1 Comment
Jun 15, 2022·edited Jun 15, 2022

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.

Expand full comment