March Elections?

One of the more interesting items on tonight's (1/5) City Commission agenda is found under "New Business - A" - ADOPT AN ORDINANCE CALLING FOR A REFERENDUM TO CHANGE THE ELECTION DATE FROM NOVEMBER TO MARCH. It is offered by Commissioner Golden. There is also a companion item on the consent agenda AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FOR EQUIPMENT USE AND ELECTION SERVICES.

You may recall that the City Commission placed a referendum item that appeared on the March 2007 regular election ballot to change Lake Worth municipal elections from March to November. To the surprise of many, the referendum passed. The thought behind moving the date is that a November election would bring more people out for the municipal election and, hopefully, engage more people in the local democratic process. However, in practice, that increased turn-out only occurs in years that our District #2 and #4 Commissioners are elected, due to our two year term cycle. Commissioners from Districts #1 , #3 and the Mayor continue to be elected by the usual percentage of super-voters that vote in every municipal election. Here is a run down of voter turn-out percentages for recent elections as put together by the City Clerk.

Now, I don't know the reason for the two percentages presenting a "range" of turn-out statistics, but the pattern is clear. This is one of the reasons that I was against this measure from the outset and why I voted no on the referendum item. Another reason that I was opposed to the measure is that there is a lot of political "noise" during November - with the coincident national, state and county campaign and rederenda. A March municipal election at least allows the electorate to better focus on the local issues, frees up time for volunteering on local campaigns and you might make the same argument about financial resources as well. We also have a seasonal component to our population and a March time frame traditionally reflects when everyone is "here." We cannot forget about potential weather related impacts due to hurricane season and the cooler temperatures that are more conducive to a door-to-door campaign. Finally, I have also discovered that Boynton Beach moved their municipal elections back to March after an experiment with November elections. All those are good reasons to go back to March elections - and Commissioner Golden mentions most of these in her back-up menu.

That being said, there are problems with what is specifically proposed by this agenda item. Commissioner Golden points out that there would be a cost for a special March 2010 election to change the date. That may be the case, but I have found out that we do not need to have an election to make the change. F.S. 100.3605 and F.S. 166.021 make allowances for the elected body to change to the universal municipal election date of March - by ordinance. A referendum is not required. So the budget allocation talked about in the transmittal memo is not needed. It may be a policy decision by the Commission to attempt a return to the March date through a referendum, but it is not a requirement. In fact, municipalities can flip back and forth between November and March election dates whenever the elected body votes to do so. This information comes from Trela White who is attorney for the Palm Beach County League of Cities - one of the organizations that helped craft the other Supervisor of Elections item that appears on the consent agenda. She was going to communicate this fact to our City Attorney today in time for tonight's meeting.

The problem that I have with moving the date at this point in time is that it extends the terms of those currently serving a total of four (4) months. We had a longer extension of terms when we switched to November elections that extended terms by a total of eight (8) months. Thus, if this passes, some Commissioners, like the one who put together this item, would benefit from a total of a one year extension of what would have been two, two-year terms. I have a problem with that. One of the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime is that you are not sure when the elections will be held or you are not given a regular opportunity to vote. It also calls into question the self-serving nature of this item.

If we are going back to March, it should be done after this next election in November or made effective after it. That way, people would know that they are voting for people that will have an extra four (4) months in office. Transparency is important in relation to elections.

Now, the other matter related to costs of elections needs a little more detail if we are going to have another November election. No provision is made for a reduction in cost due to the concurrence of other races going on in November. An election is being held and the Supervisor of Elections will have to count the votes anyway. They may still be work specifically needed for a municipal election, but likely to a lesser degree than a standard March municipal election. .An adjustment lowering the cost to Lake Worth should be part of the agreement.

FYI - this post has been e-mailed to City Commissioners, Mayor, City Manager and City Attorney.