Today is the second vote by Austin City Council over whether or not to move our 2012 municipal elections from May to November. It's become quite the heated issue, especially this week as various circumstances have "forced" the second and third votes to be cast this week.
Every day, it appears that more and more Austinites are coming out in favor of November 2012 elections, while the folks supporting the May date remain curiously silent, or wrapped in tortured logic that doesn't reflect the legal realities or progressive leadership towards increasing transparency or civic participation.
During the first vote two weeks ago, Council Members Cole, Morrison, Spelman and Tovo voted in favor of May, thus keeping in place the barriers to voting that mire our municipal turnout at approximately 10% of registered voters.
Today, Council takes its second reading on this (three readings are required on 4-3 votes), and tomorrow the third will take place at a special called meeting starting at 1:30 p.m.
::
Here's what you can do to support November elections:
2. Sign on to a letter from leading Democratic activists supporting a move to November 2012 City Council elections.
3. Come on down to City Hall and speak. You need to be signed up by 10 a.m. to speak today; be there by 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Friday) to speak tomorrow. You can also come sign in for or against it at any time today or tomorrow.
Here's some background and what you should watch for during today's meeting.
* Mayor Leffingwell has asked the Travis County Elections Division to work with the City Clerk and prepare a cost estimate of Austin holding a stand-alone May election, now that ACC has pulled out for November. AISD votes on Monday to either spend over $300,000 for their share of a May election, or to also move to November. A stand-alone City of Austin election looks more and more likely, given the cash-strapped school district. Can Austin afford upwards of $1,000,000 for this election when we're closing parks and cutting social services contracts?
* During the first meeting, CM Spelman suggested November voters were too "uninformed" and "overwhelmed" to know how to vote for City Council, preferring instead the hyper-active May electorate, who "hold forums, send questionnaires," etc. This statement greatly riled minority leaders and activists, who could easily infer from Spelman's statement that the more-diverse November electorate was somehow "unqualified" to be voting for City Council.
* Long-time campaign consultant Dean Rindy echoed the "uninformed voter" myth, suggesting that it's just too hard to educate a larger electorate. That's wrong, and it's a strawman argument designed to distract from the facts.
* Old-school campaign guru and ACC professor Peck Young has also come out strongly in favor of November elections. The man that local TV goes to every cycle to break down City Council election returns stated plainly on KXAN, "The four [for May] have decided that one of them, or two of them, want to be elected mayor, and they don't think they have a shot beating an incumbent mayor in an election with high turnout."
Below the jump, we've got everything else you need to know going into today's meeting, which starts at 10:00 a.m. in City Hall. Expect this item to come up quickly, after the "consent agenda" of non-controversial actions.
One issue that has arisen during the debate over whether to hold Austin's 2012 municipal elections in May, or move them to the November has to do with the election calendar. Specifically, it was the Legislature's move of primary run-offs to May (to comply with Federal law pertaining to mail-in, overseas, and military ballots) that prompted the discussion about changing Austin's municipal elections to November, due to the need for the City to purchase additional voting machines.
Let's lay out what kind of election calendar we're talking about if Council indeed approves May elections on a 4-3 vote, as they did during first reading two weeks ago.
Here's what our Austin election calendar for Spring 2012 will look like, if we stick with May municipals:
February 21 - March 2, 2012: Early Voting, partisan primary election
March 6, 2012: Election Day, partisan primary, plus precinct conventions
April 30-May 8, 2012: Early Voting, Austin municipal election
May 12, 2012: Election Day, Austin municipal election
May 14-May 18, 2012: Early Voting, partisan run-off election, if needed
May 22, 2012: Election Day, Partisan run-off election, if needed
June 4-June 12, 2012: Early Voting, Austin municipal run-off election, if needed*
June 16, 2012: Election Day, Austin municipal run-off election, if needed*
And that calendar doesn't even include the further overlap of mail-in ballots, which have an even longer time for application and return. You think running one VBM program can be confusing? Try four overlapping VBM applications and chase programs running at once.
* We can estimate these dates from past municipal run-offs. Note that there isn't a set date required for Austin municipal run-offs, if they are needed. Council orders a canvass of results, and then a run-off if needed. The run-off must occur within 20 to 45 days of that date. (I am unclear how the new Federal guidelines providing 45 days' lead time for overseas / military ballots will impact this.) However, in 2011, 2008, 2005, and 2003, the Council run-offs were held 35 days after the general election, which would put the run-offs at the dates listed above, with the window of Early Voting potentially also subject to change.
From the beginning of Austin municipal early voting through the primary run-off date, that's a potential 16 days of various kinds of voting in person over the span of less than 4 weeks -- 23 days.
