I plan to offer my thoughts about the nine propositions to change the City Charter over the next few days.
Chime in.
El Paso’s voters will be asked to approve or disapprove of several changes to the City Charter in the May 2013 election. This post is one of several where we will discuss the propositions.
Proposition 1
In Strike two I pointed out the fact that this proposition does not contemplate action. There is no verb in the opening clause (or any other one for that matter) that takes action.
Some thoughts:
- Unless council takes some kind of action to fix the ballot language for this proposition, it will be a magnet for legal challenges. The safe thing to do is to scrap this proposition and bring it back in another election if it is still desired.
- The proposition would move the city elections to happen on the same day as the November (national) elections. Some will argue that moving to November will increase voter turnout. Maybe it will. That might also have the effect of reducing the turnout for school district elections which will still be held in May. We should be paying more attention to our school district boards and who we elect to put on them.
- The initiative would allow a future city council to increase the number of district representatives from eight to ten if our population reaches one million people. The initiative does not say how quickly council could make that decision, so a future council could elect to stay at eight members even after the city reaches the one million person mark. The proposition does not specify what source will be used to define when we have reached the higher population. Concievably council could pass a resolution or commision a study that declares El Paso to have one million people. This is sloppy and unnecessary. The proposition should leave the choice of the number of members on council up to the voters. We should not be laying this booby trap — the voters should be making the decision as to how many members council has, not the council itself.
I post the ballot language directly from the city website:
SHALL SECTIONS 2.1 A AND B, 2.2 E, 2.3 A, 2.4 A AND 8.7, OF THE CITY CHARTER, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS, CITY OFFICERS, AND TERMS OF OFFICE: TO MOVE THE CITY’S GENERAL ELECTIONS FROM MAY IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS TO NOVEMBER IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS BEGINNING IN 2018; TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING FOR OFFICE TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SCHEDULING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS ON DATES WHEN THE ELECTION WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COUNCIL MAY TAKE ACTION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES FROM EIGHT TO TEN AT SUCH TIME AS THE CITY’S POPULATION REACHES ONE MILLION?
Trojan horse
There will be a lot of discussion about how this proposition might increase the turn out in city elections. If it is enacted it would certainly hurt school district elections because they would basically be separate elections with the city leaving the May ballot.
A secret motivation here is to make recalls and other citizen petitions much harder. The way it works now a petition needs the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last city election. Combining the city election into the November election would increase the number of voters and make getting 5% much more difficult.
Legal battle
We also have to be very careful with this proposition because of its poor wording. If it is passed we will probably have an expensive legal battle because of its lack of authority for action. We might be better off doing this next time if the voters want it.
It also has a problem with multiple subjects. Some will undoubtedly say that there is only one subject — election. Increasing the number of city representatives has nothing to do with an election. This flaw will make the proposition subject to legal challenge if it is approved by the voters.
Study the proposition and then vote in May.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Brutus,
The issue of legal fees is an important one. Is there an easy way to find out how much the City spends on legal fees annually?
Does the City publish anything that resembles an annual financial report? Not just the budget, but a report of what money was spent on in the prior year.
LikeLike
Casual Observer:
11th month financial statement (could not get budget to download)
Click to access Eleven%20Months%20Ended%207.31.2012.pdf
go to page 8 — apparently internal City Attorney costs were budgeted at $4.6 million
go to page 9 — “outside counsel services” were at $1,012,090
if you add up line items on page 9 starting at “attorneys and paralegals” through “outside counsel services” I think you will come up to the $4.6 million.
so it looks like $1 million for outside, and $689 thousand for trial expenses
LikeLike
It is most unfortunate that many, if not all, of the Propositions, Ballot Initiatives, etc. are intentionally worded in such an obtuse manner so as to confuse the El Paso version of the 1 percent; don’t even worry about the ‘common voter’. If Legalese cannot be outlawed then perhaps, maybe, possibly, and Legalese to English translation can be provided.
LikeLike
I was glad when they said they had dropped the petition and recall changes, but now I see how that “trojan horse” works to make petitions much harder. Sneaky ~sneaky~
LikeLike