In a recent election in a small town in Iowa, a man ran for his town’s school board and received zero votes. That’s right, he didn’t even vote for himself.*
No worries. Turns out the other members of the school board appointed him anyway!
But here’s a question for all our Charter Commission candidates and, of course, every one else who wants to weigh in. Which Newton election rules (see article 8), if any, do you think need to be changed or reconsidered?
By the way candidates, please don’t respond by saying “I’m keeping an open mind about all aspects of the charter…blah, blah, blah.” If that’s everyone’s answer to everything during this campaign, how are voters possibly going to be able choose among you?
*Thanks for CC candidate Karen Manning for calling our attention to this story.
I’ll start with something missed from the last Charter Commission. We should add the 25 signature requirement for Area Council member nominations. Sec 8-3 b.
But I have an open mind on this 🙂
A number of residents have raised the issue of special elections (under what circumstances should we have them?) and I consider it an issue the commission should address.
A second issue to be considered is staggered elections (a portion of the council runs each election cycle) so that voters have a better opportunity to get to know a smaller pool of candidates. If voters have more information about the candidates on the ballot, maybe they will turn out in larger numbers.
I’d have no problem increasing the number of signatures needed to place one’s name on the ballot. I collected 1oo signatures in 2 days. Is that standard too low? I’m not sure.
However, the specifics of these issues need to be considered within the context of the whole charter. Each issue is a piece of a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle (okay, a 250-piece puzzle) and we need to make sure the pieces fit together as a whole.
I do appreciate that you’re asking for specific information about issues the commission will likely address.
Term limits
The size of the Board
Figuring out how to create alternate terms to make it easier on voters on who to vote for
clarify the language to the charter so situations like J.Yeo and Susan Basham don’t occur again.
Make a tough recall provision
I’d be interested to see the position of mayor be elected by ranked preference voting, rather than by a very low turnout preliminary and then a top-two runoff. Everyone would just rank the mayoral candidates 1 through 5 (or however many). Conceptually it’s pretty easy for voters to understand and it’s a system that works relatively well for a position that is a single executive who’s supposed to represent as many people as possible (not just the 51% or whatever who vote for him/her). No one’s vote is “wasted” and there’s less “strategic” voting. It’s especially well suited to a nonpartisan race.
For those unfamiliar with the actual balloting mechanics of that system: The candidate with the fewest 1s would be eliminated and those ballots would be redistributed to the second choices, and so on until there were only 2 candidates left and one of them wins a majority. (This elimination & re-assigning process can happen pretty quickly with a computer crunching the scanned ballots.) Generally, voters understand what the system does even if they don’t necessarily follow all the details of how it does it.
There’s nothing democratic about uncontested elections. Adding “none of the above” to every local ballot would not only give voters the choice they are entitled to, it would also insure incumbents are held accountable for their actions in office.
We should review solutions to the “5 candidates for 4 spots” dilemma that recently happened in the ward 2 at large alderman race. It is a waste of resources to have a citywide election because there is one too many candidates in one race. Whether we can provide flexibility for more candidates to go to the general election or we consider ranked preference voting, we should consider and then recommend a more efficient solution.
We should also consider ways to better align special elections to prevent multiple elections in the same year where possible. Furthermore, we should consider whether there are other options available in special elections where only one candidate qualifies for the ballot. (Would want to make sure there are no constitutional issues with giving an office to a candidate without actually having an election)
I am intrigued by staggered elections. I think it is worth reviewing and might be one way to get at the frustrations people feel with so many races on the ballot each year. It also might give challengers more of a chance to break through the noise created when 25 races are being run simultaneously. Definitely worthy of review.
I’m open to raising the number of signatures required, but don’t feel strongly about it.
As Jane said, the specifics of these proposals need to be considered in the context of the overall system. We need to make sure we’re creating a cohesive set of rules that makes sense and works well together.
I think Tom raises some good points as well, but to prevent this from becoming a thesis, have limited my response to charter updates that I believe would properly be contained within Section 8, as Greg mentioned.
Many city charters in Mass. require that candidates for at-large positions collect a certain percentage of their signatures from each ward. I find that interesting, but I wouldn’t support that change. I don’t think there is a lot of value added for the extra headache associated with collecting. I would, however, like to discuss the number of signatures required, as I think our current hurdle is low.
