HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 5, 1988 (55)CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 1988
DIAL -A -RIDE FOR
VOTERS NOT APPROVED City Attorney hlcNatt made the following report regarding
"Dial -A -Ride" transportation for voters:
CC -18
CC -50(a) In conjunction with the City's consolidation of municipal
CC -50(b) elections with the general election, the Council has
directed that measures to increase voter turnout be
explored. Among other things, it has been proposed that
Dial -A -Ride vehicles be utilized to provide transportation
for voters to and frcm the polls on election day.
In researching the legalities of this proposal, it appears
that no State law would be violated. While Article 16, §6
of the California Constitution prohibits making a gift of
public funds to any individual, i t has been held that use
of such funds for a "public purpose" is proper, and that
the determination of what i s a "public purpose" is
generally a matter for legislative discretion (Alameda
_Cannty . Janssen (1940) 16 Cal.2d 276). Although
providing free transportation to voters would obviously
bestow some benefit on individuals, if the Council
determined that such action was in the public interest and
was thus a "public purpose", the action could be upheld.
That is not to say that some Council candidate might not
attempt to allege that such a plan favors incumbents who
bestowed such a benefit, but this argument appears rather
weak .
In addition, the proposed action does not appear to violate
the provisions of Election Code §§29621 or 29622, which
generally prohibit gifts or payments to voters for voting.
The essence of these statutes is that some benefit, gift or
consideration was given or promised to a voter to:
1. Refrain from voting
Remain away from the polls entirely
3. Vote for a particular person or measure.
A long as no election materials or advertisements were
attached to or located in the Dial -A -Ride vehicles, urging
a vote for a particular person or measure, the provisions
of Election Code §§29621 and 29622 would probably not apply.
This proposal was also discussed with Paul Valle-Riestra,
Staff Attorney for the League of California Cities, and
with Deputy Secretary of State Deborah Seiler, both of whom
were unaware of any reason under State law why it would be
prohibited.