Is it time for uniformity in ballot statement rules?

Did you know that the rules for how you prepare your ballot statement is different all over the state? In California at least. The Election Code only prescribes that:

       ELE §13307. (a) (1) Each candidate for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency, 
       including any city, county, city and county, or district, may prepare a candidate’s statement 
       on an appropriate form provided by the elections official. The statement may include the 
       name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description, of no more than 200 
       words, of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself 
       or herself. However, the governing body of the local agency may authorize an increase 
       in the limitations on words for the statement from 200 to 400 words. The statement shall 
       not include the party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan 
       political organizations. 

This means different counties apply different standards above and beyond this, which sometimes come into conflict with the law. For instance, in Santa Clara you must indent paragraphs but not have spaces between them. You also cannot have more than 22 lines. Other counties format the statements themselves and don't worry about the lines. In Marin County, you may not indent and you must have no more than 4 paragraphs. If you have more, they simply run a few together.

Most Counties prohibit italics, all CAPS, highlighting and bullet points.  But even within counties, different standards prevail depending on the election and the official administering it, from what I gathered looking over some recent published statements.

This can be confusing to a novice, or even experienced, candidate, who try to submit a carefully worded statement only to find he has run afoul of some arcane rule or another.

I think it might be time for some uniform rules for all Counties to follow. Until then, know the rules in your County well ahead of time, then craft your statement accordingly.

Perez Fatal Mistake? No Candidate's Statement in Voter Guide

Amazing. John Perez, Speaker of the California Assembly, Emeritus, who has now dragged the Controller's election out beyond mid-July because of his ill-advised recount, failed to submit a candidate's statement for publication in the voter information guide sent to every voter in the State.

True that many voters don't read them, but equally true that some voters read only those statements before making up their mind who to vote for. Could this be the main reason State Board of Equalization member Betty T. Yee, eked out a scant 481 more votes than Perez, despite being outspent three times over? I've seen this simple mistake made by others and the results are clear. No statement shows a disdain for the voters and they may well show a disdain for the candidate on election day.

So speculated Jim Miller of the Sacramento Bee yesterday, also noting that only those candidates who agree to abide by a voluntary spending limit of no more than $5.44 million in a statewide race are eligible for the statements. Interestingly Perez did not appear to come near that mark in his Primary race spending, but his $1.7 million spent through the last reporting period of May 17th was close to treble the amount spent by Yee to that date.

So, instead of laying out $6,250 for a ballot statement, Perez is spending hundreds of thousands on a recount to try to scare up 482 votes and beat Yee long after election Day. This is hubris at its most unattractive. This is not what we expect from our Democratic Party.

And apparently not what the  Democratic Party itself expects either, as they have accepted Yee as the winner and endorsed Democrat in the race, and put $50,000 into her bank account to help pay for her expenses associated with the recount.

Stay tuned.