Opinion: Sam Weaver: Benefits of even-year elections are uncertain, drawbacks are clear
I’m compelled to open this column by acknowledging the most recent Supreme Court travesty. The Dobbs ruling overturning the longstanding right to reproductive choice is a heinous attack on personal freedom and bodily autonomy. This inhumane, undemocratic and wildly unpopular decree by an illegitimate court will be recognized by history as a reactionary power grab. While there are enormous differences in subject, circumstances and effects, the Dobbs ruling is as abhorrent as the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions. These court actions have stripped away autonomy from entire classes of individuals in service of an autocratic policy agenda of forcible limitation of individual personal freedom. Birth, marriage, sexual desire, family structure — all of these foundational life choices are now at growing risk of limitation or removal by state governments. These looming state restrictions will be
championed and implemented by ideologically rigid fundamentalists. While these repressive efforts are most often led by white men, justices Barrett and Thomas prove that retrograde ideas can take root in any soul.
Authoritarian leaders like the six “justices” in the Dobbs majority will keep stripping away personal freedoms until the majority conforms to their vision of hierarchical control, or they are stopped by the voters. There’s no doubt that Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas and our own local theocratic reactionary Gorsuch will continue mauling our basic liberties as long as we let them. Boulder and Colorado have a long, proud tradition of supporting women’s rights and reproductive choice. We’ll need to dig deeper to support those from neighboring states who will seek our help to escape their modern inquisitors. To protect our rights and assist our neighbors, please consider supporting Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center and Planned Parenthood as they respond to these attacks.
Most policy decisions regarding reproductive rights, like lawmaking about monetary policy, foreign relations, emission regulations and many human rights issues occur in Denver or D.C. They are therefore largely outside of our local governments’ bailiwick. Issues like open space management, growth planning, local transportation systems, building codes, water supply and climate resilience are decided largely by city councils. Our election system for local government has long had city council and school board elections in odd years, with state and national elections in even years for specific reasons — the issues are different, local bodies operate much closer to their electorate and voter attention is limited. The recent proposal by Boulder City Council to move municipal elections to even years is a poorly-conceived idea that would make local governance an afterthought to many voters and likely enable more local control to rest with vocal minorities, the very problem the proposed changes purport to address.
I have great respect for Boulder’s voters. Time and again our electorate has sorted through important and difficult local issues such as electrical system municipalization, open space preservation, infrastructure taxes and bonds, and renter protections. Our local leadership is generally passionate and intelligent. Boulder has plenty to improve, but it’s overall a well-functioning and vibrant mid-sized city. I believe that one reason Boulder is such a desirable place to live is that those voters interested in local government issues have time and space to consider local races and concerns in odd-year elections that don’t compete for attention with state and national races in even years.
Voter attention is a limited and precious commodity. In today’s world, the “attention economy” already demands much from everyone. Measures that create additional demands on the focus of the electorate in a more limited time interval will probably result in poorer decisions across the board. When the currently-pending changes to Boulder’s elections are considered, it looks like the council is headed in a direction that is poorly planned.
In 2020, Boulder voters decided to shift away from our current system of mayor selection by a newly-seated council, to instead have voter election of the mayor through ranked choice voting (RCV). I disagree that direct mayoral election will improve governance or the council’s dynamics, but I’m a fan of RCV. Given the clear direction from voters, the prior council and staff worked to implement those changes in collaboration with Boulder County Clerk Molly Fitzpatrick.
The county clerk administers city elections, and she has diligently planned implementation of the new mayoral voting system for 2023. This has been difficult, as state laws and practices had to be adjusted, funding had to be allocated (and supplemented by the city/county), and the voting systems had to be enhanced for RCV. Proponents of these previous electoral changes (some now on the council) had little apparent interest in the Clerk’s advice when advancing their 2020 measure. This ongoing disdain for expert cautions, even of fellow elected officials, continues with the current council’s approach to even-year elections.
Sometimes bad ideas are bad in many ways, and this proposal has compounding flaws. Extending the terms of nine current council members in the same measure as changing election timing is an undemocratic hack. The push for yet more electoral changes before we have implemented the last ones is foolhardy. The benefits of the proposed changes are uncertain, but the drawbacks are numerous and apparent. At minimum, previously approved changes should be implemented before considering further ones.
Good advice: measure twice, cut once. Bad advice: ready, fire, aim. Share your thoughts with the council while this complex, muddled proposal is still being debated.
Sam Weaver is a former mayor of Boulder.
View more on Colorado Daily