Charter: Qualifications and elections

Today, we continue our comparison of the City’s current charter to the proposed charter on which City electors will vote in a November 24 referendum. Under the new charter, there would be changes to how candidates for City office qualify, are elected, and their terms of office.

What we have now

Six-month residency requirement. The current charter requires that candidates for mayor or the two at-large seats be residents and registered voters in the City for a minimum of six months prior to their qualification date. Those running for the district seats on Council must be residents and registered voters in their district for a minimum of six months prior to their qualification date.

Two-year terms, no limits. Under the current charter, all ten seats on the City Council, including the mayoralty, are up for election every two years. Those elected serve two-year terms, and have no limit on the number of terms they may serve.

Qualifying officer unclear. The current charter vests the power to determine candidate qualifications in the entire Council, rather than a single individual, which has caused problems in the past (cough, J. D. Smith, cough).

Election schedule. Currently, all City Council races are contested at general elections on the first Tuesday in November. If there are more than two candidates, and no candidate gets a majority of votes cast, the top two vote-getters proceed to a run-off election three weeks later. These are special elections which are an additional cost to the City.

Commencement of terms. Under the current charter, Council members take office in early January, more than two months after the general election. This can create unpleasant situations with lame-duck Council members.

No staggered elections. Currently, all seats on the Council are up for election every two years. This presents the possibility, although it’s never happened, that an entirely new Council could be elected with no holdovers from the previous Council. Many municipal governments prefer staggered elections, which ensures that different seats on the Council are elected at different times. Locally, the Escambia County Commission, School Board, and ECUA Board all feature staggered elections. The proposed charter would implement staggered terms for City offices.

What the new charter proposes

The proposed charter provides for substantial changes in the way we elect officials.

One-year residency requirement. The proposed charter would increase the residency requirement for mayor and Council candidates to one year.

Four-year terms, three term limit. The proposed charter would increase the length of terms for Mayor and Council from two to four years. It would also introduce term limits of three consecutive four-year terms.

Qualifying officer clarified. The proposed charter clearly states that the City Clerk shall be the judge of candidate qualifications.

Election schedule. The proposed charter would alter the City’s election schedule. Council races which had more than one candidate would be run at the time of primary elections in late August, and if no candidate won a majority of votes cast, the top two vote-getters would proceed to a runoff held concurrent with the general election on the first Tuesday in November. Races with only two candidates would be contested at the general election. This would eliminate the special run-off elections which cost the City extra.

Commencement of terms. Under the proposed charter, terms would commence on the fourth Tuesday in November, or three weeks after the general election. This would eliminate the two-month gap that exists now between election day and commencement of terms in January.

Staggered elections. The proposed charter also introduces staggered elections. Under the proposed system, we would still have City elections every two years. At the first election, we would elect the District 2, 4, and 6 seats, one of two at-large seats, and the mayor. Two years later, we would elect Districts 1,3, 5, and 7, as well as the second at-large seat. While this would result in initial two-year terms for those elected in the first set of elections, it would provide a staggered election schedule going forward.

Conclusion

The only really controversial items here are the extension of terms from two to four years, and the introduction of term limits. Those who support increasing the term length argue that it will allow elected officials more time to familiarise themselves with the system before hitting the campaign trail again. Opponents say the longer terms reduce accountability to voters at the ballot box. Those in favour of term limits argue it guarantees turnover and stems entrenchment and corruption. Opponents say term limits arbitrarily limit voters’ options.

Staggered elections are probably a non-issue to most voters. We like having everyone up for election at the same time, but if top City staffers are to be mayoral appointees, and thus may change with a new administration, it’s probably a good idea to ensure some continuity on the City Council.

The other changes are all long-overdue housekeeping items which will increase efficiency and save the City money.

Links

• For the full text of both charter documents, see http://progressivepensacola.com/charter.
• For more on the charter debate, see our in-depth series or browse all charter coverage.