Controversy at the Council: Voting Year Change Proposition Stirs Scrutiny

Article By: James McKissick, Staff Writer | BCS Chronicle

What You Need To Know:

• The proposed budget is $353.7 million.

• A detailed breakdown of the proposed budget can be found here.

• There will be a special hearing on July 27 for residents to address City Council on the budget.

• An amendment to the city charter to move elections from even-numbered years to odd-numbered years will be on the ballot this November.

On Thursday, July 8, the College Station City Council had their semi-weekly meeting, and on the agenda were two topics that stood out. One was the proposed budget for the 2021-2022 fiscal year, the other was to move general elections to odd numbered years.

Presenting the $353.7 million budget proposal was Mary Ellen Leonard, the director of fiscal services for the city manager’s office. Ms. Leonard brought good news that tax rates and utility rates would stay the same, and additionally the city had come in under budget from the 2020-2021 fiscal year due to sales tax revenue being higher than predicted during the pandemic, combined with savings from budget cuts that were made during the pandemic, despite the additional $48.3 million cost from winter storm Uri. An infographic with a detailed breakdown of the proposed budget can be found here, and on July 27 there will be a special hearing for residents to come voice their opinions on the proposed budget.

While the budget proposal was fairly straightforward and prompted minimal discussion, one of the following propositions stirred a spirited debate. Said proposition was for an amendment to the College Station city charter that would change when the general election was held from even-numbered years to odd-numbered years. On its face, this may seem fairly inconsequential, but according to the presentation given, voter turnout for College Station has been no less than three times higher, and as much as 11 times higher in even-numbered years since 2012. Dr. John Crompton of city council place two spoke first on the matter and had much to discuss.

“It’s been alluded that in some ways this suppresses the vote, and this again is a false narrative,” said Dr. Crompton. He went on to point out that the same provisions are made for voting in each year, odd or even. “It’s no more inconvenient or difficult to vote in the odd year elections than on the even year elections,” he continued. He then posited that because the voter turnout is much higher in even-year elections, which happen to coincide with state and national elections, those additional voters not present in odd-year elections are likely not concerned or informed about local politics. “Many, indeed probably most of the names on the ballot were unknown to them, however they were given an important clue: all the other races except the ISD and the city have an R or a D after the candidates name so voters can make a reasonably informed choice based on the highly publicized platforms of the two major parties. In contrast, at the end of a long ballot these voters are presented with names they’ve never heard of and they know nothing about, with no R or D after the names to guide them, so their vote is entirely arbitrary,” he said. Dr. Crompton finished his point claiming that the only purpose this serves is to nullify and overwhelm the informed voters, and that he hasn’t heard a better analysis of that information. He also highlighted the fact that candidates running for state and national offices have much larger campaign budgets so as to campaign in a much louder manner, drowning out the message of local candidates, and as such is exclusionary toward those lower-income individuals wishing to run for local office. “Genuine Democracy is not merely about voting; it assumes that those who vote have some knowledge of the candidates or their platforms and for whom they’re voting; if they do not, the election is reduced to a straightforward lottery, and the people of College Station deserve better.”

After some brief questioning from other council members, resident Don Moore spoke in opposition to the proposition, saying that he was shocked and that he never expected to see the city trying to ensure voter turnout remained low. “We’ve got 56,000 registered voters; We’ve got 6% of the voters that voted in the odd year; That tells me that if a guy or a lady wants to get elected to city council they can round up about 1,500-2,000 people and they can probably get elected, and we’ve got 100,000 people here,” Don said. He also said he didn’t think the city was trying to suppress voters, but emphasized that they would be holding elections when people didn’t even know they were going to be happening. He finished by asking that the city council suspend the issue until 2022 when more voters would be voting.

Following Mr. Moore was resident Bobbi Rodriguez, who went further than Mr. Moore in her criticism of the proposition, suggesting that it was a form of voter suppression and elitist. She continued by recommending making efforts to make candidate information more accessible, rather than moving elections to years with less turnout.

The last resident to speak was Elianor Vessali, who was also critical of the proposition, and even critical of those council members who supported it and were elected in the 2020 election, somewhat sarcastically asking them if they planned to step down due to having been elected by what they described as an uninformed electorate. She also criticized the lack of access to information, pointing out that while the ballots are offered in both English and Spanish, candidates don’t offer campaign materials in Spanish.

After the residents said their piece, it went back to the council for discussion. Dr. Bob Brick of City Council Place One spoke in favor of the proposition, saying he thought it should be left to the people to decide. In response, after having made a very spirited speech on why she disagreed with putting it to a vote this year, Place Four City Councilperson Elizabeth Cunha said, “Dr. Brick has a point, it should be up to the voters. It should be up to all the voters,” making the case for tabling the issue until next year. After fielding a few more comments for and against by the rest of the council, Mayor Mooney delivered his closing remarks and put the matter to a vote, which passed narrowly four to three. As a result, the voting date change will be on the ballot this November.