Phoenix City Council Divided on Election Consolidation Bill that Divided Counties

[Image courtesy of vorpalrat]

I’m traveling today, so just a quick (and a tiny bit belated) followup on the debate over election consolidation in Arizona that I blogged about back in May.

Since that post, Governor Jan Brewer has signed House Bill 2826 and as a result, beginning in 2014, local elections in the state will be held in even years at the same time as statewide elections.

In Phoenix, the largest city in Maricopa County, the state’s largest county, members of the City Council are divided over whether or not to file suit against the new law. According to AZCentral.com:

City Council members who want to challenge the law say it infringes on the city’s authority to control its own affairs and govern based on its city charter.

Some are also worried about the unintended consequences of the law, such as forcing sitting council members to serve at least a year longer than their elected terms to comply with the legislation.

If Phoenix follows through with the suit, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and other municipalities likely will add their support, league officials said.

But not all council members agree with a legal challenge. Some question why the city should fight legislation aimed at increasing voter turnout and saving taxpayers money.

The differences of opinion center on three issues:

1. Turnout

In November, Phoenix broke voter- turnout records with a runoff election featuring the most competitive mayoral race the city had seen in nearly 30 years, but still only 28 percent of voters cast ballots. In the previous mayoral election, turnout was about 18 percent.

Turnout in Chandler was nearly 83 percent for the 2008 fall election, far higher than the 10 to 15 percent turnout in the city’s past spring elections. That also was a presidential-election year. In Scottsdale, three times as many voters cast ballots in the fall mayoral election compared with the spring election four years prior.

2. Cost

[Consolidation supporters] also cited cost savings for cities as another benefit of the new law. They said that after Chandler and Scottsdale consolidated their elections with state and national races in 2008, voter turnout increased significantly while the cost of running the election dropped.

By placing their elections onto the state’s general-election ballot, the cities avoided the costs of printing ballots and opening polls only for the city election.

…

Scottsdale reported saving more than $100,000 in 2010 because of the change. Chandler reported saving 42 cents to $1.41 a ballot after the shift.

3. Home rule and holdover effects

Tucson successfully challenged a 2009 state law that prohibited the city from holding partisan elections. City elections for mayor and city councils typically are officially nonpartisan in Arizona, meaning candidates are not associated with a political party on the ballot. Tucson attorneys contended the state Constitution gives charter cities unique rights to govern strictly local matters, and the court agreed.

“The local autonomy preserved for charter cities by Arizona’s Constitution allows Tucson voters to continue electing their council members pursuant to the city’s 1929 charter,” according to the opinion Justice Scott Bales wrote.

However, Nick Dranias, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute who helped craft House Bill 2826, said there is a conflicting court case that should take precedence.

In a case from the 1990s, Tucson fought a law mandating that elections be held only one of four times throughout the year. In that case, Tucson lost.

The Arizona Supreme Court said specifying uniform dates for municipal elections is of “statewide concern” and overrides cities’ home-rule protections.

The two cases show that cities can dictate the “method and manner” of elections, but uniform dates for elections are the state’s responsibility, Dranias said.

…

Other cities and towns have been opposed to HB 2826 because of technical problems they expect to encounter as they reset election cycles to comply with the law.

City Council members and mayors could serve an extra year in office as a result. And cities and towns would have to hold charter elections to ensure the documents’ language reflected changes from the legislation. City clerks are worried voters may not approve the charter changes.

It looks like this issue – like so many others – will end up being resolved in court. Stay tuned.