Long lines, failed technology, 18,000-some voters driven away and a software meltdown – that was the November 2006 Denver election.
Denver’s dilemma is that its Election Commission is an independent agency that answers to no one, won’t take advice and has not been managed well. Denver’s looming crisis is that the city’s voice may be weakened in 2008 unless the election processes are reformed.
The mayor, auditor and City Council struggled to find a way to stop another disaster and reached consensus on a proposed charter amendment that would establish an elected clerk and recorder to oversee elections, as is the system in 62 of Colorado’s 64 counties.
Here’s why we believe that charter change is necessary:
Anything that infringes on the right of Denver voters to participate fully in state and national elections is unacceptable. Denver uses a horse- and-buggy election system for an Information Age mission. Modern elections are legally and technically complex, and the job of running them now exceeds the ability of a part-time commission.
Some say the Denver Election Commission’s problems are only technical or staff-driven. That’s true to a point, but the commissioners refused technical help from the city’s IT department and didn’t seek their own help. The report done for the mayor-council post-election investigation described comprehensive failure and a leadership that was “technology adverse.”
Early voting, vote centers, absentee voting – everything failed. The structure must change to open the door for improvement.
Why have an election this month? Deciding the charter change in January allows voters to choose a new clerk and recorder in May. If no candidate wins a majority, there will be a runoff in June. This is the same election schedule for all other city offices. (Jan. 30 is the last day the charter permits a special election before May.)
A May vote on the charter amendment would mean the election for clerk and recorder couldn’t be held until November. If there are more than two candidates, the city might have to accept a winner who didn’t have a majority, or there would have to be a special runoff election in December, with its added costs.
The real issue is timing. A January vote on the charter proposal could begin change by June; a May vote would delay change until December.
Without a January special election, the current structure remains in place for six months longer, and in May, new election commissioners will be elected who might serve only for six months, creating even more disruption.
Delay carries other costs. The 2006 election ran over budget by $1.4 million: Multiply overruns by two elections and add lost voter confidence, public relations embarrassment and weakening of Denver’s voice statewide and nationally. By comparison, spending $650,000 to $800,000 now is cost- effective and makes good sense.
The one-question mail ballot is the simplest kind of election. Denver has done it successfully in the past.
Does Denver need more time to analyze options? The council studied this issue for more than a year. We looked at partial steps and finally rejected them for change to a proven structure.
We hope the voters will agree.
Carol Boigon, Rick Garcia and Rosemary Rodriguez are members of the Denver City Council.
