Note: The following was submitted by Gary Christenson's Mayoral campaign.
Right now, a ballot question proposed by voters (like the PAYT question in 2009) requires a very high super majority to pass.
A “Yes” vote would reduce the size of the super majority, making it easier for citizen-sponsored questions to pass.
A “No” vote would maintain the high threshold in place for a ballot question to pass.
Right now, with the exception of ward councilor, all vacancies in elective office are filled by appointment. This amendment, if adopted, would provide
1. A uniform and easily understood way of filling vacancies;
2. Vacancies would be filled by special election, unless a regular election was scheduled in the near future. Then, to minimize costs, the vacancy would be filled at the regular election.
Its main advantages are:
1.It is more democratic – it ensures that voters will choose their representatives directly;
2. It gives people a broader range of options in selecting their representatives. (The most qualified candidate may not have run in the last election because he/she was satisfied with the representation and did not anticipate a vacancy.)
3. It eliminates the ability to gain unfair advantage with inside knowledge.
A “Yes” vote would change the way that vacancies are filled. A “No” vote would leave the present system for filling vacancies in place which is by appointment.
Since people can’t hold more than one city office at a time, it seems reasonable to know up-front what office a candidate really wants to hold. The state and many cities already have similar provisions.
A "Yes" vote would prevent candidates from running for more than one office during an election cycle.
A "No" vote would continue to allow candidates to run for multiple offices during an election cycle.