We'd have a general city wide election on Saturday, and then start partisan run-off early voting the following Monday. And that's less confusing? If we're concerned about voter fatigue, voter confusion, or staff / campaign operative shortages, that calendar looks a lot more muddled than moving the Austin municipals to November.
Some further questions:
Do we expect primary run-offs in 2012? Probably.
There are a few races shaping up that seem very likely to go to a run-off. The Democratic primary for the Travis County 167th District court has three strong candidates, and if none of them can garner 50%, that race has the strongest potential to go to a countywide run-off. On the Republican side, gerrymandered CD-25, which encompasses much of East and Central Austin as well as western Travis County, currently has 10 declared Republican candidates. There's also the potential of a contested Sheriff's race, and with the filing deadline still a few months out, who knows what may pop up due to retirements and further redistricting map re-draws.
What's the worst case scenario? $3-$4 Million in Added Costs
From the City of Austin's fiscal perspective, the worst case scenario is if a county-wide March primary race goes to a recount, which could last a really, really long time (see: State Rep. Donna Howard's interminable recount spurred on by Republican loser Dan Neil). The machines would be on "lock down" -- they could not be used for the immediately following municipal race. Austin would need to supply all of the voting machines used to conduct those elections. The City of Austin would need to authorize immediate expenditure of additional machines. Voting for a May election basically means that our City Council is betting $3-$4 million that they won't suddenly need to purchase even more machines, and spend more than the $600,000 to $1.2 million this will already cost.
Travis County Elections Officials Urge Move to November
Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir outlined all of these concerns in her Memo to City Council back in early August. (Download it here.) Stating her strong professional opinion that the 2012 Austin municipal elections be moved to November, she writes of the May dates:
1. It will be confusing and frustrating for voters. We are worried that the saturation of
information that voters are going to receive regarding the candidates and issues in the Presidential primary and possible runoff, the precinct conventions, redistricting, and new voter ID laws is going to make getting the complicated message of how and why these elections have to be separate and overlapping very difficult to deliver. We are concerned that this scenario will discourage voters away from the polls, or even worse, cause some to lose their opportunity to vote because they went on the wrong day or place to vote.
2. It will be more difficult to have well-trained, effective poll workers. We have exceptional poll workers who spend many hours in training, have to learn complex election procedures, and are committed to performing their jobs as perfectly as possible since even the smallest of errors can disenfranchise a voter. By law, primary elections are separate from other types of elections. The procedures used in a Presidential primary election are very different from those used in regular elections. In the past, we have kept those trainings separate. This year, we are still debating how to best minimize the risk of errors if training for both types of elections would have to happen on top of one another.
3. It will create logistical challenges that could result in higher costs, longer lines, and the potential for more errors. For example, the Presidential primary runoff elections have the potential to have a higher-than-average turnout. There is usually a fall off in the number of voters who participate in a runoff election, so under normal circumstances, we could imagine deploying less equipment for the runoff and then turnaround with sufficient equipment for the May election. While there will be no runoff in the Presidential race, there could easily be runoff elections for the offices of United States Senate and House of Representatives. Runoffs in these races have in the past produced high turnouts and often have high profile and well-funded candidates. With the public's current strong interest in the actions of Congress, there could be hotly contested races on both party's tickets. There is no crystal ball with elections, but we have to have a plan ready for every scenario.
Council will take their second vote on this tomorrow at their regularly scheduled meeting, and their third vote in a special called meeting Friday starting at 1:30 p.m. In the meantime, you can email the Mayor and City Council and share your views on the issue.
[Update 2:07 p.m.] My colleague Michael Hurta reminds us in the comments that the Republican Senate primary between Dewhurst and Cruz may well to head to a run-off given the interest in the seat.
I also looked up the recent history of run-offs in Travis County:
2010
Democratic runoffs: Countywide District Court
Republican runoffs: Statewide SCOTX, local HD-47, local SBOE 10
2008
Democratic runoffs: Statewide Railroad Commissioner, Travis Co District Attorney, local Constable Pct 1
Republican runoffs: None
2006
Democratic runoffs: Statewide Senate, Statewide Lt Gov, Local CD-10, Local HD-47
Republican runoffs: Statewide CCA, Countywide 3rd COA, Local HD-47, HD-50
N.B.: that doesn't even factor in potential run-offs in the Hays and Williamson County precincts that overlap with the City of Austin.
Something extraordinary in Austin politics is unfolding before our eyes this week. What began as a slow simmer years ago and heated up in this spring's Place 3 election between Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo, has now reached a critical boiling point.
"Proponents of moving the election to November say putting the council on the general election ballot will be a guaranteed turnout booster. By implication, they say the council will better reflect the views of the community at large. Yeah, reply some of those who advocate the status quo, you'll get a bigger turnout - of uninformed voters.
