Rio Rancho council reviews staff recommendation to move municipal elections to November

City staff presented the governing body with options to move Rio Rancho's municipal elections from the traditional March municipal-officer election day to the state'run regular local election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd-numbered years. The presentation laid out cost, turnout and legal considerations and recommended the governing body adopt an ordinance to opt in and align local elections with the statewide calendar. No final vote was taken.

The presentation was given by Peter Wells, staff member, after City Manager Geisel introduced the item. Wells told the council that Rio Rancho's charter currently schedules municipal elections the first Tuesday in March of even-numbered years and that the city's municipal code includes a local photo-ID requirement for municipal elections only. He said state law provides municipalities a mechanism to "opt in" to hold municipal-officer elections on the state'run November regular local election, but doing so requires an ordinance and timely filing with the Secretary of State.

Wells and staff emphasized four factors driving the recommendation: sharply rising local election costs, the potential for higher voter turnout when municipal races coincide with other local contests, the diminishing number of New Mexico municipalities that still hold March municipal-officer elections, and recent state legislative activity (Senate Bill 218) that sought to eliminate the separate municipal-officer election day. Wells said the city's cost to run a March municipal election has increased from about $45,000 in 2018 to a projected nearly $450,000 in 2026, and that opting in would shift the cost burden to the statewide election fund and free city staff time now consumed by running local elections.

Wells also explained operational effects of opting in: the Sandoval County Clerk would administer Rio Rancho ballots and the city would no longer enforce its municipal-only photo-ID requirement for those elections; the ordinance to opt in must set whether affected officeholders'terms are shortened or lengthened to align with the new date; and candidate filing deadlines and runoff scheduling would change (county filing dates and a required runoff 21'to'45 days later if no candidate receives a majority).

Council members discussed the tradeoffs but made no decision. Councilor Weimer said, "I think the writing's on the wall. I think we should proceed with opting in. I like the recommendation," and added that she was not a fan of eliminating the local photo ID but feared the change was inevitable. Councilor Lewis said she appreciated the research and urged that any change respect current officeholders' four'year terms, saying that shortening terms "would harm people who would be looking to run" and would favor incumbents. Several other councilors asked staff to place an ordinance for first and second reading at an upcoming meeting so the council could consider term-length options before the June 30 filing deadline if it chooses to shorten terms to appear on the November ballot.

Wells and the city manager told the council that if the governing body opts in and shortens terms, the city must pass and file the ordinance by June 30 of the year preceding the November election; if the council does not opt in the city clerk must continue planning and securing space and staffing for a March 2026 election. Wells noted that the council could later rescind an ordinance after two election cycles if it wished to return to March municipal-officer election day.

Discussion was strictly deliberative; there was no formal motion or vote on the election-date question at tonight's meeting. Staff said it would return with an ordinance for the council to consider if members wanted to move forward.