In the latest chapter of Sacramento’s ongoing effort to chip away at local governance, Senator Tom Umberg’s SB 249 proposes to override county-level decision-making by mandating that all county boards of education elections be held during the statewide general election in November of even-numbered years. While this might sound like a harmless administrative adjustment, it is a brazen overreach that sacrifices both fiscal responsibility and the principle of local control.
SB 249 affects five California counties—Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Alameda—by stripping them of their authority to determine how and when to conduct their board of education elections. All five currently have the power to modify their election timelines through their county boards of supervisors. Yet instead of allowing these counties to continue making informed, localized decisions, Sacramento politicians are once again pushing a top-down, one-size-fits-all mandate.
This is not the state’s first attempt to meddle in this arena. It’s the third attempt in as many years. SB 286 (2022) and SB 907 (2023), aimed at Orange County alone, were defeated—one in the Assembly and the other by the Governor’s veto. And rightly so. Governor Newsom’s message when he vetoed SB 907 couldn’t be clearer: “State circumvention of these local procedures… should be avoided absent extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, I am not convinced those circumstances exist in the context of this legislation.” What has changed since then? Nothing—except that now the state is expanding its reach to four more counties.
Let’s be clear: this bill is not about increasing voter participation or streamlining governance. Just like its predecessors, SB 249 is a political maneuver disguised as reform and comes with a hefty price tag. The California State Senate Appropriations Committee estimated that implementing this law in Orange County would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Multiply that by five, and we’re talking about a significant hit to the State General Fund—all for a change that local governments could make themselves if necessary. And remember, all this in the face of several economists predicting a looming budget cliff that could deprive Californians of the most basic goods and services.
Beyond the financial irresponsibility, there are real logistical complications. Additional ballot cards, reprogramming voting systems, staff retraining, and voter outreach efforts—all of this takes time, money, and resources that counties are not currently equipped to spend on a mandate they didn’t ask for. All this time, effort, and resources are for a problem we don’t have and don’t want to be solved.
This certainly begs the question, if the Governor and Senate Appropriations Committee determined this is bad policy for one County, how can you be good policy for five counties?
It’s the apex of irony that a bill supposedly aimed at improving elections is being pushed forward in such an undemocratic fashion. First, the bill was a classic “gut and amend.” That means the original bill text was changed entirely, and there’s no real relationship to the first introduced text. Sacramento’s version of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Why do that? Second, it bypasses voters completely. Finally, we must ask ourselves, what is Sacramento’s obsession with local elections? Californians elected our representatives to improve our lives and our children. Have we solved homelessness– exorbitant gas prices — low test scores— fentanyl? No. The message to counties is loud and clear: The Sacramento elitist class doesn’t trust you to run your elections. As stated differently, your votes are just wrong! And that’s a dangerous precedent to set—not just for school boards but for every other aspect of local governance. As the song says, “… You can even run your own life. I’ll be darned if you’ll run mine.”
If SB 249 passes, what’s next? Will the state begin dictating how school boards spend their budgets? Who can they hire? What curriculum must they teach? Local autonomy is not a partisan issue—it’s a foundational principle of good governance. Voters in Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Alameda counties know what they are doing and want to be left well enough alone. Californians deserve leaders who respect the boundaries of their authority, primarily when local mechanisms already exist to enact the kinds of changes SB 249 prescribes. Instead of repeating the mistakes of SB 286 and SB 907, our legislators should heed the Governor’s previous warning and reject this bill.
Let’s keep education decisions close to the communities they serve and reject this bill. Three strikes, and you’re out.
___
Jon Fleischman is the longtime Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics.