Charter reform package headed for November ballot.
Now the future of reform is in the hands of Portland voters.
In a historic vote last night, Portland’s Charter Commission voted to refer a comprehensive reform package to the ballot.
This November, voters will decide the fate of the biggest political overhaul proposed in Portland in over a hundred years.
Portland’s November ballot just got a lot more interesting.
Last night, the Charter Commission passed its ambitious reform package on a 17-3 vote. Since that’s a supermajority, the proposal will now bypass City Council and go straight to the ballot, where commissioners want it to appear as a single question.
If adopted, the proposal would make sweeping changes to Portland’s government and elections systems.
“The people of Portland are demanding change. For a year and a half, we have worked to craft that change,” said Charter Commission co-chair Melanie Billings-Yun, calling the charter review process the most important undertaking of her lifetime.
Charter Commissioner Debra Porta expressed a similar sentiment:
“In my almost twenty years of being engaged in Portland politics […], I've never, ever seen such a diverse, inclusive group of people come together to do anything at this level in the city. And I think that the proposal reflects that,” she said.
Portland would scrap commission form of government.
So what would a yes vote for the proposal mean for Portland?
For starters, it would repeal Portland’s current form of government, which splits the responsibility of running city bureaus between the mayor and four city commissioners.
Instead, Portland would opt for a structure that centralizes all city bureaus under the mayor’s office and renders City Council a purely legislative and policymaking body.
The new charter would also require the mayor to hire a professional city administrator to manage city affairs.
Portland would become first large American city with more than one city council seat per district.
The most transformational change in the reform package has to do with Portland’s City Council.
A yes vote would eliminate the five existing citywide seats on the council.
Instead, Portland would be divided into four large city council districts that would each elect three city council seats. This would grow the size of City Council to twelve seats. The mayor would no longer serve on the council.
District representation is the norm on American city councils, but no other large city in the nation currently elects more than one seat per city council district. Portland would become a trailblazer, a fact that has already garnered Portland attention from national election reformers.
Mayor would have tiebreaking vote on City Council, but no veto.
No longer a member of City Council, Portland’s mayor wouldn’t be allowed to vote, except in the case of a 6-6 split, when the mayor could step in to break the tie.
The proposal stops short of a strong mayor structure. Portland’s mayor would be able to propose legislation, but would lack veto power, meaning the mayor would have to carry out policy passed by council even if the policy contradicted the mayor’s policy platform.
Portland would join the ranked choice voting club.
If voters say yes, Portland would join the 50+ American cities that have adopted ranked choice voting.
Since ranked choice voting is designed to produce one single winner, this voting method would only be used to elect Portland’s mayor and auditor, who would continue to be elected citywide.
For council elections, Portland would adopt a voting method called single transferable vote, which also features ranked ballots but can be used to elect multiple seats in one election.
2024 and 2025 would be big years for Portland.
Under the proposal, all city seats would be up for election in November of 2024.
And yes, that means that elected officials who won their races in 2022 would not serve full terms.
This would affect Portland’s auditor-elect, Simone Rede, and city council positions number two and three, currently held by Dan Ryan and Joann Hardesty. Since Commissioner Hardesty is facing a runoff in the 2022 general election, her opponent Rene Gonzalez could also face an interrupted term were he to defeat the incumbent.
In early 2025, the new government would take office, and Portland would begin to settle into its new political reality.
How much would reform cost?
City staff project the one-time transition cost for reform at up to $7.9mn. A large chunk would pay for the implementation of ranked choice voting. After 2025, recurring reform-related costs could range between $3mn and $10mn, City staff say.
The final cost would depend on the expanded city council’s salaries and staff size, as well as council members’ office configurations. Projections don’t contemplate any potential cost savings associated with reform.
Despite some commissioners’ misgivings, only three voted no.
Only three of the twenty charter commissioners opposed the package.
“I really believe voters are looking for better government, not more government,” said Charter Commissioner David Knowles, who voted no.
Mr. Knowles said he thinks the mayor should either serve on City Council or have veto power, and reiterated reservations about the relative novelty of the proposed city council structure and voting method.
“It's an experiment and I am very concerned that at this point in our city's history, we shouldn't replace a form of government unique in the country with a form of government that is unproven,” he said.
Charter Commissioner David Chen also rejected the proposal, saying community members who have expressed reservations about the changes deserve more attention.
“We're making decisions that could persist for generations. We need more time to consider feedback,” he said.
Vadim Mozyrsky: Give voters choice by separating ballot questions.
The final no vote came from Charter Commissioner Vadim Mozyrsky, who ran for City Council this year. Mr. Mozyrsky said that without veto power for the mayor, the system lacks a proper check on the council. He warned that a city council with three representatives per district would perpetuate Portlanders’ current confusion about who’s in charge.
The commissioner also expressed concerns about all elected officials taking office at the same time.
“This is a recipe for inaction as […] twelve city council people will take office, hire staff and learn their jobs and responsibilities while Portland recovers from numerous crises currently affecting all of us,” he said.
Commissioner Mozyrsky closed by proposing to put the package to voters as two or more separate ballot questions rather than a single question.
“This allows people to have a meaningful choice,” he concluded.
Are Portlanders ready to push the reset button?
Portland’s current charter is itself the result of a progressive charter reform. Prior to 1913, Portland had an executive mayor and a 15-member city council with a mix of district and citywide seats.
The 2022 reform proposal marks the eighth attempt since 1917 to repeal Portland’s commission form of government. Despite previous failed attempts, charter commissioners seem optimistic that Portlanders are ready to say yes.