"It's an elitist argument that betrays the entitlement mentality of the cadre of insiders who benefit politically from the city's notoriously low turnout. The argument neither needs subtitle nor translation, but here's one: "We know what's good for you."
"If that reasoning puts you off, let the council know about it."
Last week, in a 4-3 decision, Councilmembers Sheryl Cole, Bill Spelman, Laura Morrison, and Kathie Tovo voted (in the first of three readings) to hold the 2012 Austin municipal election in May, against the advice of the city's election administrator, the State of Texas, and a diverse array of community leaders. A number of rationales have been offered by these members defending their positions- from upholding their oath to the city charter, to not arbitrarily extending their terms by six months, to concern for uninformed November voters.
As someone who has been involved in the elections of a supermajority of this current city council, I am admittedly part of the Austin Political Machine as described by Phillip Martin over two years ago. I don't deny it; it is true that this city's politics has been guided for many years by small group of insiders with occasional, minimal, variation. But because of my position and my role in helping to elect members on each side last week's vote, I feel obligated to break my silence.
It's time to put the truth on the table. This debate is about the balance of power between different factions of Austin's political establishment and it is driven by political self interest.
The defeat of Randi Shade by Kathie Tovo this spring saw the rise of a new coalition on the Austin City Council who were ostensibly united by their opposition to Water Treatment Plant 4, F1 subsidies, downtown parking hours, and long term development in urban neighborhoods. Surprisingly, on all of these issues considered by the council since the election, this 4-vote coalition has yet to materialize as an effective block of votes on any of these issues. In particular, support for halting construction of Water Treatment Plant 4, widely seen as "the" defining issue this past election, evaporated in a 7-0 vote to continue the project not weeks after Tovo's election. While Tovo, Morrison, and Spelman ideologically operate within the same spectrum, many saw the alliance with Cole as somewhat surprising. After all, she had historically been supported financially by the same business and development interests as Randi Shade.
So why is it on this issue of all issues- when to hold the 2012 election- that these four have finally come together to vote as a block? Political self-interest of the most disappointing kind.
It has been an open secret among city hall insiders that Sheryl Cole, Bill Spelman, and Laura Morrison have each expressed interest in becoming the next Mayor of Austin. It was expected that Mayor Leffingwell would retire after serving one term, having served his intended purpose in blocking former councilman Brewster McCracken's mayoral ambitions. But after seeing Austin successfully navigate the economic downturn, Leffingwell has decided to run for re-election. Additionally, Austin is set to vote in November of 2012 on a wide-ranging package of changes, including fundamental changes to how and when the council is elected. This package, pushed by Leffingwell, and ostensibly still supported by most councilmembers, is perceived as severely disrupting the influence of the traditional low-turnout electorate and the existing political machine.
Simply put, Cole, Spelman, Morrison, and Tovo advocate keeping next year's city election in May because they believe that it remains their last and best chance to defeat Mayor Leffingwell and his key ally Mike Martinez before the opportunity is lost forever. For all the rhetoric about the oaths to the charter (which both Cole and Spelman in particular have voted to break previously without issue) and concern for uninformed voters (who are regularly depended on to pass the council's preferred bond measures in high turnout November elections), this all boils down to defending a broken system for personal political gain.
How sad for Austin. How sad it is that liberal councilmembers are using their power to pick the smallest, most distorted electorate for themselves. How sad it is that we have to suffer through layers of rationalization and excuses to mask the naked political truth before us.
Today, the council will hold the 2nd reading on this issue in an nearly unprecedented rushing of the measure through the process to minimize public input or attention. This is because last Friday, at 5:37PM, well after city offices normally close, Councilmembers Spelman and Morrison placed this item on the agenda for this morning's Council Work Session, which is usually reserved for council discussion of items to be considered at their Thursday council meetings. There is no contemporary precedent for taking action on a contested, divisive issue at a work session; usually they are 7-0 votes involving last minute time sensitive permits for road races, like the October 8th NAMI Walk which is on today's agenda. (The last time a controversial item saw a 4-3 vote on reading in a work session was in the 1990's when a vote was held to issue RFPs seeking to privatize Austin Energy.) Work sessions are traditionally NOT for public input -- they are for council to work out agenda items before Thursday's vote. In fact, the top of the agenda even states as much.
In addition, an item has been added to authorize the city to spend up to $1.3 million (not including another half a million if there is a run-off) to purchase more voting machines in order to hold a single low-turnout May election on top of an already scheduled November election for the city. The council's own documents admit that "The County acknowledges that machines purchased under this Addendum will likely be sold or otherwise exchanged or returned to the current or other future voting equipment vendor" after the election. The city will have to cover most all of that cost because last night the ACC Board of Trustees voted to move their elections to November, a move which AISD is expected to follow. This leaves the City of Austin alone in paying for a special election in May against the provisions of SB 100, against the expert recommendations of the election administrator, in contradiction of our values, and wedged in between and overlapping with the party primaries and runoffs- all for the perceived political benefit to four people.
I urge the council to reconsider the path they are leading us down- it is not too late. I recognize, as do many others that are a part of it, that the current political establishment's influence must, and is, coming to an end. We must trust the people of Austin, as many as possible, in determining our city's future.
We must recognize that fighting over where and when to have one final battle in a war over the past is a victory for no one.
"A city that loves to think of itself as forever in blue jeans has grown up. The Comprehensive Plan is far from the final answer, but it is worth a good, hard look by a circle larger than the City Hall hangers-on this type of conversation tends to attract. It begs a serious conversation about how to manage the city's future."
Earlier this afternoon, a roster of Hispanic and other community leaders in Austin held a press conference at City Hall to speak publicly in favor of moving our Austin municipal elections to the November 2012 election date.
Speakers included Paul Saldana, Celia Israel, Randy Moreno, Perla Cavazos, Frank Fuentes, Cynthia Valadez-Mata, and former Mayor Gus Garcia. Other attendees included Rudy Malveaux, Andy Ramirez, and Mayor Lee Leffingwell.
Cynthia Valadez-Mata, representing LULAC District 7 and LULAC statewide, delivered impassioned remarks about the importance of voting as a right, not a privilege, and stated her firm belief that any non-November election date is intended to disenfranchise and marginalize the Latino population in Austin. She called for all Austin municipal elections to be held in Novembers.
Perla Cavazos, a former Council candidate, spoke about the importance of letting as many voters as possible determine who serves on Council, and specifically took umbrage with the notion that November voters are "uninformed" or "overwhelmed," as stated by various political consultants and council members during this debate. She noted that in a short time span in 2012, voters may be voting four times -- March primary, May primary run-off, May municipal, June or July municipal run-off. "If that's not overwhelming, what is?" she asked.
Former Mayor Gus Garcia also took the microphone. Gus was elected in a November election -- a special election in 2001 which drew 73,000 voters. Garcia made his perspective clear: "I believe democracy functions better when more of the population votes." Drawing parallels to Nelson Mandela's historic victory in a South African election with 83% turnout, Garcia stated plainly that May elections don't encourage high turnout, and the municipal elections need to be moved to November. (As an aside, it was great to see Gus Garcia really fired up about this. He had sparkle.)
Finally, Council Member Mike Martinez spoke forcefully about the importance of increasing participation, which in turn will increase civic engagement. He also noted something alarming that came up after the end of the business day on Friday: Council Members Morrison and Spelman have placed the May election resolution on the agenda for tomorrow's work session, where council will take their second vote on this issue. The third and final vote will thus be cast this Thursday at Council, rather than two weeks from now at the third consecutive Council meeting. There isn't any precedent for this kind of action, and it speaks to the rushed process by which certain folks are trying to get this May elections business settled.
Martinez stated that the vote in a Tuesday work session sets a dangerous precedent, and said that folks who tout themselves as supporting transparency have done everything possible to suppress participation and cloud transparency in the process by which this issue is taken up for a vote.
Addressing the Austin voters directly, he said "You should demand to be heard, and you should be given the easiest way to be heard." The easiest way, of course, is to move municipal elections to November dates, starting with 2012.
Honestly, if Morrison, Spelman, Cole and Tovo insist on voting on this Tuesday and Thursday for a May election, they should expect to see their future support in the Hispanic community diminished significantly. Many of these folks do a lot of the heavy lifting in the Hispanic civic and business community. Most of them supported many of the Council members now voting against a de facto increase in not only turnout, but also the Hispanic share of the municipal electorate, by keeping these elections in May.
Ironically, because turnout in May is so low, alienating these influential community leaders will go far, and actually have a bigger net impact on the overall 40,000-voter electorate than if we moved the elections to November, with over 300,000 potential voters. Of course, some political consultants would suggest that it doesn't matter, since "they [Hispanics] don't vote in these elections." More would if we lowered barriers to participation -- and as Frank Fuentes said, "what's the problem? If more people vote, isn't that what democracy is all about?"
This was a good event. There were a lot of TV cameras and radio stations there, so it will be interesting to see what the coverage is. The media's definitely picking up on this, so it will be interesting to see what happens on Tuesday and Thursday, when Council appears poised to vote on this again and again.
