HOA Law Blog
When SB 323 took effect on January 1, 2020, it greatly modified the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act’s election procedures, including timelines for conducting an election. In the process, it inadvertently created a conflict in the law regarding recall elections that community associations have been struggling with ever since.
Corporations Code §§ 7510 and 7511 state that when 5% of the members of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation submit a written petition to the board of directors to request a special meeting of the members (which is basically the process for initiating a recall election), the board is required, within 20 days after it receives the petition, to schedule the special meeting on a date that is not fewer than 35 and not more than 90 days after the date it received the petition.
However, Civil Code § 5100 states that notwithstanding any other law (including the Corporations Code), community association elections legally requiring a member vote, including election and removal of directors, must be held by secret ballot in accordance with the Davis-Stirling Act’s election procedures, and Civil Code § 5115 provides a timeline for such elections that is at least 90 days.
California community association attorneys, managers and others in the industry have differing opinions on how to properly and legally proceed with uncontested elections — elections in which the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of board positions needed to be filled. Prior to 2020 when the election process and procedures were changed, the civil code did not expressly address voting by acclamation. Since 2020, the law has changed, permitting a vote by acclamation in narrow circumstances. Specifically, if an association is over six thousand units. We have heard that some attorneys are telling clients that they can still hold a vote by acclamation if their association has less than 6,000 units. We disagree.
I first heard about voter suppression in law school, where I learned that the United States has a long tradition of threatening voter access. I thought it was a thing of the past. But I have been surprised by recent news stories that tell us that there are real efforts in 2020 to make it harder for some Americans to vote. For example, a Memphis, Tenn., poll worker turned away people wearing Black Lives Matter T-shirts, saying they couldn’t vote. Robocalls warned thousands of Michigan residents that mail-in voting could put their personal information in the hands of debt collectors and police. In Georgia, officials cut polling places by nearly 10%, even as the number of voters surged by nearly 2 million. 
It is an old problem. Many California community associations cannot motivate their owners to participate or even vote at association elections. We have had clients that have been unable to obtain a quorum for director elections for more than 20 years. Even my own association recently reported a failure to achieve a quorum and decided not even to bother holding a second meeting, knowing that the chances of obtaining a quorum was remote.
Every board of directors for every condo or homeowners association has been there; the board wants to do something that it should be “obvious” that the association needs, such as a needed capital improvement to the common area, or an important amendment to the CC&Rs, but cannot muster up the required amount of homeowner votes to approve this “obvious” need. Whether this failure of approval results from the homeowners’ true opposition to the proposed change or whether it stems from owner apathy, a recent California court decision has made it clear that when the board advocates for votes for the approval of whatever is on the ballot, the board is a candidate, and as such, must provide equal access to media and the common area for others to advocate their positions on the ballot measure. 
California community association attorneys, managers and others in the industry have differing opinions on how to properly and legally proceed with uncontested elections – elections in which the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of board positions needed to be filled. Prior to 2006 when the election process and procedures were changed and secret elections were mandated, the answer was simple. No election was required, and candidates were deemed the elected board by way of acclamation. Since 2006, the law has changed, and elections must be held by way of a secret ballot process. Some attorneys know that the days of deeming the board elected by acclamation are over; others think the opposite.
Many California community associations have a difficult time achieving a quorum to hold board elections or to vote on other important association matters. Some condo and planned development homeowner associations have not been able to hold a vote for a new Board of Directors for many years because they require a quorum of at least 50% of the owners. And unlike many other community associations, they do not have a reduced quorum provision in their bylaws that allows them to hold the meeting and take the vote of the owners with 25% of the owners constituting a quorum. Some associations cannot even achieve a quorum with just 25% of the owners.
CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee announced this week that it is sponsoring a bill that was introduced into the California Assembly, authored by assembly member Norma Torres, that would make electronic balloting or voting an option for California’s common interest developments. It is about time.