Panama City advisory board debates moving municipal elections to November; proposal fails

PANAMA CITY — The Panama City Charter Review Advisory Board spent much of its meeting weighing whether to move municipal elections into the November general-election calendar and to change how nominations and runoffs are handled.

The board heard staff research comparing Panama City—s current nominating primary (April) and general election (May) system with alternatives used elsewhere, including Tallahassee—s model (a late primary that advances two candidates to November regardless of whether a candidate wins a majority). Staff said it reviewed charters and election practices from about 21 municipalities as background for the discussion.

Supporters of moving the final election to November told the board that general-election turnout is higher and that putting municipal races on the November ballot would increase participation and public awareness. "If we get increased partisanship but we get increased turnout, I think it's worth it," said Daniel Schulz, a resident who testified during public comment. Staff and several commissioners cited examples where pairing local races with higher-turnout elections raised participation.

Opponents warned that November ballots are dominated by national and state contests and said local races risk being swamped by partisan messaging and undervotes. "It inherently becomes political," one board member said, noting that voters often focus on statewide or national issues unrelated to municipal governance.

Motion and outcome

The board considered a motion to align the city—s final municipal election with the November general election and to have a nominating election earlier in the year where the top two candidates advance to November unless a candidate wins a majority in that early election. On a roll-call vote the motion failed 1-3 (one in favor, three opposed; one board member was present remotely and not counted at that roll call). The transcript records the roll call as: Henderson Janssenius — yes; Dancy — no; Ferreira — no; Chairman Berg — no. The motion therefore failed.

Next steps and staff direction

Rather than adopt a change immediately, the board asked staff to return with more data. Members asked for historical turnout figures for Panama City elections and comparisons with August primaries and November general elections extending back a decade. Several members also suggested seeking more public input before recommending a charter change.

Why this matters

Changing the date or the primary/runoff mechanics would require careful drafting because charter language can affect whether a runoff occurs and how vacancies and nominating elections work. The advisory board repeatedly emphasized it is charged with making recommendations to the city commission, which would ultimately place any charter amendments before voters.

Provenance

This article is based on discussion that began at 00:08:13 (staff presentation comparing plurality and majority systems) and continued through the failed motion recorded near 02:00:07. Evidence excerpts: "I also have 2 documents ... Panama City Beach does, versus majority plus 1 voting, which is what Panama City does" (staff); and the roll-call vote recorded near 02:00:07.