So what's an "uninformed voter," anyways? I keep hearing about them in the debate over whether or not we should move the 2012 Austin municipal election from May to November. The fact is, the same folks arguing against More Uninformed Voters totally love these same voters when their ballots suit other political purposes.
Apparently the November 2012 voters are "too uninformed" to vote on city council elections. This line was written in a letter from consultant Dean Rindy to Council (quoted in The Chronicle, posted as a comment here on BOR, and then basically repeated, well, repeatedly from the dais by several of his clients). Dean writes:
"The argument has been made that November will be more 'democratic' because more people will be voting. It would be truer to say that more uninformed people will vote, though this would not be the voters' fault. It would be the fault of combining too many elections with too many candidates at too many levels at the same time. People are not computers with infinite capacity on their hard drives. They can only take so much input. As a practical matter, it will be impossible for voters who follow the Presidential or state campaigns to become adequately informed about city issues during the national election season.
Yes, it's not the fault of the poor, Poor voters. It's not their fault that while our Democratic machine churns them out for November elections to guarantee enough voters for Democratic candidates in Travis County, and enough votes FOR whatever City bond proposition the Council's touting, that they're just not good enough to vote for Council.
It's as if Dean Rindy has never worked on a campaign. Here's an idea: talk to them about your candidate! Here, I will even provide some free political consulting to help all y'all figure out how it can be done.
How to communicate with voters:
Make direct contact with voters via doors and phones. You may need to scratch your TV budget, though, and invest instead in a much bigger field campaign.
Send larger quantities of cheaper postcards, rather than glossy 8.5x11 mailers.
Work hard to win endorsements of groups like the Austin Progressive Coalition, who put yellow doorhangers on doors across Central Austin touting the candidates chosen by both Central Austin Democrats and UDEMs.
Work even harder to win endorsements of trusted, well-known groups like Sierra Club, who send mail and run Chronicle ads on behalf of their endorsed candidates.
Recruit volunteers to stand at busy Early Voting and E-Day polling locations, handing out positive literature about the candidate. That was one factor in how Carlos Barrera won his 2008 primary, and one way Mark Strama helped get himself re-elected.
Facebook ads! They're cheap and you can reach huge volumes of people. The "social" feature will also help tell the friends of your supporters who their friends prefer. They're great. You can target up the wazoo.
Grassroots organizing! Good old peer-to-peer organization. Have your friends organize their friends to turn out for your candidate.
Yard signs! Not actually kidding -- signs in influential neighbors' yards can give the perception that "everyone's voting for" one person or another. Are you a paid operative that's ever had a yard sign strategy in a high-turnout election? Was it to help boost name ID for downballot candidates? Or just because you love the smell of coroplast?
The fact is, studies show that younger and minority voters respond more effectively to personal contact than to mail or TV. And that's who would make up the bulk of the increase of November municipal voters. So hey, let's do those things! Plus they're cheaper and employ more Field Organizers than Consultants. Can anyone argue against more and better Field Organizers and less highly-paid, budget-breaking Consultants?
OMG, you guys! I am extremely confident that even if the electorate swells -- and swells disproportionately on the East Side and in renter-heavy Central Austin -- campaigns can still reach these folks and tell them why their candidate is better. The fact is, there are ways to effectively reach and persuade voters whether you have $100,000 or $5,000,000. Anyone who tells you differently gets too high of a commission.
Seriously, the political consultants in this town love Uninformed Voters when it suits their own political purposes. But since a certain segment of the paid operatives think a larger turnout threatens the viability of their City Council clients or future candidates like them, suddenly they're against Uninformed Voters.
If we really want to limit elections to "informed" municipal voters, let's just make each of them define inclusionary zoning when they present their state-required Photo ID. I promise you, Council, between the Legislature's Photo ID law and defining the Baxter Bill, there's no way the Unwashed will qualify to be "good enough" to vote for you!
But in the meantime, Council, you may keep dithering over whether or not you should "let" the voters have an easier or harder time voting for you.
Three important points need clarifying in the debate over whether the 2012 Austin municipal elections should be held in May or November. Frankly, this may not actually be much of a "debate" since Council already voted one time for status-quo preserving May elections, at a potential $1 million cost to taxpayers. But they're voting on it again on October 6th on Second Reading. So there's time to reconsider!
1. This vote is only about moving 2012 to the even-year November. In fact, voters will likely have the chance in November 2012 to decide if they want to vote for City Council in odd-year November elections permanently. This is just a one-time thing.
2. The "oath to the charter" argument doesn't hold water. SB 100, the bill that's causing all the electoral calendar shuffling, specifically says moving the date won't violate a charter. Oh, and Austin kind of violates its charter all the time.