I have thought a lot about our existing preliminary system. I come down on the the side that argues that democracy isn’t necessarily cheap, so I support our current method.
This year’s preliminary was somewhat predictable. But imagine an at-large alderman election with two open seats and 5 candidates, or a school committee open seat with 3 or 4 candidates. I want people serving who received more than 25 or 30% of the vote.
Calling all lawyers: What does this mean? It is the last sentence of Section 2-5 of the City Charter: “If no incumbent alderman at large from the ward in which the vacancy exists is elected at such election for such office, the candidate who receives the highest number of votes shall be deemed to be elected to the seat in which the vacancy exists and shall serve as aforesaid.”
Where does it say an incumbent would be elected? Isn’t the candidate who receives the highest number of votes always deemed to be elected? Help!!!!
I would say that the Charter should be written in understandable language, using charts if necessary!
Sallee,
I think it says, when it comes to filling in vacancies if incumbent doesn’t win, then the next highest vote getter wins.
Sallee – The latest trend is for a charter to be written within the legal parameters of state law but more accessible to the citizenry in its language.
@Tom: You said: “If incumbent doesn’t win, then the next highest vote getter wins” The incumbent would only win if he/she were the highest vote getter. It can’t possibly mean that! Whatever it means it is clear as mud! It has to do with finishing a term and taking on the next term, but is not intelligible!
English, please. Clear English!
@ Sallee – In the very specific scenario where at a general election there is a vacancy in the position of Alderman-at-Large for a Ward and the second, incumbent, Alderman-at-Large for that Ward is not re-elected for the following term (both of the elected Aldermen-at-Large to be sworn in in January are new) the sentence clarifies that it is the individual that received the highest number of votes that will be sworn in immediately after the election to fill the vacancy. The one with the second highest number of votes (although also elected) will wait until January to start their term.
Thanks David.
It looks like it’s reduncant and thats how I read it…I believe it’s in the special election section. read it through, it sounds redundant.
“If no incumbent alderman at large from the ward in which the vacancy exists is elected at such election for such office, the candidate who receives the highest number of votes shall be deemed to be elected to the seat in which the vacancy exists and shall serve as aforesaid”
If no incumbent alderman at large from the ward the vacancy exists is elected at such election for such office, (this sounds to me that if there is an election for ward alderman at large and the incumbent isn’t elected)
the candidate who receives the highest number of votes shall be deemed to be elected to the seat in which the vacancy exists and shall serve as aforesaid:
(this sounds like the candidate who receives the highest number of votes will be deemed to be elected for the vacant seat)
Put together it sounds like: If there is an election for alderman at large and the incumbent isn’t elected (?) the candidate who receives the highest number of votes will be deemed to be elected for the seat.
I do believe there are points in Article 8 that warrant review, especially regarding preliminary elections. Low voter turnout is the national trend, and is even more pronounced with an “extra”preliminary election. Perhaps there are proven alternatives to the current system which have been effective elsewhere.
Newton voters do seem concerned about the mechanics and timing of elections and voter apathy. So once a review were underway, Article 8 might very well emerge as central.
Thanks David.
I would like the committee to discuss requiring all override and debt exclusion voting questions be included on the November voting ballot. That is the day when the most people vote. Since we are now acknowledging that increased property taxes are a significant negative factor to lower income home owners, we owe it to them to hear from as many voters as possible. JMO.
Patrick – It’s my understanding that state law requires that an override vote take place a specific period of time after the Board/Council approves its placement on the ballot. The window between the Board approval and the vote is not very long, which accounts for the frantic campaigns.
I would like to comment on the number of signatures. I understand that some people can collect signatures pretty efficiently but would increasing any requirements to get on the ballot further reduce the number of candidates? This seems to be a classic question of solving a problem without actually knowing what problem to solve. Is the problem having too many candidates and contested elections and preliminaries, that we need to reduce the number of people placing their names on the ballot? This part of the charter sets the bar for entering a contest. One might suggest that we should look here at lowering the initial requirements to increase the first step to becoming a candidate, if we deem too few contested races as a problem.
I agree with Rhanna that I would also not immediately support a requirement for percentages being used to obtain city wide signatures as I believe we want to encourage more candidates.
Perhaps my initial comment on the missing language for Area Councils led to some of this but in that case the problem to solve is more simple, removing ambiguity from the charter. My bad for not listing the problem first and then a potential solution.
