LETTER: Study First, Vote Second
To the Editors of the Falls Church Times:
Although I ran over (literally) to the City Council meeting on Monday, since I was chairing a Planning Commission meeting, the public statements had ended, so I didn’t get a chance to talk.
I intended to speak out very simply against making any move now. I was glad to hear that 2010 is off the table, but I still fail to see why the Council needs to act NOW at all. I think that this deserves study and, frankly, I don’t know whether I want to change from May to November or not. I can think of good arguments in both directions. The question Councilman Dan Maller raised about what state or federal cycle we tie any date change to is very significant. It deserves an answer.
I now hear that there’s talk of making the change in 2012 and letting Council members appoint “interim” members to fill out the terms of those up that year. Huh? For six months what would be the most responsible move? Find three new people? What if they’re running for Council? Give them an “incumbent” advantage against people who were actually elected? This makes even less sense than letting people vote themselves an extension in office. And don’t get me started about the idea of reappointing those in office at that time. Disingenuous at best.
I also hear there might be a resolution calling for a referendum. Wouldn’t that then force a referendum in 30-60 days? That wouldn’t help anything and would be a huge negative. Talk about low voter turnout.
I think the Council should do two things: 1) require a report (led possibly by the League of Women Voters) that would study the issue and report back no later than May 1 on the question of May vs. November; and 2) pass a Sense of the Council resolution saying that after that report the Council (however constituted) should call for a referendum at such a time that it could be put on the November ballot. Are better-informed voters good? Use this report to inform them on the issue. Is better turnout good? Use it to decide this issue in November. Sure, it may be an “advisory” referendum, but the Council should want advice on this, not run from it. And if a change is made, do it in 2014.
John Lawrence
Falls Church City
( EDITORS’ NOTE: Mr. Lawrence is chair of the Falls Church Planning Commission. He has informed us that this letter was also submitted to the Falls Church News-Press. We have printed it in unedited form.)
By (see byline)
December 10, 2009
One thing to consider is if a change isn’t made before the May, 2010 election we’ll face a similar challenge if we try and change the 2014 election. Those elected in 2010 will be elected for 4 year terms and moving the 2014 election from May to November will end up extending terms.
Personally, if the change is made via referendum instead of Council passing an ordinance then I’m okay with terms being extended (if the election is moved, somewhere someone will end up with a term that isn’t 4 years long) because it will be the result of a vote by the citizens.
So, if Council is determined to make this change by ordinance I think they should make it before May, 2010 and have it impact the 2014 election (although they don’t need to rush to make the change before the end of this year). However, if Council does want to make a change my preference would be to have the folks elected in May 2010 serve a term of 3.5 years so their next election would be in November, 2013. This would get our local elections off of the national election cycle.
At the last Council session, the Mayor read from a list of 27 Virginia jurisdictions that, it was claimed, held partisan federal and non-partisan local elections in November 2008. I presume this is the same list posted on her husband’s blog, here:
http://blueweeds.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d18f153ef0128762c2efb970c-popup
If so, I have had occasion to look through the list, and there appear to be some significant inaccuracies. In particular, a check of the Virginia State Board of Elections website indicates that the November 2008 elections for local councils in Winchester City, Manassas Park City, Harrisonburg City, and Grayson County/Elk Creek were in fact partisan as the candidates are identified with partisan affiliations.
Winchester:
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/00_840_s.shtml
http://www.winchesterva.gov/government/council.php
Manassas Park:
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/00_685_s.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081300031.html
Harrisonburg:
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/00_660_s.shtml
Grayson County/Elk Creek:
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/00_077_s.shtml
Another claimed local election, in Grottoes in Augusta County, apparently did not occur last November:
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/00_015_s.shtml
The list also includes Arlington County because of its non-partisan school board election. However, as we all know, elections for the County Board are partisan.
Finally, it should be noted that a number of the additional jurisdictions on the list are very small, with no more than several hundred people (such as Mount Crawford in Rockingham County, with a population of 254, and Alberta in Brunswick County, with a population of 306), and it is unlikely there would be an active party structure in these locations interested in nominating or even endorsing candidates. This is to be compared to Winchester, Manassas Park, and Harrisonburg, which have populations larger than or comparable to Falls Church. Moreover, the City of Richmond, another jurisdiction on the list, had a de jure non-partisan election that was de facto partisan as there were major political party endorsements of candidates last year. Here, for example, is a link to the website of a candidate (ultimately successful) touting the local Democratic Party Committee’s endorsement:
http://www.chrishilbert.com/endorsemens.html
I should also point out that the description of the 1972 June-to-May change of the election date, which proponents of the election date change have cited favorably, appears to be historically inaccurate. Wasn’t the 1972 change done to conform the City Charter to a 1970 mandate enacted in the Virginia Code? See the description on pages 3-4 of the January 2001 report of the Falls Church League of Women Voters for more:
http://www.lwvfallschurch.org/files/may_or_november_lwvfc_report.doc
If the prior date change was done under a mandate, then it can’t serve as a precedent for the current proposal, where moving the election date would be entirely volitional.
I just spoke with a friend from Manassas City and they have the same problem with low voter turn out in May. However, they are not going to change because of the Partisan atmosphere that is created as has happened in Manassas Park when they changed (on purpose) to create the Partisan voting.
We need to leave things alone…….
I’m with Barry (mostly). And, while this issue and the new City branding effort occupy center stage, I can’t help but wonder what happened to the City’s Budget issues? Have they all been resolved? The current ish of the FCNP doesn’t cover,so, what happened?