3. November 2012 elections don't necessarily "favor" anyone currently on Council. It's cute to think that a 10-fold increase in turnout could "favor" anyone. (Though it clearly might disfavor a few folks.) In reality, campaigns would have to work a lot harder to talk to a lot more Austinites, and potentially engage with a broader range of issues. The horror!
Full explanations below the jump.
[Edit, 2:13 p.m., 10/23: I quoted the analysis, not the bill. Thanks to an eagle-eyed reader. I added the bill to go with the analysis. Carry on.]
Today, the Austin City Council voted 4-3 against increasing participation in our municipal elections. Council Members Morrison, Cole, Spelman and Tovo voted against drastically increasing civic participation. It's a sad day for Austin that a majority of our Council seems to think that voting for them is a privilege that we just can't extend to the masses.
The City Council has the option of moving the next municipal election, currently scheduled for May 2012, to November 2012. On first reading (they have to vote on this two more times) they voted 4-3 against moving the election. As someone who wholeheartedly supports expanding participation in our democratic process, I know that this was the wrong decision. Council has to vote on this issue two more times, so if you disagree with the effort to keep our elections in May, you should weigh in.
Background: this happened because the Legislature made changes to the primary run-off calendar to allow more time for overseas/military mail-in voters. With primary run-offs occurring later in the spring, this creates a time crunch for Austin's municipal elections, which are in mid-May. Basically, the County will not have the voting machines or manpower available to conduct both a run-off and a city election within the same very tight time frame.
So, the City Council today debated moving our May 2012 election to November 2012.
Dana DeBeauvoir, our Travis County Clerk, is the elected official in charge of overseeing our elections. She wrote a memo to council (download it HERE) stated that in her professional opinion, Austin should move their elections to Novembers. In a statement to Council, she said:
"Trying to hold a May election right now, with the circumstances before you, in my opinion is extraordinarily difficult. Quite frankly, in my professional opinion, I do not know how you are going to accomplish it. I really believe you would be a better position if you would seriously consider conducting your municipal election with the November election. ... [In November] we are able to put everything on one Election Day, and one ballot, and [voters] will be able to go to one set of polling places, unlike the multiple places in May."
Ok, so the elected official whose job it is to make our elections happen, says we should move it to November. DeBeauvoir even offered to put the municipal races above the Presidential and State elections on the ballot, so that people wouldn't miss them at the bottom of the ballot. (One could argue that putting the City races on the bottom, where roll-off would be higher than atop the ballot, would actually serve some of these folks better.)
Let's look at the other arguments for and against moving the Austin municipal elections to Novembers.
Arguments For Moving to November:
Turnout will increase to potentially 65% of the population from the current 8-10%
Costs will be lower to the City: Austin elections will use the same voting machines and polling staff already in place for November elections
The demographics of the electorate will more resemble the demographics of Austin.
Arguments For Keeping it in May:
Council members won't violate oath to uphold the charter
Council members won't vote to extend their terms 6 months
Contribution limits are too low to raise enough money campaign to larger electorates
The cost of the election issue is of real concern here. Austin doesn't have a lot of extra money lying around, as evidenced by the recent budget scuffle over whether or not we could afford 16 additional cops. According to DeBeauvoir, a May 2012 Election would cost the City of Austin $1 million to conduct on their own. If ACC and AISD also held their elections in May 2012, the cost to the COA would be $336,000. However, it's unlikely that ACC and AISD both will shell out their $330K to share costs on that May election. They also are kinda broke. On the other hand, the cost to Austin for holding their election in November 2012 is approximately $200,00 or possibly less. And since Austin is already going to hold an election on November 2012 for rail, charter and bonds, any cost to the City for a May 2012 is an extra unnecessary cost.
There is also a very slight chance, but possible cost, of $2.1 million or more for a May 2012 election. If a March 2012 primary race or a May 2012 primary runoff goes into a contested recount, then the Travis County voting machines would not be available for the COA May 2012 elections. Austin would be responsible for paying the costs of buy voting machines to replace part or potentially all of the Travis County voting machines. (Or we could just combine all precincts so everyone votes in Allandale, Zilker, and Hyde Park. That could save a lot of money!)
Equally important is the diversity of the electorate that chooses our leaders. Partisan, active voters make up 86.08% of the May electorate. New or casual voters are only 13.92% of the vote in May, and they do not make much of an impact on May elections. In November, on the other hand, partisan, active voters make up only 57.6% of the November electorate. New or casual voters are 42.4% of the vote in November, and they do make a significant impact on November elections.
Call me craaaaazy but I think it's really important that our new and casual voters are given lower barriers to participating in our city elections.
