Change sought in election of mayor

The return to direct vote wouldn’t happen until ’32

Less than two years after La Verne transitioned away from direct mayoral elections, some city leaders have begun an effort to put that power back into the hands of voters.

On Monday, the City Council voted 3-2 to initiate the process of drafting a ballot measure asking voters in 2024 or later whether they want to reestablish a directly elected mayor for a term of either two or four years.

If approved, however, it would not take effect until the 2032 election cycle due to redistricting mandates. This means the mayor’s seat would continue to be rotated among councilmembers until at least 2030.

The council’s action Monday does not finalize anything but rather pushes the city attorney and staffers to return with a draft ballot measure for consideration and possible referral to voters in March 2024.

Councilmembers Steve Johnson and Meshal “Kash” Kashifalghita and Mayor Tim Hepburn voted in favor of pursuing a draft ballot measure, while Councilmembers Rick Crosby and Wendy Lau dissented.

The council action is a result of the city moving away from at-large to district-based voting in 2021, a change spurred by potential lawsuits under the California Voting Rights Act. The city is now divided into five districts. Each voter within a district casts one vote for a candidate residing within that district, leaving the mayoral position up to the City Council.

The issue became a flashpoint at meetings during the redistricting process, with many residents upset about losing a directly elected mayor.

It was also a campaign promise by Johnson — who requested the item be placed on Monday’s agenda — to reverse the changes to the city’s elections.

“Without the vote of the people, the council changed it to five districts and no elected mayor, I want to make it right again,” Johnson said at the meeting. “I want La Verne residents to have a say and put it on the ballot.”

If the council adds the measure to the 2024 ballot, which will include council races in Districts 3

and 5, the election would cost the city an estimated $100,000 more than originally anticipated. Additionally, if voters choose a twoyear term for the at-large mayor, costs would increase approximately $100,000 per election, according to a city staff report. Voter outreach and demographic work would also increase costs, according to the report.

Timing and costs were reason enough for Crosby and Lau to step back from committing to a

ballot measure.

“The expectations of our residents would be the mayoral installment would be right away,” Crosby said, referencing the gap between a 2024 election and the eight-year wait before the change would be implemented in 2032.

Lau reasoned the move would be “premature” at this time and associated the costs with such action as essentially taking an employee’s annual salary.

Both pushed instead for taking up the measure closer to the 2030 census for a better gauge of whether residents want to change the city’s election.

Changes to the election process could again expose the city to legal challenges under the CVRA, according to the staff report, due to the need to reduce the number of council districts to four to maintain a fivemember governing body.

The city also has the option of creating six districts, for a total seven-member City Council, to reduce legal challenges but “that may not be a practical option for a city of our size,” the staff report read.

Regardless, a demographer for redistricting in 2032 will again need to be utilized as required by law every 10 years.