Charter Amendment Proposal: Manner of Holding Elections

[Amelia Parker]

Dear Colleagues,

You may have received an ordinance from Rob Frost that I developed in 2024. I submitted the ordinance to Rob on Friday, a few minutes after receiving the ordinance proposed by Vice Mayor Fugate. I have since made a few edits to the language to bring it up to date. See here: https://ameliaparkerforcitycouncil.com ... .27.26.pdf.

I was surprised by the proposed ordinance from the Vice Mayor. When I served on the Rules and Charter Review committee, it was discussed that a charter review committee would be formed by council to determine which potential charter amendments to submit to council and ultimately the voters. The Rules Committee would be tasked only with developing a proposed process for forming a charter review committee and would not be tasked with identifying the charter changes to be considered.

If we are not following that process, then I would appreciate your consideration and cosponsorship of the charter amendments that I have proposed, which include 1) aligning the language of our charter with state law and the current practice of district-only elections for district representatives, 2) allowing at-large candidates to be elected in the primary with a majority of the votes, and 3) adding language to prevent a tie during the primary election.

A version of this ordinance appeared on the city council agenda in August 2024; however, council voted to put an at-large voting system on the ballot (which also would have allowed at-large candidates to be elected in the primary and included language to prevent a tie in the primary) and that measure failed when voters voted against it in November 2024.

Therefore, I wish to reintroduce the proposals included in my ordinance submitted in August 2024 for the consideration of this council and ultimately the voters.

Unlike the Vice Mayor’s proposed charter change, my proposal includes language to prevent a tie that is based on language developed by MTAS. After submitting a charter change proposal before council in 2022 to prevent a tie in the primary, I worked with MTAS to develop language to address concerns raised by council members. One concern was that changing the language to the “candidates with the top two vote totals” could result in two candidates who both receive 500 votes each being advanced to the regular election in November with a candidate who received 100 votes, which would be the second highest vote total. The language developed by MTAS addresses that potential scenario and creates a process that would prevent a tie in the primary for all city elections. See below.

The candidates receiving the two (2) highest number of votes [for mayor or municipal judge, in each district council race, for each designated at large council seat] in the primary shall be placed on the regular election ballot. However, if more than one candidate receives the highest number of votes in the primary election, then only those candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be placed on the regular election ballot. If proceeding to the regular election and only one candidate receives the highest number of votes and more than one candidate receives the second highest number of votes in the primary election, then the candidate receiving the highest number of votes and all those candidates receiving the second highest number of votes shall be placed on the regular election ballot.

See the updated ordinance linked above and below for a clearer understanding of how this language is incorporated.

If a tie happens in the regular election in November, city council maintains the authority and obligation under state law to either select the winner or call for a runoff, which would be possible following the regular election. Between the primary and the regular election, there is insufficient time for a runoff. Therefore, without this amendment, council must break any tie that occurs for second place during the primary between candidates for city council, municipal judge, and the mayor. See: https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/ ... n-2-8-111/

With all of the work that has gone into developing language to prevent a tie in city primary elections, I felt compelled to resubmit my proposed charter amendment for the consideration of council and hopefully the voters of Knoxville. Even though a tie is extremely rare, I feel we are obligated to address matters that are brought to our attention when solutions exist, especially when doing so would not create a hardship for the city.

Additionally, my proposed ordinance amends 3 sections of the charter (sections 707A, B, and C), applying the language to prevent a tie to all city elections including mayor, all council seats, and municipal judge. The election for municipal judge is governed under section 707D and simply states that the municipal judge shall be elected in the same manner as provided for the mayor so no changes are proposed for that section.

The Vice Mayor’s proposed ordinance only amends two sections of the charter (707B and C). Therefore, it would be too cumbersome to amend her ordinance with the changes that I am proposing.

Therefore I have submitted a separate proposed ordinance for amending the charter, specifically the manner in which we hold elections and I would appreciate your support of my proposal. Please respond to Rob or comment on this post by noon tomorrow to allow time to be added as a cosponsor.

Sincerely,

Councilwoman Amelia Parker

https://ameliaparkerforcitycouncil.com/ ... .27.26.pdf

[Amelia Parker]

Dear Colleagues - the feedback that I’ve received since submitting the proposed charter amendment is that folks on both sides of the aisle are not supportive of city elections potentially concluding in August during the primary. Therefore, tonight I’m bringing an amendment for us to consider.

I continue to believe that applying consistent rules across city elections would improve voter turnout and engagement in our local elections. Therefore I’m proposing that we eliminate the 50+1 rule from all city elections. See my proposal with track changes here. https://ameliaparkerforcitycouncil.com/ ... 8.3.26.pdf

If we are not able to reach consensus around the idea of eliminating the ability of any candidate to win in the primary, alternatively I propose we send to the voters only the language needed to make district council elections district-only and to address the occurrence of a tie in the primary. See that language here. https://ameliaparkerforcitycouncil.com/ ... 8.3.26.pdf

I am not able to support a charter amendment that allows all council races to conclude in August during the primary.
Voter turnout in district races is notoriously low in the primary. I do not believe such a charter amendment would be successful this November and instead it would likely encourage large numbers of the minority party in the city to turn out voters to defeat this measure. Please do not move forward with advancing the Vice Mayor’s proposal. We have already wasted multiple years and tens of thousands of dollars on failed charter amendment proposals.