Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs moving Panama City elections to November to boost turnout; no final decision
Summary
The Charter Review Advisory Board examined decade-long turnout data showing much higher participation in November gubernatorial/presidential cycles and discussed models (Tallahassee top-two system, 50%+1 threshold, or plurality in November). Members raised trade-offs and tabled a final decision until an absent member can weigh in.
Jonathan Hayes, the city manager and staff presenter, told the Charter Review Advisory Board that Panama City’s city-only turnout has been low in standalone municipal cycles — often 13%–25% — while November gubernatorial and presidential elections drew far higher participation, including 51.9% in November 2022 and more than 70% in November 2024 in the city. "Turnout is consistently much higher in the November gubernatorial and presidential elections," Hayes said as he reviewed ten years of local results and examples from Tallahassee, which moved municipal elections to the fall around 2000 and saw turnout increases.
Resident Daniel Schultz urged the board to align local elections with state and federal cycles, saying he "amadamantly [is] supportive" and that public feedback he’d heard favored the change. Hayes and other staff also flagged patterns of undervoting on down-ballot races and noted that highly salient ballot questions can draw voters to the bottom of the ticket.
Board members debated three main options: (1) move final city contests to November with an August nominating primary that advances the top two candidates (the Tallahassee model); (2) move the entire municipal election to November and decide winners by plurality (winner-take-all); or (3) keep the current standalone spring schedule and retain the 50%+1 runoff requirement. Supporters of moving to November said higher turnout and reduced city costs are likely; skeptics warned of increased partisanship in November races, higher campaign costs for candidates, and the risk that a November plurality winner could win with only a small percent of total votes if many candidates run.
Several members stressed trade-offs. One board member said, "If you get 50% in the primary, you do have a mandate," arguing for a runoff rule that prevents winners with small pluralities; others pointed out that August primaries attract fewer voters and can be more partisan. The group discussed term adjustments needed to align current officeholders to new dates (either shortening or extending terms) and asked staff to research legal and logistical impacts.
No final amendment was adopted. The board agreed to delay a final recommendation until an absent member (Brandon) can participate and asked staff to circulate draft language. The item will return at a future meeting for further consideration and possible language for a voter referendum or ordinance change.
