SLO County supervisors reverse position on letting voters pick who fills major vacancies

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has flipped its position on whether to allow voters to choose who fills vacancies for key positions such as sheriff and district attorney.

At its meeting Tuesday, the board voted unanimously to terminate a draft election charter that would require vacancies in county-elected offices to be filled by an election instead of appointment.

The draft has been in the works since February, with support from supervisors John Peschong, Lynn Compton and Debbie Arnold.

“I just think that the closer you can put it to the people and let them decide, the better,” Compton said at a February meeting. “Hopefully, we don’t have any vacancies, but vacancies do happen, unfortunately.”

If supervisors had approved the charter, it would have landed on the November ballot.

Instead, vacancies will continue to be filled by appointment.

After a series of people urged the board to drop the election charter during public comment, Peschong moved to “postpone indefinitely” discussion on the charter. The board then voted 5-0 to terminate the charter.

Should voters chose who fills vacant positions?

Vacant positions in elected offices are currently filled by appointment.

California’s governor fills vacant seats on the Board of Supervisors. Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Dawn Ortiz-Legg as District 3 supervisor in 2020, after Supervisor Adam Hill’s death.

The Board of Supervisors fills vacant seats for countywide offices such as sheriff or district attorney. In 2021, the board appointed Elaina Cano to fill a vacancy for county clerk-recorder.

The charter would instead have required voters to fill these positions in a special election.

According to the charter draft, if an elected official left their position with more than a year remaining in their term, the board would call for a special election. If there was less than a year left on the term, the position would stay vacant until the next regularly scheduled election.

Special elections cost about $1 million for countywide offices and about $354,000 for a district position, according to county staff. It would have cost about $353,000 to add the charter to the November election, according to a letter from county counsel.

Speaking during public comment at Tuesday’s meeting, Ed Cabrera, chair of voter services for the League of Women Voters in San Luis Obispo County, said the group believes that the charter would “create more problems than it solves.”

Special elections have historically low voter turnout and don’t require a majority vote. This means that, under an election charter, only a small number of voters would choose who fills key positions.

“This is not how representative government should work,” he said.

He said the group doesn’t support holding a special election for vacancies in countywide offices because they’re too expensive. He said that the Board of Supervisors should continue to fill those vacancies.

Charters can also address other governance issues — such as term limits, independent redistricting commissions and campaign contribution limits, he said.

“This proposed charter would be created for one purpose only: to fill potential vacancies,” Cabrera said. “Spending county resources on a charter with such a limited purpose is wasteful and shortsighted.”

Because the board threw out the charter, vacancies will continue to be filled by appointment.

Community members concerned about election charter

At Tuesday’s hearing, speakers at public comment said they were concerned that amendments to the election charter could reduce the authority of elected officials and create more separation between voters and the Board of Supervisors.

They asked the board to place safeguards on the charter to make it more difficult to pass amendments.

As a result, the board directed staff to research some of these safeguards — such as requiring a four-fifths Board of Supervisors vote to place an amendment on the ballot, and a super majority vote by the electorate to pass the amendment.

At the meeting Tuesday, county staff said the California constitution prevents the county from changing how a charter is amended — so the county would not be allowed to require a four-fifths Board of Supervisors vote or super majority vote from the electorate to pass an amendment to the charter.

Many speakers at public comment said they wouldn’t support the charter without these safeguards.

District 2 resident Sarah Semmes said she’s concerned that charter amendments would create more committees — such as a group that recommends changes to the charter.

“All these boards, committees, and councils will have more direct communication with the Board of Supervisors than the electorate,” Semmes said.

Semmes said the issue of a governor appointing a supervisor is temporary, and “self corrects” in the next election cycle when the electorate has the chance to vote for their preferred candidate. She said ensuring that voters fill vacant positions isn’t worth the risk of potential amendments.

Morro Bay resident Nicole Dorfman echoed Semmes’ concerns.

Dorfman said she appreciates the charter’s goal of returning power to the voters, but she’s concerned about unintended consequences of the charter.

“A charter county is a Pandora’s box. We’re opening it for one specific laudable reason,” Dorfman said, but amendments could create separation between voters and elected officials and create more bureaucracy.

“The last thing we need to do is add staff and committees that are in between myself the voter and you the representatives,” she said.

Peschong and fellow Supervisor Lynn Compton, who voted in favor of the charter at past meetings, said they couldn’t support the charter without provisions that make it more difficult to amend.

“It could be a slippery slope,” Compton said.

Should redistricting commission oversee boundary changes?

Multiple speakers at the April hearing asked the board to integrate an independent redistricting commission in the draft for the election charter. The board voted 3-2 to exclude the commission from the charter.

The commission would be an appointed, nonpartisan group of citizens that replace the Board of Supervisors in approving district boundaries.

In December, the board voted to adopt a controversial district map drawn by Arroyo Grande resident Richard Patten. A Tribune analysis found that the map favors Republican voters.

SLO County Citizens for Good Government filed a lawsuit against the county, saying the map violated the Fair Maps Act by gerrymandering the districts to favor Republicans and splitting communities of interest. They asked the court to prevent the county from using the map in upcoming elections.

In February, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Rita Federman ruled to allow the county to use the map in the upcoming primaries.

Linda Seifert of SLO County Citizens for Good Government said the organization was “stunned” that the Board of Supervisors refused to add a redistricting commission to the charter. She said the county could pursue a redistricting commission outside of the election charter, and urged the board to do so.

Independent redistricting commissions “significantly decrease the potential for bias and ultimately gerrymandered districts,” she said.

She noted that neighboring counties Monterey and Santa Barbara both have independent redistricting commissions.

“SLO County should be joining them,” she said.

Compton said she doesn’t support creating a redistricting commission, noting that when the state’s independent redistricting commission drew new boundaries, Nipomo was put into a different state assembly district than the rest of the county.

Supervisor Bruce Gibson said he could only support the charter if it included a redistricting commission.

“The thought of electing to vacancies is a democratic one,” he said. “But if those districts that those elections are conducted in aren’t fairly drawn, then that isn’t a good idea.”