Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections And Recall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Debates Recall and Initiative Thresholds; Members Urge Charter Alignment with State Law
Summary
Members discussed recall thresholds (25% of registered voters in last municipal election in charter vs. state law), initiative and referendum language (sections 45–47) considered confusing, and whether to keep detailed election procedure text in the charter or defer to municipal code and state statute.
The committee spent substantial time on Article 4 and related charter provisions that govern recalls, initiatives and referendums, and election procedures. Members questioned why the charter uses 25% of registered voters in the last municipal election as the recall threshold — wording that, as written, produces a substantially different signature requirement than state law, which uses ballots cast for the relevant office in the last election. Committee members noted that using registered voters produces a higher numerical bar than the state approach in typical low-turnout district elections and asked staff to obtain county turnout counts by district so the committee can evaluate thresholds concretely. City staff said they would request certified turnout reports after an election is finalized and noted that reporting is produced by the counties and may not be available immediately. The committee also flagged sections 45–47 (initiative and referendum) as poorly drafted and inconsistent; City Attorney Reid and staff recommended cleaning up those sections and relying on the city code for procedural, administrative details to avoid future conflicts with state law. Members discussed whether charter language should defer to state statute for areas like signature thresholds, timing for collecting signatures, and whether citizen-initiated charter amendments should have a lower signature requirement than ordinances. The group agreed to park extensive redrafting of initiative and referendum language and asked staff and the city attorney to return with recommended, cleaner language and comparisons to state statute. The committee also discussed potentially abolishing the election commission because coordinated county elections reduced the need for a local commission and running stand-alone elections is significantly more expensive; staff reported recent stand-alone elections cost the city tens of thousands of dollars, while coordinating with counties reduces cost. No formal changes were adopted at the meeting; staff were directed to research turnout numbers, statutory comparators, and draft clearer charter text for discussion at a future session.
