On June 17 the Albuquerque City Council voted on a 6 to 3 vote and passed a Charter Amendment that would eliminate all runoff elections for Mayor and City Council. It would mandated that whoever gets the most votes wins with no runoff between the two top vote getters. Whoever secures the most votes of all the candidates running at the same time wins the election out right.
The charter amendment was sponsored Democrat Councilor Klarissa Peña and Republican Dan Lewis. Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout and Dan Champine and Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña voted “YES”. Democrat City Councilors Tammy Fiebelkorn, Nichole Rogers and Joaquín Baca voted “NO”.
On June 17, Common Cause was quick to address the city council vote on social media this way:
“[The Albuquerque City Council] took us backward by amending an already bad proposal. Rather than lowering the threshold to be elected mayor or city councilor from 50% to 40%, they’ve eliminated any threshold altogether. Candidates under this scheme could be elected with 10% for example. The 6-3 passage of this proposal means, voters will be confronted with a question on this November’s ballot to eliminate run-offs and move to a free-for-all voting process where fringe candidates and special interests will dominate our elections.”
In a follow up post on its web page, Common Cause said this in part:
“The public needs confidence that our municipal leaders have been legitimately elected, and the best way to do that is with a secure, accessible electoral system that demands the winner receives the majority of votes. Our leaders cannot effectively govern without a strong mandate from the voters.”
https://act.commoncause.org/letters/dont-override-the-veto?source=direct_link&
On June 25 New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver wrote Mayor Tim Keller all nine City Councilors voicing her opposition to the proposed charter amendment. She wrote in part:
“Unlike state and federal elections in which there is a Primary Election that whittles down the pool of candidates, municipal runoff elections with winning majority thresholds help create important mandates for local officials in New Mexico. I also recognize there are some substantive arguments against the city’s existing runoff structure. These top-two runoff elections come with hefty price tags, and their timing typically means fewer eligible voters make their voices heard at the ballot box.
… .
However, although not ideal, the current system is still preferable to the [proposed] charter amendment … . Albuquerque voters already approved the current 50% threshold for winning candidates in 2013, and having candidates receive at least 50% of the total votes provides the public with a clear winner who then has a mandate to lead. Changing the city’s election system to one where a candidate can be elected with a minority of votes is a big step in the wrong direction.”
On July 3, Mayor Tim Keller announced he vetoed the proposed charter amendment that if approved by voters would have returned municipal elections of Mayor and City Council to “plurality elections.” In his July 2 veto message to the City Council, Keller said this in part:
“After careful legal review, I have identified … issues with the legislation R-24-47. … .
This resolution would lower the threshold for Mayor and City Council to be elected from the current system—50% plus 1—to a plurality, meaning most votes wins, and it would eliminate runoffs. Runoff elections are the norm in cities that employ nonpartisan ballots to select local officials. Peer cities such as El Paso, Oklahoma City, Denver, Phoenix, Colorado Springs, and Sacramento all use a 50% plus 1 threshold.
Although we elect members of Congress and state legislators via plurality vote, these are partisan elections, where parties first select their nominees before they compete in general election. Because the plurality vote rule combined with single member districts tends to produce two strong political parties, general elections almost always have only two candidates, and thus a majority vote winner. Cities by and large have nonpartisan elections, not party primaries, thus runoffs are often required to produce a majority winner.
I firmly believe a plurality system would give a significant advantage to incumbent candidates and remove a level of accountability our constituents deserve. With more support from voters, elected leaders have a clear mandate to govern. With a plurality, a Mayor or Councilor could be in office with 10% of the vote or less, making it challenging to represent the whole city or be held accountable to voters.
I want to remind everyone that in 2013, with a vote of 55% to 45%, voters spoke loud and clear on this issue by changing the then 40% threshold to the current 50%. Current efforts nationwide to reform city elections are focused on promoting democracy and civic engagement, not anti-majoritarian policies like the current amendment, which would allow a minority of voters in the city to select our mayor, and a minority of voters in council districts to select city councilors. This is something I cannot ignore; I respect and support the will of the voters and all the members of our community who have pushed for more accountability in our elections.
I want to recognize the overwhelming input from the public in opposition to this particular piece of legislation. It has been clear in the last three City Council meetings, nearly every single community member voiced their concern and opposition to this measure.
…
R-24-47 as passed would drastically change the way we conduct elections in the City of Albuquerque. While no election system is perfect, this charter amendment moves Albuquerque in the wrong direction.”
