Peoria Pundit

I took note of this “quotable” from today’s Word on the Street:

“Of all the things to worry about and have the (city) staff take up their time with, this isn’t in the top half dozen,” At-large Councilman Gary Sandberg, responding to an inquiry about a proposal before the City Council Tuesday to add a referendum to the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters to alter Peoria’s primary. (J.S.)

Honestly, I was amazed by this. Sandberg has always been an essential services first kind of politicians, and I can think of few services more essential to the public than maintaining a healthy electoral system. I wondered why he lacked any enthusiasm for the referendum.

I emailed Sandberg for a more detailed explanation of his views. His response:

“Giving the voters a say in the method.” The method that is used is registered voters voting. The state change and this referendum that will revert back to “status quo” does not change the method only when and whether there has to be a primary election in lieu of a general election.

Let’s first look at the assumption that the state law reducing the need for Primaries is a bad law, a flawed law, a law that promotes bad governance. If that is the case, then the change needs to be made in Springfield and not just allowing those few cities with “home rule powers” to right a wrong in their jurisdictions.

Clearly the stated reasoning behind the law is to reduce thee costs for primary elections. My position is that other than politico junkies, most citizens are more concerned about basic essential services. ie taking the $75,000 saving that is anticipated to save the City of Peoria from a Primary and hiring a police officer or perhaps establishing a free recycling program city wide.

Junkies will start the discussion with the “plurality vs majority” argument of a general election where there are more than two candidates for an office. In actuality, it is the candidate with the most votes, not the highest percentage that wins or on the case of At Large, the 5 candidates with the highest votes wins. If you factor in the Ardis rule for measuring success at the poles, unless a person or an issue gets over 50% of the total possible registered votes, the result is not determinable, one really wonders why he is behind this referendum. I would assume that unless the measure passes with a majority of the possible registered votes, then the measure should not pass.

Check out www.fairvote.org especially discussion of “ranked choice selections” in plurality election, ( http://www.fairvote.org/?page=37 ) which really starts looking at the methods which can be used to assure the will of the voters.

Unfortunately, this “called for referendum” is not the result of any public discussion or public movement, but rather just the “safety first” belief of incumbent politicians that status quo got us here, so status quo is good.

I really don’t have a defined opinion on the state statute change impact other than it would reduce costs. Whether the impacts of shaking the system and actually allowing a “surprise candidate” winning is a bad thing and therefore overrides the potential savings is a stance I am NOT WILLING to assume. I really doubt if the discussion of the referendum if allowed will really be about the concept or the method or even the potential money saved, but rather just voting on those voters “gut reaction” to a referendum that does NOT lay out the issues, but rather only the two alternative results.

While all that is going on, there are not referendums as to whether government should offer City tax dollar subsidies to doctors for parking decks, or developers of hotels to build new ones or remodel existing ones, or to create expansions of Enterprise Zones in non blighted areas or how about a couple more TIF Districts yet it is in those decisions that the tax money disappears to provide the basic essential City services.

The manner in which people are elected IS an IMPORTANT essential governmental service and the manner established by state government is NOT within the top six MORE IMPORTANT issues that the voters need or prefer to weigh in on. I would suspect the majority of voters would be more interested in referendums relating to those issues where large sums of local tax dollars are spent not whether a candidate needs a majority of votes in an election where a minority of voters vote. I am looking for the circumstances where the voters are first informed, and then motivated in numbers to vote, then and only then is the plurality/ majority debate of consequence. This proposed referendum does not get me closer to that circumstance.

My two cents: I think it’s obvious that Sandberg is still upset the battle for funding for the Peoria Public Library expansion. It’s understandable, considering the behind-the-scenes tactics used by some members of the council. But he is right about one thing: I would like for there to be a chance for the public to vote on a new policy for when the city should establish a tax increment financing zone or changing the boundaries or an enterprise zone. Perhaps Gary could make such a motion at Tuesday’s meeting.

About a month ago, I wrote about a change in Illinois law that would lessen the likelihood that municipalities would have to hold primary elections. I was critical, because it also increased the possibility that someone could get elected to the Peoria City Council without a majority of the votes.

As it turns out, because the City of Peoria has home rule powers, it’s possible to retain the previous system by referendum. The Peoria City Council is likely to vote on whether or not to do just that at next week’s meeting.

There is a concern among some on the council about the possibility someone can get elected with a plurality, rather than a majority, of the vote.

My theory is that incumbents benefit from having multiple challengers because it splits the “throw the bums out” vote. We could also see people getting into races specifically to do just that.

From the council packet:

PRIMARY ELECTION LAW.

Last year the Legislature amended several statutes which address the question of when a primary is to be held in a nonpartisan municipal election. The change provides that offices are uncontested when not more than four persons to be nominated for each office have filed nominating papers. In other words, if two, three or four candidates file for mayor, there would be no primary. Only if a fifth person filed a petition or filed as a write-in candidate would a primary election take place. In the case of at-large councilpersons, only if twenty-one candidates filed would there be a primary election to reduce the field to twenty. As you are aware, prior to this change, which was effective November 9, 2007, there would have been primaries had more than two candidates filed for mayor and more than ten candidates filed for at-large council positions.

Article 7, Section 6(f) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides in part as follows:

A home rule municipality shall have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of selection and terms of office only as approved by referendum or as otherwise provided by law.

This section of the Constitution means that the City could only change the aforementioned state statute by referendum. Should the Council desire, it could pass a resolution putting this “change” (back to the way it was last election) to a referendum. The Council must act at least sixty-five days before an election to put a question on the ballot. The last regular council meeting to place a question on the November 4th ballot is the August 26th council meeting.

The purpose of the change to the state statute was to save money. The Election Commission estimates that the cost of a city-wide primary is approximately $75,000.00.

I’m conducting an informal survey of council members. I suspect there’s support for a referendum. I also suspect they would be swayed by what they hear from constituents.