Letter to the Editor:
ANCA Burbank understands the dilemma faced by the city due to the lawsuit settlement but also recognizes the opportunity to change and enhance its election system.
First, ANCA Burbank believes that districting is not suitable for Burbank. Districting is best suited for cities with large populations, such as the City of Los Angeles, which has a population of nearly 4 million and 15 council members, where dividing representation makes sense. Burbank, by contrast, has a population of only 107,000 and a comparatively small geographic footprint. Districting would also create division within the city, as council members would compete for city resources solely on behalf of their own constituents, with no accountability to the rest of the community—undermining the sense of unity that Burbank strives to uphold.
Second, the four sequencing options proposed by staff are overly complicated and will create significant confusion for the public during elections—as we have already witnessed during the BUSD elections.
ANCA Burbank proposes a fifth option that we believe is less confusing and better reflects the intent and spirit of democracy. We recommend eliminating the staggered election system in favor of simultaneous elections, in which all 5 council seats, the city clerk seat, and the city treasurer seat are on the ballot every 4 years during presidential election cycles, regardless of whether the districting measure on the November ballot passes or not.
The main arguments for staggered elections, experience and institutional knowledge, are moot nowadays. Reasonable people would argue about what experience means, if it is the right experience needed and if it comports to their values. As for the institutional knowledge, that may have been true 30 years ago when internet was in its infancy and knowledge was hard to get. Nowadays, that institutional knowledge is readily available through digitized city records and recorded city meetings, which are available online, in addition to city staff who have been serving the city for decades.
Holding simultaneous elections every four years would save the city thousands, if not millions, of dollars, in addition to reducing the significant staff and city clerk time spent managing elections—a process that, as we know, begins at least seven months before Election Day. Furthermore, holding elections every two years has proven counterproductive and has discouraged voter participation due to fatigue. Case in point: voter turnout during the presidential elections of 2020 and 2024 was 69.7% and 70.1% respectively, while turnout in the non-presidential elections of 2018 and 2022 was only 47.5% and 46.5% respectively. This means that every two years, council members are elected by fewer than half of eligible voters—a result that does not reflect the true intent and spirit of democracy.
Conducting elections every four years would not only ensure the highest voter participation but also give constituents the ability to replace the entire city council if they determine that the council is not adequately serving the city. Under the current staggered system, in cases of poor council performance, voters can only replace half of the council members at a time and must wait another two years to address the remaining seats—an arrangement that undermines the spirit and function of democracy.
To achieve a four-year election cycle, we recommend the following steps:
- Postponing the November elections and extending the terms of the current three council members, city clerk, and city treasurer by two years until 2028. There is already a precedent in Burbank for such action: when the city consolidated its elections in 2018, then-council members’ terms were extended by nearly two years to align them with statewide elections.
- Amending the city charter to require that all city elections—including all five council seats, the city clerk, and the city treasurer—be held every four years during presidential election cycles beginning in 2028 and thereafter, when voter participation is consistently highest.
ANCA is fully aware of the optics surrounding council members who are up for election in November voting to extend their own terms by two years. However, elected officials are chosen to make difficult decisions in the best interest of the community as a whole—not to protect their personal image or optics. If certain council members are more concerned with appearances than with sound governance, we respectfully suggest that public office may not be the most fitting arena for them.
Sarkis Simonian
ANCA Burbank
