A court decision this week will likely resolve an error by Oakland city officials that otherwise could have muddled the outcome of a November election initiative to pay for more police officers.
It is the latest in a series of mix-ups in Oakland that have delayed candidate filings, thrown election outcomes into question and led to lawsuits.
The ballot initiative, Measure NN, would double the amount charged by an existing tax on land parcels from $99 to $198 per year for a single-family plot of land. It would also extend the tax by another eight-and-a-half years.
With more money, the city would raise the minimum baseline of sworn police officers from 678 to 700, establish a new budget auditor to track how the tax revenue is spent and revamp a commission that would help develop a “four-year violence reduction plan” for Oakland.
The tax requires approval from a simple majority of voters, as the law dictates for taxes like Measure NN that originated from petitions containing residents’ signatures. But the city’s final ballot language incorrectly described the measure as needing a two-thirds “yes” votes.
There was another inaccuracy: The finished ballot language stated that the tax would last until the end of 2034, but in reality it would be in effect only until Dec. 31, 2033.
By the time the city attorney’s office noticed the errors, it was too late for edits — prompting city clerk Asha Reed to file a lawsuit against the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, which will conduct the election and count the eventual votes.
Judge Michael Markham of the county’s superior court is expected by Friday to order a change to the language, allowing Oakland to avoid yet another chaotic election debacle.
Oakland’s elections have been plagued by issues for the past several years, including a very similar scenario in 2018 involving another parcel tax, Measure AA, which received 62% voter support, short of the two-thirds requirement listed on the ballot.
But the city council approved Measure AA anyway, relying on a state Supreme Court ruling in 2017 that struck a distinction between taxes placed on the ballot by government agencies and those placed on the ballot by signature-gathering drives.
The city stopped collecting the tax after being sued over its decision, but resumed after a state appeals court in 2021 determined the tax could be reinstated.
“They were going to make the same mistake all over again,” said Jason Bezis, an East Bay lawyer who along with fellow attorney Marleen Sacks first alerted the city to the new election error.
More recent election drama has involved a dispute last year over voting boundaries, a ranked-choice voting snafu in 2022 that led to the wrong candidate being declared the winner and a filing deadline controversy that nearly prevented now-Mayor Sheng Thao from running for her current term.
Measure NN’s predecessor, Measure Z, was approved by 77% of voters in 2014.
The petition-gathering drive this time around generated little public fanfare. It was led by Oaklanders Together – For a Safer Oakland campaign, which by the end of June had raised $638,000, and whose principal officer is local nonprofit leader Selena Wilson.
The city’s ongoing financial crisis has crunched staffing across the board, with this year’s approved budget slicing police officer positions to 678 over the next year — mainly through retirements and other departures, and not layoffs.
Currently, the department has 694 sworn officers, though the number actively on the street is far fewer, because somewhere around 80 cops are currently out on administrative or medical leave.
Shomik Mukherjee is a reporter covering Oakland. Call or text him at 510-905-5495 or email him at smukherjee@bayareanewsgroup.com.