I think staggered terms makes sense. Maybe people would pay a little more attention if there were fewer names on the ballot each election cycle.
I think having a fixed, simple number of signatures remains a good idea. In the case of Ward Alderman, the number is currently 50. I see very few candidates stepping up for the position as is and do not see how increasing the required number would increase the candidate pool.
Not specific to this topic, the main challenge for members of the Commission will be to really put personal thought and time into each idea and get some input before taking up valuable Commission time. Just because everything will be on the table, does not mean everything needs to be changed.
PS: Rhanna’s post is spot on.
I think most of us like staggered terms, the question is how do we do it. Do we increase the councils terms to 3 years and stagger it that way, or even 4 years. Anyway you do it, you will crossover to even years which are state/national elections. If we keep it at 2, how will that look. Keeping it at 2 is that same as increasing to 4 (stagger every other 2 year period). Question: How will it look?
If the council decides to cut the size, they must figure this into the equation, obviously.
Although it’s only an initial thought, one idea might be to align the at large positions with the citywide mayoral positions, and the ward and area council positions on a different cycle.
However, if the # of at large is reduced, that might solve the issue of too many on same ballot.
This is a great example of why community input is critical to the discussion.
Ah, David…I knew you would know the answer and I thank you for the clarification. But, were you visiting Tibet without a smartphone, who else would understand that gobbledygook language? I hope that each sentence is read for nuance and clarity and, if a roadmap is necessary, I hope one is supplied!
My point is that language in the Charter is unclear; and not just in Article 8. I would suggest that a careful translation of the entire document to understand its meaning and original intent is not only justified, but also necessary for the Commission to consider before suggesting any changes. (Kind of like our now defunct Zoning Regulation that was so contorted that it contradicted itself!) At least the Charter isn’t THAT bad!
Jane, thank you for providing your understanding. My current understanding is that the short window is choreographed to specifically hold the vote in the March time frame to reduce the size of the potential number of votes. This is done to enhance the possibility of passage of an override and/or a debt exclusion.
Historically, the short window has been associated with a need to squeeze it into the budget cycle. Now that the mayor is touting better management of the city’s finances, it should be doable to identify capital and operational requirements with more lead time enabling the vote to be held in November, when the most people vote. JMO.
What Sallee said.
Patrick – The short answer is that this issue is covered by state law and the charter must be in keeping with state law. What you suggest makes great sense, but I’m not sure it would pass muster with the Attorney General’s office.
Newton needs more losers. We can’t have losers without contested elections. Uncontested elections, in my mind, are Newton’s number one problem. A loser in an election is valuable in communicating new ideas and new solutions. A loser prevents someone from walking into office without ever articulating their positions or goals. A contested election receives media scrutiny, an uncontested election does not.
When I vote for charter commission candidates, the big thing I am going to ask myself is whether the candidate’s presence on the commission is likely to reduce the number of uncontested positions. I am going to make some assertions that I think are supported by the data. Hopefully, the eventual commission has enough data driven people to run the numbers.
Term Limits. Term limits reduce uncontested elections. When an incumbent does not run for office, it encourages more challengers to step up. I will vote for people that support term limits.
Number of Councillors. Fewer positions creates more incumbent interest per position. I will vote for people that support a smaller council.
Run Off Elections. Incumbents attract many votes since being on the council gives one a lot of attention. Do you remember a race where the challenger was not the underdog? Run off elections are good since challengers often fight for the same voters. Rules that are good for challengers reduce the number of uncontested elections. I will vote for people who support run off elections.
Signatures required to be on the ballot. The fewer signatures needed, the easier it is to run. A bad candidate is better than no candidate. I will vote for people who support fewer signatures for ballot access.
I understand the signature part. Good solid reasons for keeping it the same accessible number.
@Jeffrey Pontiff – I’ll get the bumper stickers printed – “Newton needs more losers”
@Jerry. Please do. t-shirts are OK also. Remember that I get 10% of revenue.
Jane, my impression is that other cities and towns seem to have their override votes at various times during the year. I am replying to Greg’s question. I would like to see the CC discuss the topic. Maybe it would be a short conversation due to some state law restriction.
Patrick – I think it’s a topic that should be addressed by the commission. That being said, the commission will have legal counsel providing guidance on any number of issues.