| Here we go.
1. This vote is only about moving 2012 to the even-year November. The Charter Review Committee is currently considering a permanent move to odd-year Novembers (i.e. Constitutional years) which would accomplish the goal of saving money by combining with an already ongoing election while also not drastically increasing turnout (oh noes, OMG, high turnout). That's something voters will have the chance to decide if the committee recommends it AND the Council votes to put it on the ballot.
Oh, and they're going to decide those crucial charter amendments on the November 2012 ballot, even though the same voters are apparently "too overwhelmed" to decide who should be on Council itself.
So really the debate on council right now is about whether or not we move one election, May 2012, due to increased costs and a lack of available voting equipment at Travis County (which is itself due to SB 100, the bill that changes the election calendar to provide more time for overseas and military mail-ballot voting in primary run-offs).
The 2012 options:
* Keep it in May 2012. Turnout will be roughly 50-60K voters; additional cost will be $1-2 million to the City.
* Move it to November 2012. Turnout will be 250-300K voters, additional cost will be $0 to the City.
Meanwhile, the Austin voters themselves may have the chance to decide on the November 2012 if they want to move their elections permanently to the odd-year Novembers, again that's up to a committee and then up to Council.
::
2. The "oath to the charter" argument doesn't hold water. One of the key arguments from the four folks against November elections is that moving the election violates their oath to uphold the charter. That's false, and it's also disingenuous. The City Council violates the charter all the time when State Law allows it.
As Mike Blizzard explained to the Council in an email (which was forwarded to BOR by Blizzard), "Council has for decades now been regularly violating the charter by allowing Austin Energy and AWU to issue revenue bonds without voter approval. This has been brought to your, and previous Councils' attention numerous times (most often by activist Paul Robbins) and the standard answer has been that state law allows you to do this."
Here's one other important part. SB 100 -- the bill that enables Texas to comply with the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which in turn is what triggered the discussion of just the 2012 election and moving it from May to November -- specifically allows cities to change their election dates without running afoul of their charters. It's written in the analysis of Senator Van de Putte's bill, which is all online here. The bill analysis of the bill specifically says that the bill:
Authorizes the governing body of a political subdivision other than a county, that holds its general election for officers on a date other than the November uniform election date, not later than December 31, 2012, rather than December 31, 2010, to change the date on which it holds its general election for officers to the November uniform election date.
The bill, now a law, specifically allows the governing body of not-a-county, in this instance the Austin City Council, to change the date of the election to November 2012.
Then SB 100 the analysis says this, emphasis mine:
Authorizes a home-rule city to implement the change authorized by Subsection (a) or provide for the election of all members of the governing body at the same election through the adoption of a resolution. Provides that the change contained in the resolution supersedes a city charter provision that requires a different general election date or that requires the terms of members of the governing body to be staggered.
[Edit: added Sept. 23] The bill itself reads as follows (emphasis mine):
A home-rule city may implement the change authorized by Subsection (a) or provide for the election of all members of the governing body at the same election through the adoption of a resolution. The change contained in the resolution supersedes a city charter provision that requires a different general election date.
So the Council can, by passing a resolution, move the 2012 May election to November in this instance without running afoul of the charter. I appreciate the work of the legislative staffers who took the time to include this in the bill and make this abundantly clear.
::
Here's one last point that is getting overlooked in this:
3. November 2012 elections don't necessarily "favor" anyone currently on Council. Drastically increasing the electorate means campaigns would have to work hard to reach out to more voters. They'd hopefully scratch their relatively small TV budgets and plow all the $$ into field organizing, maybe direct mail, and try to actually reach as many voters as possible.
There's this idea out there that folks in favor of a November 2012 election think it favors their candidates. Honestly, as someone who's managed both a winning and a losing City Council election, I think that's hogwash. I'd expect the larger electorate to be influenced by the most trustworthy publications and organizations in Austin -- The Chronicle, probably The Sierra Club, probably the Statesman. The real issue, it seems, is that the Austin Neighborhoods Council's reliable voting bloc would be really, really diluted by all of those folks who have greater concerns than enshrining all of Central Austin in amber so that it remains 1975 forever.
There's also this idea that it would cause volunteer attrition. I'm not so sure -- the volunteers I had on Chris Riley's campaign were not the same volunteers I had on the 2010 Coordinated, nor the 2008 Austin Vote for Change registration drive, nor Randi Shade's campaign. Four campaigns, four different pools of volunteers. Sure, there are some solid perma-volunteers, but it seems more that people get motivated by a specific candidate or cycle. I did notice a lot of the Riley folks from 2009 getting very involved in the 2010 City Bond election, so perhaps they just care more about... wait for it... municipal issues. Or bike lanes.
::
The Statesman makes pretty clear that the four votes for May are voting in their self-interest, since they need that narrow May electorate to survive.
May elections are typically dominated by Democratic clubs, civically engaged environmental clubs and neighborhood associations in Central and West Austin, whose influence is magnified by chronically low turnout. Those groups were largely responsible for the election of council members Laura Morrison and Kathie Tovo. Those groups' support is also key to the prospects of Sheryl Cole and Bill Spelman, both of whom supported a May election and are considering running in it against Mayor Lee Leffingwell.
Groups that City Council elections are not currently dominated by: minorities, East Austin residents, UT students, renters, people under 40.
::
So. To recap:
1. This is just about the 2012 municipal races. Voters will likely have the chance to amend their charter and move elections permanently to odd-year Novembers. There are pro's and con's to this that we can get into if it's ever a possibility.
2. Moving the election from May 2012 to November 2012 will not violate the charter, because SB 100 specifically provides for such a move.
3. November 2012 isn't going to favor anyone -- the scale of the electorate means candidates are actually going to have to (gasp!) talk to a lot more voters and appeal to a broader electorate, aka The People of Austin, not just the 8-10% who always vote in every election ever. |
