Sioux Falls council advances rival proposals on election timing and lowers runoff threshold to 35% for council seats (to second reading)

The Sioux Falls City Council on June 17 voted unanimously to send to second reading two ordinances proposing different regular election dates for the 2026 city elections and an ordinance amending city code to change the runoff threshold for council seats.

Councilor Richard Thomason sponsored an ordinance setting the regular election date for Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026; Councilor McCurris sponsored a counterpart ordinance setting the date for Tuesday, June 2, 2026. Both ordinances were advanced to second reading, 8–0, for additional public input and deliberation.

Councilors also advanced an ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the municipal code to lower the runoff threshold for council races from a majority (50%+1) to 35%. Councilors voted to send the ordinance to second reading on July 8 by an 8–0 vote.

Supporters of the November date argued it would increase turnout and better reflect voter preferences. Thomason told the council that “there’s just naturally more turnout” in November and cited differences in under-vote rates for other contests to argue the change would bring “the full intent of the legislature of having turnout.”

Supporters of a June date said local contests and mayoral primaries would receive more focused attention in summer and warned that potential runoffs placed in late November could interfere with holiday schedules. Councilor McCurris said a June schedule “elevates the issues” for local forums and that “a mayoral runoff in summer is much more appropriate than the Tuesday of Thanksgiving week.”

Public commenters gave mixed views. Michael Stangland, who said he is in the Northeast District, called it “good that you are presenting both” options and urged the council to allow more public input. A precinct worker who spoke in support of June described the 2020 experience as “seamless” and said June would help focus attention on local contests.

The proposed change to the runoff threshold drew the most spirited debate. Proponents said a lower threshold would reduce costly runoffs and election fatigue; Councilor Barranco described the change as a way to save taxpayer dollars and shrink the frequency of runoffs. Opponents argued lowering the threshold risks legitimacy when elected officials win with a low plurality. Public commenter Michael Stangland called the proposal “abhorrent” and said electing someone with roughly one-third of the vote would not reflect the will of the people.

Councilors acknowledged competing values: reducing costs and runoff frequency versus ensuring majority-backed winners and encouraging coalition-building. Several councilors said they were open to continuing deliberations and soliciting more public feedback before final votes.

All three items were scheduled for second readings in July so the council can receive further public input and return with final decisions.