Prescott council asks staff to draft charter amendment after questions about multi-seat runoffs

Prescott, Ariz. — The Prescott City Council on Sept. 9 directed staff to begin drafting changes to the city charter after the August primary exposed ambiguities in how the city calculates a majority in multi-seat council contests.

The direction follows presentations from city staff and public comments pointing out that the county’s election management system reports ballots and vote totals differently, and cannot identify how many ballots contained zero, one, two or three votes in a multi-seat contest. "Unfortunately, our election management system does not break out that data," resident Jim Gehring said while summarizing the county response.

Why it matters: The charter language approved by voters in 2010 uses the phrase "majority of all the valid ballots cast," which city staff said has been interpreted in practice as total ballots minus overvotes, divided by two plus one. Council members and candidates said that wording produced uncertainty after the recent primary and led to a runoff in which no candidate had an outright majority under the current calculation.

What the council heard and decided - City staff explained that the county’s EMS (Unison Voting Solutions Inc.) reports total ballots tabulated and vote totals for contests but cannot break the undervote category into the number of ballots containing 0, 1 or 2 votes for a contest. City staff said the August election returned 17,706 ballots tabulated (about 49.55% of eligible voters) and, for the three-seat council contest, 39,216 total votes cast, 13,821 undervotes and 81 overvotes. - Candidates and residents urged the council to change the charter. Candidate Jay Ruby urged the council to adopt the "Biggs-Phan" formula referenced by the League of Cities and Towns, saying it would "stop repeat elections." Candidate Kathy Rusing urged alignment with state statutes and recommended advancing the top three vote getters. - Some council members favored keeping the current primary/general structure but clarifying the charter language. Councilman Gamboge said he would "clean up the language a little bit" but urged keeping the primary, while Councilman Moore recommended aligning with state statute to reduce runoffs. - After discussion and an informal show-of-hands poll — which council members described as 3–2 in favor of developing language to align counting with the state's vote-based method — the council instructed staff to draft amendment language and return it to council for formal consideration and eventual placement on a future ballot.

Discussion details and constraints City staff emphasized limits of the county’s reporting: while the EMS provides an overall undervote count for a contest, it cannot report how many ballots contain zero votes for a specific contest versus one or two votes. That inability constrains whether the charter can be applied literally as written ("majority of all the valid ballots cast for that office"). Staff described possible paths: retain current language, revise to clarify the city’s present ballots-based practice, or revise to mirror state statute for multi-seat contests. Council members also raised cost concerns for runoffs, potential voter drop-off between primary and general elections, and the political effects of single-shot or "bullet" voting strategies that many supporters use to favor a single candidate.

Public comments - Jay Ruby (candidate) urged the council to "stop repeat elections" and said adoption of the Biggs-Phan formula would have avoided several runoffs and saved the city money. - Jim Gehring (Prescott Lakes resident) relayed the county’s response that "our election management system does not break out that data." He recommended switching to the state statute’s approach. - Kathy Rusing (candidate) said the city should "comply with the state statutes" and suggested the plurality/top-three method for multi-seat races.

Next steps and limitations Council members said staff will draft proposed charter language and return it for a formal council vote; any approved amendment would then go to voters. The council did not adopt final language at the Sept. 9 session. The council’s direction was procedural; no formal ordinance, resolution or charter amendment was adopted that night.

Clarifying details (as discussed on the record) - Ballots tabulated (Aug.): 17,706 (about 49.55% of 35,732 eligible voters). - For the council contest: total votes cast = 39,216; total undervotes = 13,821; total overvotes = 81. - County EMS = Unison Voting Solutions Inc.; county elections director Lauren Kustis provided the county letter referenced by staff but did not attend.

Ending The council’s next step is for staff to prepare draft charter language reflecting council direction and to return that language to the council for consideration before any placement on a municipal ballot. The council emphasized that whichever path it chooses will be presented to voters for final approval.