The Case Against VERITAS

   This fall, Santa Monica residents will be asked to vote for or against VERITAS, an initiative that would radically alter city government.
   Its supporters allege that VERITAS would make city government more democratic. We disagree.
   1) Under VERITAS, Santa Monica would be governed by a Mayor and seven City Council members. The mayor would no longer be chosen by the Council, but would be elected directly by voters, and would have executive as well as legislative powers. He or she would not be a regular voting member of the Council, but could vote to break ties or on matters concerning the City Manager or City Attorney, and could veto measures passed by the Council, which the Council could only override by a majority vote.
   While the popular election of the mayor may appear to be a step in a more democratic direction, in fact it would work to muddy the process. To give one elected official the power to veto measures passed by four or more elected officials or to break tie votes as he or she sees fit would violate a basic principle of American government – the separation of powers — by giving the mayor both executive and legislative authority, as well as opening the door to every kind of collusion and co-optation.
   2) Currently, Council members are elected at large by all voters. VERITAS would divide the city into seven neighborhood districts of approximately 12,500 people each -– City Center, North of Wilshire, North of Montana, Wilshire Corridor, Mid-City Area, Ocean Park, Pico Neighborhood and Sunset Park. Voters in each district would elect their own Council member, meaning that voters would henceforth vote for only one Council member rather than for seven as they do now.
   VERITAS backers reason that dividing the city into districts will 1) ensure the representation of everyone in the city and 2) make Council races affordable – as candidates can concentrate their time and funds on one district rather having to campaign throughout the city.
   This is the most questionable provision in VERITAS. It posits that by voting only for one person from your own neighborhood, you will be better represented than you are now, voting for several at large candidates every two years. But unless you and the Council member from your district agree on absolutely everything, you may not be represented at all. And even if you and your district Council member are in sublime accord, he or she and you may still lose on all the big issues to the other six Council members. Beyond that, the notion that where we live dictates what we think is at least naïve and at most insulting. With seven at-large Council members, each of us has seven shots at representation on any given issue. With only one representative, each of us has one shot, and no recourse – whither he or she goes, you and your concerns go. Finally, to divide the city into districts –- and districts defined by the VERITAS makers, not by popular consensus -– would be to deliberately balkanize the city — pitting district against district in an endless struggle for money and attention. Santa Monica’s most serious problems – such as parking and traffic – are city-wide and they can only be solved in the city as a whole, not by or in one district. For example, the traffic problems in the Pico Neighborhood neither begin nor end there.
   Given all that, making Council races more affordable hardly matters.
   3) Under VERITAS, to be elected, Council and mayoral candidates would have to win a majority of the votes cast in their respective races. If no Council candidate won a majority in his or her district or no mayoral candidate won 50.1% of the votes cast, run-off elections would be required, VERITAS calls for city elections to be held simultaneously with California primary elections in the spring, while run-off elections, when necessary, would be held simultaneously with the November general election.
   On paper, requiring candidates to win a majority of votes seems reasonable, but to hold elections in the spring and run-offs in the fall not only makes the electoral process far more expensive, it extends it, and, of course, spring elections traditionally attract fewer voters than fall elections.
   4) VERITAS would reduce residency requrements for candidates from two years to 30 days.
   There can be no good reason for reducing candidates’ residence requirements from two years to thirty days. Do you really want people with 30 days worth of knowledge of Santa Monica running for office? We don’t.
   5) Under VERITAS, Council members and the Mayor would be limited to two terms.
   Term limits do not curtail officials’ powers as much as they curtail voters’ rights to elect whomever they wish – including someone who’s clearly atrophied in office.
   Whenever they speak of VERITAS, its backers cite the Pico Neighborhood as an area which has gone unrepresented and which would be guaranteed its own Council member under VERITAS. This is the cruelest sort of politicking. While it is unfortunate that we have never elected a Council member from the Pico Neighborhood, giving it one Council member, as VERITAS would do, does not mean that it would be effectively represented from that point on. He or she would need the support of at least three other Council members to get anything done at all, and, under VERITAS, Council members from other districts would have no reason to give that support. To put it bluntly, if a Council member gets no votes from the Pico Neighborhood, he or she has no reason to vote for measures that would benefit the Pico Neighborhood.
   If the VERITAS backers truly wanted to make our electoral process more democratic, they would have proposed a campaign reform initiative, rather than this clumsy, convoluted vehicle which diminishes the democratic process.