.

• Proposition D increases the transparency of City elections and closes unintended loopholes in the City Charter.
• The new residency requirement prevents outside interests from disrupting City elections.

• Proposition D does not address a much more serious matter: the problem of filling Council vacancies.
• We need a clear guarantee of our basic right to due and equal representation.

Presently, candidates for City Council offices must be legally registered voters and residents of their district at least thirty days before the first day that such candidates may file their candidacy papers. The proposed amendment would change this requirement to provide that candidates must be legally registered voters and residents of their district at least thirty days before the last day that such candidates may file their candidacy papers. The purpose of this change is to bring the residency requirement of the Charter into compliance with a mandate of the California Supreme Court.

Presently, the Long Beach City Charter prohibits a person from being a candidate for the offices of Mayor and City Council at the same time. The proposed amendment would further prohibit a person from being a candidate for any two City elected offices at the same time.

Presently, the Long Beach City Charter prohibits the name of a candidate for Mayor or City Council who has served two full terms (a "termed-out candidate") from appearing on any ballot. The proposed amendment would permit a termed-out candidate's name to appear on the ballot of a run-off election, if that termed-out candidate places first or second in the primary election.

City of Long Beach

City Profile

date: Saturday, April 21
time: 10 am - 12 noon
place: Los Altos Library, 5614 Britton Dr
plus: short presentation on the city Budget for fiscal 2008 by David Wodynski, Bureau Manager, Budget and Performance Management Bureau
more info: LWV Long Beach Area

YES on Proposition D establishes a residency requirement for candidates in Long Beach elections. This new residency requirement complies with recent court decisions and will prevent outside interests from disrupting our City elections.

Under Long Beach's current charter, a person may run for multiple offices at the same time. A person could run for Mayor at the same time as running for City Attorney and City Prosecutor. A YES on Proposition D closes this loophole and prohibits a candidate from running for two offices simultaneously.

YES on Proposition D allows a write-in candidate to appear on the runoff ballot if they receive enough votes to qualify. This makes the ballot less confusing for voters and makes the election process more transparent.

Proposition D closes unintended loopholes and increases transparency in our City election process.

We respectfully urge you to vote YES on Proposition D.

Former Mayor Beverly O'Neill

Former City Attorney John Calhoun

Former Councilmember Doug Drummond, District 3

In particular, proponents speak of closing a 'loophole': running for more than one office. But why is this so-called loophole a problem at all? The actual problem is the cost in dollars and delay and loss of due rights of representation, when there is a vacancy in an elective office. The particular 'loophole' is only a minor source of this problem, and the problem itself is disregarded.

A No vote on Prop. D (and others) will send a much needed message. Costly elections and their propositions should respond to real and significant problems - such as guaranteeing our basic right to due and equal representation.

JOE WEINSTEIN
Mathematical and Statistical Analyst

Prop D forbids running at once for any two elective city offices. Well, suppose Ms A actually wins two offices. She'll have to resign from one. That's no problem - except for the now-vacant office. But the vacant office problem already arises far more often from another cause which Prop. D does NOT prevent. Namely, resignation not by a new winner but by the incumbent - such as lately by Council members for Districts 2 and 6.

Under the existing charter, a vacancy indeed is problematic. Filling it involves delayed and costly election. Worse, especially for a Council seat, even a short vacancy (even absence during a single vote, thanks to recusal or a restroom visit), let alone a long one (as for District 6), violates the basic right of citizens and voters to due and equal representation at all times in city decisions. The charter now doesn't safeguard this right, but suitable change could. For instance, a Council member could be required to designate a ready alternate from her (his) district.

Instead of providing real remedy, Prop. D forbids just a minor case of the problem. Meanwhile, Prop. B calls for elaborate procedures to select and operate a special redistricting commission, so that Council districts have equal population and other qualities. But what is the point of picky redistricting if anyhow there is no guarantee of any district's due and equal representation over time??

A No vote on Prop. D (and B) will make clear that what we need is not half-baked `solutions' but guarantee of our basic right to due and equal representation.

JOE WEINSTEIN