Minutes - Charter Commission - 11/30/1995

Home

COMMISSION BUSINESS Case #1: Considerations Pro and Con in Re-Election by "Ward" versus "At Large" and "Primary" versus "No Primary" Chairperson Steffen explained that he will attempt to present arguments for and against ward and at large systems and also primary versus no primary election. He indicated he has not yet made up his mind which would be the better system. It appears the arguments in favor of a ward system is 1) The candidates are more likely to get to know more limited number of constituents; 2) constituents are more likely to get to know and to identify with a single, more local council representative; 3) less costly election process for the candidates; 4) more assurance of "geographic" representation and distribution; 5) more likely to reflect specific "needs" of the limited geographic area; and 6) eliminates potential for one populated area to "pack" the Council by running and electing a slate of candidates from that area. Arguments in favor of the at large system are as follows: 1) less likelihood of parochial, geographic, voting on matters requiring City-wide concern; all Councilmembers represent all citizens; 2) broad geographic area requires candidates to "get to know" the whole City and the whole City's problems; 3) no need for the City to create and regularly update ward lines that are consistent with voting precinct and larger government district lines; and 4) less election expense for the City; simpler ballots; fewer ballots needed than with wards. Commissioner Kiefer suggested there would be benefit to a combination at large/ward Council; maybe elect three by district/ward and one at large. The Mayor would serve at large. Chairperson Steffen felt there may be complications with who's term is up and when. We have to deal with this question in terms of the electoral processing procedures. If any changes are to be made, they have to made early in the year. He reiterated that he does not have a strong personal opinion on this. With respect to primary versus no primary: the argument in favor of a primary would be: 1) likelihood for more representative results because the smaller, final field will result in a plurality for the final winners; 2) opportunity for more candidate recognition due to longer, double campaigning periods; 3) cost of longer campaign and need to win both elections may discourage "lark" filing; and 4) opportunity for "head to head" f'mai campaign strategy to create more defined and interesting campaigns. Arguments in favor of just the general election include: 1) less cost to City for single City candidate ballots; 2) less cost for candidates to mn in shorter, single election process; and 3) less potential for low turnout primary to create results favored by militant special interests rather than broad based general voter interests. Commissioner Netzloff suggested that with a primary, it's possible that some people may not vote in the general election if "their candidate" does not make it. Chairperson Steffen reminded the Commission that there have been previous discussions pertaining to the term of the mayor. He remembered an almost unanimous expression that the term should go from two to four years. He suggested that maybe a primary could include just the mayoral candidate. He cautioned that we are dealing with people's political life. "I have not talked to the current mayor about this. I do not know if he's planning to mn again". Maybe a change in term will affect who runs for Mayor and added that he does not think that Council can change the terms - only the voters can. Mr. Schroeder commented that if the Mayor's term is changed starting with the next election, you would probably want to make it so the majority of the Council is elected when the majority of the people will be voting. Charter Commission/November 30, 1995 Page 3 of 6