The Charter Commission has again proposed
that the City Council consider amending the city charter, by unanimous vote, to
raise the fee charged to run for office in Minneapolis. The amendment would
allow a candidate’s name to appear on the ballot if the candidate files an
affidavit of candidacy and either pays the required filing fee or submits a
petition in place of the filing fee with the number of signatures for which the
Minnesota election law provides, 500 or 5% of the number of people who voted
for that office in the last election, whichever is less. That would translate to about 100-200
signatures for City Council or Park Districts seats and 500 for city wide races
like at-large park commissioner, Board of Estimate and Taxation and mayor.
The filing fee is currently $20
for all races and they are proposing that it be increased as follows: for
Mayor, $250; for Council member, $100; for Board of Estimate & Taxation
member, $20 (no change); and for Park & Recreation commissioner, $50. While
I opposed a proposed increase that was higher that they sent us in December of
2013, I am more inclined to support this when it comes to the Council. I am
concerned that if this does not pass the Council the Commission will put the
higher fee proposal on the ballot in November and then it will pass.
In general I favor an easy, fair
and affordable access for candidates to get on the ballot and have found value
in Minneapolis’ easy open system. I
think that some of the RCV advocates are concerned that a long ballot might be
used as a reason not to support expanding RCV to state offices or to other localities. I think that if this argument is being made,
or will be made, it is not founded in facts. It is obvious when you compare races in
Minneapolis (past and present mayoral races as well as various Council races)
that the number of candidates is not related to RCV. Still, I take this concern
seriously because I am convinced that the greatest use of RCV would be for
state partisan elections, where parties would put their candidates forward
through a partisan primary and then the voters could choose among them without
fear of “wasting votes” or “spoiling” an election by voting for their preferred
candidates rather than a “lesser-than-two-evils” candidate. This would also prevent people from being
elected without a majority of the voters actually indicating a preference for
them.
There are a variety of variables that
I am trying to sort out and I would welcome your views on this topic. I expect
the Intergovernmental Relations Committee to hold a public hearing on this June
5.
As you think about this it might be helpful to consider what
an outsider, and clearly biased, leader of election reform efforts, Rob Ritchie,
thought the recent use of RCV in the Twin Cities. Rob Ritchie is Executive Director
of the FairVote.
As I understand his positions, Ritchie is a big advocate for
STV/RCV, easy ballot access and proportional representation. I tried to find the article online, but was
unable to. So I am quoting from it here:
“…Easy ballot access led to 35 mayoral candidates and
unusually wide breadth of election choices. Had voters been restricted to
backing only one candidate in one election, Minneapolis’ mayor almost certainly
would have won with a low plurality of the vote. In Boston’s mayoral race, for
example, the first place finisher in its preliminary election received only 18%
of the vote --- and while a November runoff elected a majority winner, the
price was elimination of all six candidates of color before the higher turnout
runoff. … [In Minneapolis] RCV led to the mayoral candidates competing
seriously but also positively. Voters elected Betsy Hodges, who earned broad consensus
support. Heavily outspent, Hodges didn’t buy a single television ad, instead
focusing on direct voter contact and coalition building.
“…Among those elected to the city council’s 13 seats by RCV
are the city council’s first Latino, Somali, Hmong Cambodian members….Minneapolis
voters overwhelmingly understood and preferred RCV, according to an exit poll
by Edison Research. Commentators noted that the political climate had changed
from traditional “machine politics” to coalition politics, in which candidates
talk to voters more about issues and policy. A local professor called the 2013 mayoral
election a “game changer.”
“….In neighboring St. Paul, incumbent Chris Coleman easily
defeated three challengers, with RCV allowing that election to take place in
one round instead of two. A highly competitive special election led to the
election of the city’s first Hmong American. Instructively, two Hmong Americans
were able to run without concern of splitting the vote – and the campaign was
civil enough that the winner ultimately hired the African American who finished
second to work on his council staff.”