Council Member Bill Spelman, however, does not seem to agree. Spelman, whom you may recall was essentially elected on filing day in 2011, when no one filed to run against him for Place 5, essentially said on the dias today that November voters are simply too overwhelmed to vote for City Council. He also said something about the voters being so distracted by their kids' soccer games or something to care enough to go vote. He seems to think folks currently not voting in municipal elections genuinely don't care enough to do so.
Yet we let these same voters decide the fate of our bond packages (as they did in November 2010, approving the Transportation Bond), and major propositions (as they did in November 2008, voting down "Stop Domain Subsidies").
In fact, in 2012 it's likely that the November electorate will be voting on a potential combination of public transit bonds, city charter amendments, single member districts, and election reforms. That stuff's actually more complex and nuanced than where the candidates stand on the issues that matter to Austinites.
This seems like a self-interested vote by several elected officials who'd rather preserve the current electoral status quo -- and thus their own careers -- than expand our municipal election to hundreds of thousands of additional voters. It's shameful. And the arguments from citizens in favor of preserving the May election date -- which basically boil down to "we don't want all of those extra, uninformed people voting on our City Council" -- is so painfully elitist and conservative, I'm not even sure I have words to describe it, other than to say it seems as far removed from the spirit of what Austin claims and wants to be, it's hard to fathom.
As long as we keep these low-turnout May municipal elections, we're putting the governance of our city into the hands of the very few -- voters who tend to be dramatically wealthier, older, whiter, homeowners in precincts that line the MoPac corridor. Voters who have a vastly more personal and/or professional interest in who is on our City Council do not a fair electorate make. The May electorate is not a fair geographic or political representation of our city, and creates a system where some parts of our city are allowed to exert a disproportionate amount of influence on the democratic process at the expense of other parts of our city.
Every single council member who voted against increasing participation in our elections should be ashamed of themselves and their lack of faith that a larger voting public might want to return them to office.
If you're unwilling to campaign to a wider electorate, then don't run for council in a city of nearly 1,000,000 people.
If you think voting's too hard or confusing for The Poors, then call for a test or pass an ordinance to limit it to homeowners or something.
If you're afraid that your ideology towards the issues facing this growing city won't fly in a younger, more ethnically diverse electorate, then reconsider whose viewpoint you really espouse up there on the dias.
And if you don't want to be voted into service by as much of the public as possible, then maybe you just aren't cut out to be a public servant.
So if you think we should have elections that more accurately represent our population, that include more voters, and younger, more diverse ones at that, you might want to reach out to the folks on Council voting for a May election in the next two weeks and tell them to move it to November.
This won't be the last you hear about this on BOR. And if this issue bothers you -- which I hope it does, because it's a fundamental discussion of how we elect our leaders -- you need to weigh in, not just in the comments here but to our elected officials themselves.
Following are the results of Saturday's City Council Election for the City of Austin Places 1, 3, and 4. Full election results and precinct by precinct results can be found here.
Turnout: 32,869 or 7.4% of 444,139 voters in 209 precincts. Bolded candidates indicate winner, candidate in italics advanced to June 18th runoff.
(Randi Shade is the incumbent candidate in Austin's City Council Place 3 race. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Greetings, Burnt Orange Report readers!
I know you've all been busy watching the ongoing Texas Legislative session, paying attention to what's going on in Washington, and thinking about how we will be impacted. I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the ongoing City Council elections here in Austin, though, which will also have an impact on our lives (though hopefully for the better!). I was glad to see Michael Hurta's post drawing attention to the ongoing races and wanted to come on BOR to talk with you about my re-election campaign.
It's been an exciting first term, and it's been an honor to serve the city I love so much. I am proud to run an office that is accessible and responsive to citizens citywide. And while I know it isn't possible to agree with every person on all the issues, it is possible to have thoughtful debate and make decisions that are driven by fairness and common sense. My record reflects that approach, and I'm glad to share some highlights from my first term with you here.
Prioritizing Reliable City Services: I protected core services and expanded public safety personnel even in tough budget cycles; improved social service contracts to support our most vulnerable neighbors; and advocated successfully for improved parks maintenance citywide.
Helping Grow Our Economy: I helped bring good jobs to Austin and expand local businesses; increased City support for small, minority, and women-owned businesses; prevented excessive regulation of mobile food vendors; and helped create a City music office to support Austin's music industry and improve issues between venues and neighborhoods.
Protecting Our Natural Resources: I set aggressive renewable energy goals while capping utility rate increases; helped launch the Pecan Street Project to drive smart grid technology and clean energy research; supported long-term water treatment capacity while pushing for tougher water conservation goals; prevented a proposed project in the Barton Springs Recharge Zone; and helped increase funding available for tree planting and parkland conservation.
