Local government officials are not allowed to use taxpayer dollars to explicitly advocate for or against a ballot measure or candidate, but they can provide residents with informational materials about issues on the ballot.
“This doesn’t even do that — it doesn’t mention the measure,” Williams said. “This is talking about the federal cuts, and we unquestionably have the ability to do that, but more importantly, the responsibility.”
California’s Supreme Court has ruled that judges should evaluate claims of illegal electioneering by analyzing whether the “style, tenor, and timing” of the communication makes it campaign-related or informational.
Davina Hurt, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, said the Santa Clara County mailer “gets right up to the borderline” between ethical and unethical behavior.
“The timing and the tone truly matter,” she said. “And here, there are definitely language and words used that make you question whether this is more advocacy rather than informing.”
Hurt, the former mayor of Belmont, said it is also important to consider whether similar community updates are regularly sent to residents.
Williams said the county has generally provided updates alongside property tax bills. But he said the unprecedented nature of the federal cuts required broader communication — including the creation of a web page with information on the funding loss and multiple town hall meetings.
Still, Hurt said it’s important for government officials to take extra care when their messaging overlaps with an election issue.
“Even the perception of advocacy undermines confidence in the process,” she said.