Early polls show support for the reforms, with favorable opinions in the 60%-70% range. The reform package is also riding a powerful wave of elections reform fueled by the national ranked choice voting movement.
“I feel very confident about what we've put together and that Portlanders are going to support our package,” Charter Commissioner Candace Avalos said.
In November, we’ll find out what Portlanders think.
The Charter Commission has made its case.
Now the future of Portland’s charter is in the hands of the voters.
While I strongly support charter reform in Portland, especially with respect to the roles and responsibilities of the mayor and council members, I am concerned about a number of provisions as expressed below. At best, from my perspective, the charter commission has proposed that Portland trade its admittedly failing experiment in a commission form of government for yet another experiment with serious flaws in its design. At worst, the flaws might cause a significant- even possibly a majority- of Portland voters who support charter reform to vote against the proposed charter in November.
1. Expansion of City Council to 12 and electing three members each from 4 geographic districts.
A. The council should have an odd number of seats to avoid needless deadlock on important city issues. All cities of size of which I am aware, including Seattle, San Diego, Denver, Los Angeles, and New York City, have an odd number of council seats. There is good reason for that. Letting the mayor break a tie as just proposed does little to change that dynamic, and should have been unnecessary. It seems to me that, since the council decided on only 4 districts, and 3 members each, they did a simple calculation to determine how many council members there should be- without considering the ramifications of such a move.
B. Number, Maps, and Criteria for Establishment of Districts:
(1) 4 districts for the entire city makes little sense. Having more, smaller districts would enhance both the relationship between voters and the representative(s) of a given district, as well as the accountability of individual representative(s) to the people of that that district.
Furthermore, a review of other cities of size, including Seattle, Denver, San Diego, New York, and Los Angeles, shows that they have provided for single member districts in most cases. The exceptions: Seattle has 7 single member districts, and 2 at large, while Denver at 11 single member districts and 2 at-large. Zero multi-member districts.
(2) Maps: The charter commission will not be publishing any maps of their proposed 4 districts prior to the election, choosing instead to have those drawn by yet another commission created within the draft charter. I think that’s a mistake, and it brings to mind Nancy Pelosi’s ACA quote (taken out of context) about the need to “pass a bill to know what is in it.” In my opinion, we should not have to pass the charter to know what is in it.
2. Lack of Checks and Balances in Draft Charter:
The Charter Commission, in its “Desired Outcomes” document (https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2021/charter-desired-outcomes-17-x-12-in_1.pdf) stated that an “accountable government” means that “there are checks and balances on Council law-making and a separation of powers.” The draft charter in fact has absolutely no check and balance on “Council law making” because the commission has not provided for a check on potential misuse or abuse of the power of the City Council.
Article I, Section 7, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution gave the President the power to veto acts of Congress to prevent the legislative branch from becoming too powerful. This is an illustration of the separation of powers integral to the U.S. Constitution. By separating the powers of government into three branches and creating a system of “checks and balances” between them, the Framers hoped to prevent the misuse or abuse of power. The veto allows the President to “check” the legislature by reviewing acts passed by Congress and blocking measures the President finds unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise. Congress’s power to override the President’s veto forms a “balance” between the branches on the lawmaking power.
Article V Section 15b of the Oregon Constitution provides for a veto by the Governor, with the ability of the Legislature to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
The mayoral veto is an important check and balance, and should be in the proposed charter. In the charters I reviewed, including Seattle, San Diego, Denver, Anchorage, Los Angeles, and New York City, the mayors all have veto power. The absence of the veto in the commission’s draft charter directly contradicts one of the Commission’s desired outcomes.
The mayor should have been given the power to veto an action of the council, with the council able to override the veto on a two-thirds vote.
3. Election by ranked choice voting:
As many comments from the public suggested, the charter commission should have recommended that the ranked choice voting (RCV) election method be a separate ballot issue from the form of government ballot measure. In my opinion, this would have lessened the chances of the RCV proposal having an unintended consequence of voters voting no on what, from my perspective, should be the top priority- changing the form of government itself.
At the May 12 hearing, the commission member providing an overview stated that 43 cities are using RCV. The reference to 43 jurisdictions using RCV is also in the document produced by the City Attorney’s office.
I do not know if the repeated reference to 43 jurisdictions is used to somehow imply that RCV is commonly used throughout the country- including in multiple member election districts. What I do know is the repeated statement omits the following facts that should be included in any discussion of RCV:
https://www.fairvote.org/where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used
A. The use in only 43 jurisdictions means that only about .22% of the current 19,500 local governments are using ranked choice.
B. Only 23 elected local governments outside of Utah- where the state legislature authorized an opt-in pilot program, use RCV voting. In the 20 Utah municipalities that use RCV, it is generally used on a very limited basis for district or at-large council seats in what appears to be only a portion of mayor/council seats.
C. RCV does not appear to be used in multiple member districts in any jurisdiction as is proposed in the draft charter. A cursory review shows that ranked choice is used to elect city council members from single member districts in cities such as Berkeley, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and New York City.
As far as I can tell, Portland would be the only major city- and very possibly the only jurisdiction- in the United States to use RCV in multiple member districts. Why?
In sum, the charter commission has proposed that a very complex plan to change local government be sent to the voters with no maps, no budget, unbridled legislative power for the council (due to lack of mayoral veto), and a uniquely peculiar-and very likely controversial- method of electing council members.