City Hall Hustle: When's the Next City Election?

With a record stretch of summer afternoons topping 100 degrees, a breezy May or brisk November day may seem eons away. But as City Council learned last week (Thursday, Aug. 25), a decision regarding which of those days will see Austin's next municipal election is coming sooner than you'd think.

Council heard from elections lawyer Sydney Falk on the cost of preserving a May 2012 council election versus a November contest. It's a quandary imposed by the Texas Legislature's Senate Bill 100, which reorganized federal spring primaries and run-offs, clustering the elections potentially impossibly close to a May municipal election – thus permitting cities to move their local elections to November.

Falk's presentation followed up on a more general cost-focused discussion he held with council a month ago per a council resolution asking for a financial assessment of the different election options. Falk posited a number of scenarios, ranging in cost from basically what we pay now (roughly $1 million, including a run-off, for the November 2012 county-assisted option) to the worst case, a nearly $7 million tally for a springtime election without county support (but including assistance from elections company Hart InterCivic).

Of course, estimates hinged on the unknowable, what couldn't be glimpsed until election day, or perhaps beyond. One big question pertains to how readily voting machines could be repurposed for a new election. With SB 100 putting the federal primaries and potential run-offs close to a city election, it's possible that a primary victor could be decided in enough time for the county to roll out machines for May council contests. But should the election be contested, the machinery would then be "locked down" and unavailable until the dispute was resolved. Falk also noted that with the county contemplating the purchase of new voting machines in 2013, if the city had to purchase its own bevy of eSlate machines (the voting tablets currently in use), "the likelihood that that equipment would be useful in Travis County again starts to get small."

"There's another practical consideration besides machinery – it's called people," said Mayor Lee Leffingwell, noting those who might be anticipating running in May. (That list includes incumbents Leffingwell, Sheryl Cole, Mike Martinez, and Bill Spelman.) Even if the city preserved the May election date, a change from its partnership with the county might still require Department of Justice pre-clearance, a process which could take 60 days. "The normal time ahead of an election that people can make that decision [to run] is six months," Leffingwell continued, "which puts us basically in early November of this year. ... The optimum thing would be to back up from that date 60 days to get the DOJ approval," a date we're barreling straight toward.

Falk added that Austin Community Col­lege and Austin ISD were "waiting with bated breath" on a city decision because they require a municipal sponsor to hold their own elections. And if that weren't sufficient, an additional subtext centered on whether SB 100 was in conflict with the City Charter. This received a cursory vetting from Falk, who noted there's a question as to whether freshly passed SB 100 does what it says it does, but both the procedural and political ramifications are causing hand-wringing on the dais.

Procedurally, it seems hard to believe that a state law like SB 100 wouldn't, in fact, override a city charter since the law explicitly recognizes the bind it created by allowing for the move to Novem­ber. But with a new, untested law, it's possible. Sheryl Cole noted her concern with the conflict when she recently spoke with the Hustle, saying, "Right now, we are set for May 2012, under our ­charter."

While that raises intriguing questions about its constitutionality – not to mention timing (the charter can only be updated every two years) – the political ramifications are equally convoluted. Voting to extend one's own term is somewhat self-serving, even if it's to resolve a conflict the city didn't create. Additionally, one interpretation of the soft split on the council (Leffingwell favoring November, Spelman and Laura Morrison leading the exploration to preserve May) is that council members eyeing the Mayor's Office would be wary of going against a generally popular incumbent during a high-turnout November election instead of a low-turnout May dominated by the self-defined 10% who decide such matters. But that cuts both ways, too, should anti-Obama voters come out and vote down an expensive urban rail package also expected downballot.

The conversation ended with a call from Spelman to set the topic for public discussion. But unlike other (often less important) stakeholder discussions, this one doesn't have the luxury of time.

---

Vote with your "likes"! Befriend us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/cityhallhustle.