Is SLO’s switch to ‘single-shot’ voting a bold model — or a potential disaster? | Opinion

In what appears to be a first for California, the city of San Luis Obispo is limiting voters to choosing just one candidate for City Council, instead of the usual two.

It’s a major change for a city that has, for more than 100 years, used a traditional, at-large election model, which allows voters to cast as many votes as there are open seats. But starting in November, voting for two candidates will get both votes thrown out.

City leaders defend the change by pointing out that more than 50% of SLO voters already “undervote” by selecting just one candidate.

Also called “bullet” or “single-shot” voting, it’s an acknowledged strategy that boosts one candidate’s chance of success while denying a vote to a rival.

Except now, voters won’t have a choice.

SLO among hundreds of California cities sued over voting rights

This is not something city officials necessarily wanted to do. Rather, they saw it as their best way out of a legal dilemma.

Like hundreds of other California cities, San Luis Obispo was threatened with a voting rights lawsuit alleging that its at-large elections violated California’s Voting Rights Act (CVRA) by diluting the voting power of an underrepresented racial group — in this case, Latino voters.

In voting rights cases, the suggested remedy is to create separate voting districts, which many California municipalities, large and small, have already done.

And it’s not just cities; school districts and specials districts that oversee water, fire protection, parks and health care have carved their jurisdictions into districts after being threatened with lawsuits.

Either that, or spend vast amounts to take the case to trial. (The city of Santa Monica has invested $14.4 million so far.)

Voting districts offer ‘safe harbor’

Voting rights cases have become so ubiquitous that they’ve been compared to the rash of Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits targeting businesses.

Most agencies take the path of least resistance. Upon receipt of a demand letter, they agree to create voting districts and to pay $30,000 in attorney fees. Not only does that solve the immediate problem, it provides immunity from future lawsuits — a provision known as “safe harbor.”

The city of San Luis Obispo refused to buckle.

While the liberal city is committed to racial diversity, it does not believe that voting districts will give Latino voters — who make up roughly 14% of the city’s voting population — more of a voice in elections.

City officials say the Latino population is spread out, making it difficult to create even a single district with a sizable chunk of Latino voters. One proposed map did create a district with a 20% Latino population, but it was weirdly configured and obviously gerrymandered, according to Mayor Erica Stewart.

That does not let the city off the hook, however.

As the Voting Rights Act states, “The fact that members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated does not preclude a finding of racially polarized voting.”

After closed-door meetings, a settlement is announced

To avoid costly litigation, city officials spent months negotiating a settlement during a series of closed-door meetings — meaning there was little transparency.

Under terms of the settlement, SLO will conduct single-vote elections for two cycles — in 2026 and 2028 — and after that, the results will be analyzed. If the one-vote system is judged ineffective, voting districts could be back on the table.

The city also agreed to pay $75,000 in attorneys fees. And it has allocated $120,000 to an intensive public information campaign to make voters aware of the change.

A sensible way forward or a disaster in the making?

Depending on who’s doing the talking, the single-vote election is either a great idea that could become a model for other cities, or a catastrophic decision that has the potential to empower fringe ideological groups. Because votes for mainstream candidates will be split, opponents say that could result in the election of unqualified candidates who do not represent the majority of voters.

So far, voting districts have a mixed track record in California.

In some places, they’ve led to greater diversity.

In the city of Santa Maria, for example, for decades council seats were almost always occupied by white men — even women had a hard time winning — but that changed dramatically after the city switched to voting districts in 2017 in response to threat of a lawsuit. Now, three of four council districts are majority Latino, and three councilmembers and the mayor are Latino.

But especially in smaller communities, voting districts have brought unintended consequences.

In some instances, they’ve empowered ideological minorities, rather than the underrepresented racial groups the Voting Rights Act aims to protect. In others, districts created have been so small that no candidates have stepped forward — or unfit candidates have been elected simply because theirs were the only names on the ballot.

So far, SLO voters have been mostly silent

Since word about the new system is just starting to filter out, public reaction has been muted. That’s expected to change as we get closer to the November election.

City officials “are going to get an earful from the voters,” predicted John Ashbaugh, a former council member who has been closely following the situation and was one of the first to speak out against the single-vote solution.

He has other ideas: Add more seats to the council, and/or create two large districts in the city.

Others have raised the idea of ranked-choice voting.

Instead of limiting voters to choosing just one candidate, under ranked choice they get to mark their preferences: first, second, third, etc. If no one candidate receives a majority of votes after a first count, the weakest candidate is weeded out and those votes are redistributed.

The City Council rejected that idea — at least partly because County Clerk/Recorder Elaina Cano indicated there would not be enough time to prepare.

Yet if other cities have implemented it, why not San Luis Obispo, especially if it could help get more Latino candidates elected while also giving all voters a say in how to fill two council seats, instead of just one?

State lawmakers have a role to play

San Luis Obispo deserves credit for not taking the easy way out by drawing up districts and plunking down $30,000.

But going forward, there should be a community-wide conversation before the city settles on a permanent solution.

Residents may see advantages in switching to voting districts, especially as the city’s Latino population grows. Or they might prefer ranked-choice voting. Or adding more council seats.

Any such change will almost certainly mean that voters will have to take the initiative by gathering signatures and placing a measure on the ballot. That’s good. There should be buy-in by a majority of voters.

But that’s not the only path forward.

This is not just a San Luis Obispo issue, cities and other government agencies up and down the state have wrestled with it.

The state Legislature should take a closer look at whether a one-size-fits-all solution is the best way to deal with unfair and unequal representation.

Allowing lawyers to force agencies to create voting districts, whether they make sense or not, is not good governance.

It’s blackmail, and it’s past time for lawmakers to intervene.