05 Nov Vote Against Charter Amendments #1 & 2: Why Environmentalists Should Care
Tuesday’s election brings with it a number of ballot items, including a cluster of proposals to change the governance of the City of Austin. Prop. 1 will change the time of the election from May to November. Prop. 2 will not only change the time to November but will also lengthen the term from its current 3-year limit to 4 years.
There are several reasons these should be opposed simply on the grounds of good government.
1. Run-off elections will take place during the Christmas season, when turnout will be laughable.
2. Since election laws in Austin greatly limit the amount of money that can be contributed by an individual, there will not be enough money to reach all the new voters a November election will create. The funding gap will probably be made up by the Democratic and Republican parties, who will run their own slates. This lessens the chances for independent grassroots candidates being elected, and places greater power in Party operatives.
3. A four-year term is too long for accountability.
How Can You Be Against More People Voting?
Proponents of these two changes believe they will increase the turnout, which has been historically low since the City adopted campaign financing limitations, and that they will save money by consolidating elections. Who can be against increased voter turnout and saving money?
When there is not enough money to run a City campaign now, how can we think seriously about raising the bar by demanding candidates reach as many as 500% more voters?
Yes, there will be economic savings from combining elections. They amount to all of 8/100ths of 1% of the City budget. Is that worth losing the accountability that 3-year terms provide? As an exaggerated example, we could elect a despot and never worry about elections again. Think of all the money we would save.
Interestingly, the Council could have adopted two-year terms and still timed the elections to state and national ones, gotten the larger voter turnout, and saved money holding elections. Why didn’t they? Does their convenience for longer terms outweigh the need for voter accountability?
Know a Realtor
Who Is Behind Props. #1 and 2? The funding for the Political Action Committee supporting them was revealed in the last week by independent journalist Ken Martin in his publication the Austin Bulldog. He discovered that over 90% of the funding came from the Real Estate Council of Austin and the Austin Board of Realtors. Most of this funding was disclosed at the last possible moment, so no one else in the press has covered it. You can see his story at:
Have these special interests, that have historically opposed many of the initiatives that Austin environmentalists have been won over the years, adopted a populist streak? Doubtful. Rather, they probably see more opportunities to enhance their power.
The Austin progressive community has become good at winning with the current system and cycle of elections. So now the realtors get to change the board. Grassroots action will account for less, maybe even buried in money dumps such as the one that Martin wrote about.
Higher voter turnout is a goal that should be pursued, but I advise both of these propositions be rejected, and strongly advise that Prop. 2 be rejected. Both are poorly planned. Four years is too long for
accountability. The Council can bring us a better plan for our future than Christmas runoffs and party slates.
No Comments