This is everybody's Austin. My office is always ready to work to help citizens from across our City. Whether you're new to town or a long-time activist, I'll listen, get the facts, and use common sense to solve our problems.
In a second term, my priorities will continue to be providing core city services that make our neighborhoods safer and cleaner, and running an office that is responsive to solving problems at City Hall for citizens citywide.
But you don't have to take my word for it -- here's a video featuring just some of the folks who've contacted my office seeking help, and their experiences.
I'm proud of my record, and proud of the work I've done in my first term. In my re-election campaign, I'm honored to have been endorsed by 22 diverse community organizations, including the Central Labor Council, Austin Police, Firefighters, and EMS Associations, Austin Progressive Coalition, Capital Area Asian American Democrats, Capital City Young Democrats, Central Austin Democrats, Circle C Area Democrats, Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association, League of Bicycling Voters, North By Northwest Democrats. St. Edwards Democrats, Stonewall Democrats, University Democrats, The Victory Fund, and the West Austin Democrats. I hope to gain all of your support, and keep working hard in a second term.
Before you vote, please take some time to visit my campaign website to learn more about my background, to read my answers to the many questionnaires from candidate forums, and to see my broad base of support from over 800 individuals. And if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact my campaign!
If you are anything like Phillip, you believe that local Austin elections are decided by a machine of Democratic groups that often exercise in groupthink and comprise almost all the opinion-makers in these races.
If you're more like him, you hate that. But that's how elections often work in this town. With three incumbents up for reelection at City Hall, it's time for a little update.
Before Council Members Randi Shade, Chris Riley, and Laura Morrison even hired their reelection teams, most observers thought that the three were in pretty good shape. They also thought that, if anyone was in any trouble at all, it was Council Member Shade, who has critics from both left and right. If club endorsements are the guide, those initial guesses were true. All three Council Members seem to be leading their races.
The following Democratic organizations (in a relative timeline order) have endorsed the following candidates:
North by Northwest Democrats: Chris Riley (Place 1), Kathie Tovo and Randi Shade dual endorsement (Place 3), Laura Morrison (Place 4)
Black Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Kathie Tovo, Laura Morrison
Austin Tejano Democrats: Chris Riley, Laura Morrison
South Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Kathie Tovo, Laura Morrison
Capital Area Progressive Democrats: Chris Riley, Kathie Tovo, Laura Morrison
Circle C Area Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
University Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Central Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Austin Progressive Coalition*: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Capital Area Asian American Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Capital City Young Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
West Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo (dual endorsement), Laura Morrison
*NOTE: The University Democrats and the Central Austin Democrats are the two organizations that come together to make the Austin Progressive Coalition (APC), which endorses candidates that both other clubs endorse. When APC endorses candidates, it prints and distributes thousands of fliers to help elect them.
Chris RIley and Laura Morrison have received every single Democratic club endorsement thus far, and so long as they maintain normal, active campaigns; losses by them would come as major surprises. Morrison was supposed to have tough opposition from radio-man Toby Ryan, but he's fared very poorly in the endorsement game (not even showing at many endorsement meetings!). Ryan's campaign hopes to reach out to non-traditional voters for victory, but they'll likely need quite a few of them.
Not counting APC, Randi Shade leads opponent Kathie Tovo in Democratic club endorsemetns 7-5. Tovo started strong out of the gate, and her biggest victory was with the South Austin Democrats, a big organization that has sent city council mailings in the past. Council Member Shade won the biggest prize when she won the APC endorsement: their mail and enthusiasm may very well put her over the top.
The Place 3 race is also interesting in that the opposition support for Kathie Tovo seems to come entirely within the establishment. The University Democrats, always made up of members new to the scene, has a history of endorsing anti-establishment and challenger candidates more often than other organizations. In their endorsement vote, Randi Shade received over 80%.
That said, the Tovo-Shade race is still a competitive one, and the endorsement game is close enough that the field campaigns will make the difference over the next month. With other candidates on the ballot, too, a runoff won't be surprising. I wouldn't be surprised to see the incumbent win without a runoff, either.
With city council talking about single member districts, this may be one of the last times that every Democratic club has quite this type of influence on the council. With a mid-May election, there's one other thing that can still swing things, too. You'll still need to vote.
Disclosure: I am now a public supporter for all the incumbents (Riley, Shade, and Morrison). I am also the President Emeritus of the University Democrats.
In addition, an item has been added to authorize the city to spend up to $1.3 million (not including another half a million if there is a run-off) to purchase more voting machines in order to hold a single low-turnout May election on top of an already scheduled November election for the city. The council's own documents admit that "The County acknowledges that machines purchased under this Addendum will likely be sold or otherwise exchanged or returned to the current or other future voting equipment vendor" after the election. The city will have to cover most all of that cost because last night the 
