Measure B on San Mateo County’s November ballot proposes to change a system for electing supervisors that proponents say essentially guarantees victory for incumbents and has produced only two minorities in the past two decades.
But opponents of the measure argue that the current system of electing supervisors countywide rather than by district works well and forces supervisors to consider the needs of all residents, not just those in the geographical areas they represent.
“I think it’s a governance issue,” Supervisor Carole Groom said Thursday in explaining why she opposes Measure B and signed the ballot argument against it. “You really do have to know as much about East Palo Alto as Hillsborough, as much about the coastside as Belmont. If you run countywide you are forced to understand the different geographies and different people who live in this county.”
Of California’s 58 counties, San Mateo is the only one that does not elect its supervisors by district. County voters rejected ballot measures in 1978 and 1980 that would have made the switch to district elections.
Supervisor Dave Pine, who is campaigning for Measure B, disputes the suggestion that district representatives can’t consider the needs of everyone in the county while representing their own constituents. He notes that most board decisions concern the entire county and rarely a specific area. “And if it does come up, I think it’s totally appropriate for a representative of a district to advocate for that district’s interests,” he said Thursday.
At-large elections discourage potential candidates because many simply can’t afford to run countywide campaigns, Pine said, and that gives incumbents a big advantage.
To underscore his point, Pine notes that an incumbent has never been unseated in the last 30 years in San Mateo County. And even when seats opened up because the incumbents were termed out or left, there was little to no competition half the time, Pine said. Jerry Hill, Mark Church and Adrienne Tissier all ran unopposed for open supervisor seats when they won their first terms, in 1998, 2000 and 2004, respectively.
“A countywide system creates enormous barriers for candidates to step forward and run because of the number of voters that have to be reached and the cost involved,” Pine said. “In a district system you can mount a grassroots campaign, no question about it, because the voter population drops from 330,000 to 65,000.
“When you don’t have elections you don’t have a dialogue about the issues,” he added.
But the last three races to fill the seats of Rich Gordon, Mark Church and now Rose Jacobs Gibson all have drawn multiple candidates. And for some of the candidates, campaign fundraising soared into the six-figure realm.
Running for a seat on the board of supervisors should be difficult, Groom says.
“Democracy is not supposed to be a snap of the fingers,” she said. “If you have to run a campaign you have to work hard at it. And that includes raising money.”
According to a lawsuit filed in April 2011 by civil rights attorneys on behalf of nine residents, the at-large system violates the California Voting Rights Act because it dilutes the voting power of Latino and Asian-American residents, who make up about half of the county’s population.
That case will go to trial in February. County Counsel John Beiers has said the current system can be legally defended because there’s no evidence it diminishes minority votes.
In the last 20 years, there has only been one Latino, former supervisor Ruben Barrales, and one African American, Jacobs Gibson, on the board. There have been no Asian Americans.
Jacobs Gibson will term out in December.
Groom said she expects to see more minority representation on the board in the future because most supervisors started their political careers on city councils, school boards or commissions and those bodies are becoming increasingly diverse.
“They will be the next people to run for the board of supervisors,” Groom said.
Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com; follow her at twitter.com/ bonnieeslinger.