CITY COUNCIL FAILS TO OVERRIDE KELLER VETO
Immediately after Mayor Keller announced he had vetoed the Charter Amendment, Republican Albuquerque City Council President boldly announced that the City Council would override the veto on August 5 after it returned from its summer break. It was not meant to be. On August 5, the Albuquerque City Council failed to override Mayor Keller’s veto of the proposed Charter Amendment mandating a plurality election vote. It had been Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout and Dan Champine and Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña who had voted “YES” to ask voters to eliminate runoff elections for city council and mayoral elections. In order to override the veto, all six would have had to vote “YES” to override the the Keller veto. However, only 5 of those 6 councilors voted to override the Keller veto, one vote short, so no proposed changes to city election laws will appear on the November ballot. It was Democrat City Councilor Klarissa Pena who changed her vote and voted “NO” with Democrat City Councilors Tammy Fiebelkorn, Nichole Rogers and Joaquín Baca.
STAGGERED TERMS FAIL
City Councilor Klarissa Peña also sponsored two charter amendments abolishing staggered terms for City Council and mandating elections where all nine city councilors and the mayor would be up for election at the same time. The Council also voted NO on the staggered term measures. The purpose for having staggered terms for city councilor is stability and institutional knowledge. With all city councilors and mayor running at the same time, a 100% turnover at City Hall could happen, resulting in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge of city government that is vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.
ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL GUEST OPINION COLUMN
On Sunday, August 4, the Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial pages the following Pete Dinelli guest opinion column:
HEADLINE: “Charter amendments are vendettas against Mayor, not good government”
BY: PETE DINELLI, Albuquerque Resident
“On June 17, the Albuquerque City Council voted to pass three charter amendments to be placed on the November ballot for voter approval.
The first gives the City Council more authority in the process for removing the chief of police and the fire chief.
The second creates a process to fill vacancies on a committee to resolve separation of powers mandating council representation.
The third eliminates all runoff elections for mayor and City Council and whoever gets the plurality vote wins, with no runoff between the two top vote-getters.
On July 3, Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the plurality vote measure but declined to veto the other two. The council plurality vote charter amendment has been severely criticized by the general public, Common Cause New Mexico and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver as ill-advised and a big step in the wrong direction.
The Keller veto could be overturned on a 6-to-3 vote. Council President Dan Lewis immediately vowed an override of the veto at the council’s Aug. 5 meeting.
City Councilor Klarissa Peña is also sponsoring two amendments abolishing staggered terms for City Council and mandating elections where all nine city councilors and the mayor would be up for election at the same time.
The purpose for having staggered terms for city councilor is stability and institutional knowledge. With all city councilors and mayor running at the same time, a 100% turnover at City Hall could happen, resulting in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge of city government that is vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.
The five charter amendments are not the first time the City Council has attempted to mess with our election process and our government structure itself.
In April 2023, first-term city councilors Democrat Louie Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout announced draconian legislation proposing a city charter amendment for a public vote that would have made the mayor of Albuquerque a member of the City Council. They wanted to transfer all the mayor’s executive and city management duties to a city manager chosen by the City Council.
All the proposed changes to the charter by the City Council have absolutely nothing to do with good government, nor improving our election process, but reflect a personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller. The more conservative City Council has shown significant resistance to Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda as going too far.
Repeatedly, the current more conservative City Council has attempted to repeal ordinances and resolutions enacted by the previous more progressive City Council, and to limit the authority of Mayor Tim Keller to no avail as he outmaneuvers them and vetoes measures with the council unable to muster the necessary six votes to override the vetoes.
Prime examples include the following:
1. A resolution to repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency.
2. A resolution barring the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.
3. Repeal of a quarter-cent tax increase in gross receipts tax enacted a few years ago.
4. Repealing or attempting to amend the city’s “immigrant friendly” policy, calling it a “sanctuary city” policy and requiring APD to assist and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
It is no secret Mayor Tim Keller is preparing to seek a third term. Confidential sources say city councilors Louie Sanchez and Brook Bassan are contemplating a run against Keller.
The results are charter amendments to reduce Keller’s reelection chances and to improve theirs. The City Council should not override the Keller plurality elections veto and vote “no” to eliminate staggered terms.”
FINAL COMMENTARY
Simply put, the Charter Amendment to reduce the vote to win a City Council or Mayoral race with whoever gets the most votes with no runoffs is very bad government on many levels and will promote chaos in municipal elections. Initially when the Mayor-City Council form of government was created, it was common to have upwards of 15 candidates running for Mayor and who ever got the most votes won. The result was chaotic elections with fringe candidates diluting the vote. The city does not need to go back.