FairVote Minnesota, the League of Women Voters-Saint Paul, the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits and Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) have co-sponsored a questionnaire to the city council candidates who will appear on the 2007 general election ballot this November in Saint Paul. The questionnaire seeks candidates' views on election reform issues. The following is a summary of responses submitted by the candidates.

Council candidates on the November General Election ballot:

Ward 1: CM Debbie Montgomery and Melvin Carter

Ward 2: CM Dave Thune and Bill Hosko

Ward 3: CM Pat Harris

Ward 4: Russ Stark and Terry Bushard

Ward 5: CM Lee Helgen and David Haas

Ward 6: CM Dan Bostrom and Pakou Hang

Ward 7: CM Kathy Lantry and Janine Kelly

Seven of the 13 candidates have submitted responses, including CM Debbie Montgomery and Melvin Carter (W1), Russ Stark and Terry Bushard (W4), David Haas (W5), Pakou Hang (W6) and Kathy Lantry (W7).

INTRODUCTION

There is a citizen’s petition drive underway to put a charter amendment on the Saint Paul ballot to adopt Instant Runoff Voting for municipal elections. The purpose of this questionnaire is to discover the candidates’ views on this charter amendment initiative. We would also like your views on another emerging election reform issue relating to the schedule of elections.

QUESTIONS

1) The current two-stage election system is criticized by some for diminishing voter participation due to low turnout in primaries and reduced choice in general elections, and for adding unnecessary costs to the city and campaigns, since the two elections could be combined in an "instant runoff" on general election day. Advocates of “instant runoff voting” propose eliminating the primary election and using instead a single instant runoff election to allow voters to rank their first choice candidates followed by their runoff choices. Runoff choices would receive a vote in the event their first choice cannot win. Others say the current two-round (primary-general) election system works just fine and provides an effective way to elect local officials. What election system do you think would most efficiently and effectively discover the will of the voters and why.

2) The Saint Paul Better Ballot Campaign has stated that it has gathered the requisite number of signatures to put the question of Instant Runoff Voting on the November 2008 ballot. The Campaign, nonetheless, has often said that it would prefer that the City Council vote to put the measure on the ballot, with the support of the Charter Commission. Whichever entity – whether the Campaign (via certified petition), the Charter Commission or City Council – forwards the question to the ballot has the authority to construct the language of the question. If elected to City Council, which method would you prefer used to move the referendum to the ballot and why?

3) Another emerging charter reform question involves the choice of election years for municipal races in Saint Paul. Currently, the city council and school board races are held concurrently every four years in odd numbered years. The mayoral election is also held every four years in the odd year in between the council elections. Do you like the way municipal elections are currently scheduled or do you support the idea of holding the mayoral election in the same year as the city council and school board elections (i.e. all in 2009 or all in 2011)? Please explain.

RESPONSES

Melvin Carter (Ward 1)

Q1. I support instant runoff voting as a tool to increase participation in municipal elections, thereby discovering the will of more Saint Paul voters each cycle. I will be an active partner in working to get this question on the ballot for Saint Paul voters to decide and in educating constituents to cast an informed vote.

I do, however, have remaining concerns regarding effective implementation, which is of paramount importance: good public education so voters know what to expect when they get to the polls on Election Day and acknowledging and addressing the potential for increased campaign costs under IRV. Building a more representative democracy is a laudable goal; however if running for office becomes cost prohibitive for average citizens as a result, we have defeated the intent and purpose of our reforms.

Q2. I support getting IRV on the ballot in 2008 and am appreciative of the Saint Paul Better Ballot Campaign's efforts, which have laid the foundation to do so. As with any ballot measure, it will be critical to word the question with honest, concise, straight-forward language so voters clearly understand the choice they are being asked to make. For this reason, I would prefer for the question to be placed on the ballot by council action so I am able to directly influence the language of the measure.

Q3. I am open to considering any effort to promote democracy, better representation, and civic participation in our city. Specifically given the fact that turnout in City Council elections is often half that of Mayoral years, holding them jointly could enable more people to have a voice in who represents them. However, there is merit to the current structure; having City Council elections in the middle of the Mayoral term allows voters to weigh in on the direction the City is going under each Mayor's administration, providing voters with an important accountability device.

Debbie Montgomery (Ward 1)

Q1. I am comfortable with the current system that is in place. However, I would be open to a “pilot” program for Saint Paul to determine whether or not IRV has a positive, overall impact on elections. At the end of the day, voters, not government, have to make the decision about their level of involvement in elections. If IRV is on the 2008 ballot, the people of Saint Paul will have their chance to be heard on the issue.

Q2. I believe the Council and the Charter Commission have addressed these issues fairly over the years, and am comfortable maintaining that process.

Q. 3 I believe that staggering elections ensures that there will be institutional memory available at all times – even in situations in which there may be significant turnover in offices. I think the citizens of Saint Paul would be the losers if you had Mayoral and City Council elections on the same cycle and ended up having a new mayor and all or nearly all new City Council elected. The people of our city are well-served by the staggered system which ensures that only one “body” – executive or legislative – is changing at a time.

Bill Hosko (Ward 2)

Q1. I support the current primary – general election system. Incumbents would have an unfair advantage with instant runoff voting because a second place primary finisher frequently goes on to win the general election.

Listening to local residents on this matter; they do wish there was a higher turnout of primary voters, or admittedly they often are sorry for having missed the primaries. That said, they are satisfied that the most dedicated voters glean the field before the general election.

Q 2. At this time, I do not have a preference on how the measure should be put on the November 2008 ballot.

Q 3. I support the current manner in which municipal elections are scheduled. Otherwise, I believe incumbent mayors and city council members would once again be given an advantage over challengers by having the ability to campaign together. This could give them a huge financial advantage as well.  A separation of the races also allows city council candidates to get out their message without being overshadowed by the mayoral campaign.

Russ Stark (Ward 4)

Q1. I am a big supporter of instant run-off voting concept. As a candidate who just went through a primary with a historically low turn-out in one of the higher turn-out parts of the state, I believe that asking voters to rank their choices on one day (assuming a great education campaign to explain the new process to voters) would empower them to have a bigger role in elections. This system would allow voters to vote their conscience without feeling that doing so will skew the election toward their least favorite candidate. I think such a system would have the potential of resulting in a more robust and democratic election, and this would likely encourage more good candidates to run for office. The will of the voters would be more efficiently and effectively discovered in a system that presents voters with a fuller range of choices all presented in a one-step election process.

Q2. I support the idea that the referendum should be brought to the ballot by the City Council. The tool of voter-initiated referenda is sometimes necessary to get an issue on the ballot that elected officials have for whatever reason refused to tackle. However, in the absence of support from the City Council and/or the Charter Commission, an effort such as this is much less likely to succeed. If there is indeed strong support in the community for an initiative such as this, than this support should eventually be reflected in the candidates who get elected to City Council and the citizens who get appointed to the Charter Commission. If elected, I will work to have the Council forward the question to the ballot.

Q3. I support the idea of holding future City Council and School Board elections in the same year as the mayoral election, but at this point I do not feel strongly about this position. Asking voters to choose a Mayor, City Council and School Board all in the same election cycle should have the effect of higher participation in elections which is an important goal. On the other hand, staggering the elections has the benefit of voters needing to familiarize themselves with fewer races and candidates, and can theoretically serve to provide more continuity in city governance.

Terry Bushard (Ward 4)

Q1. I think IRV is an excellent idea and I am all for it. I am running to publicly express my displeasure about the financial mismanagement of St. Paul. So, I am in full support of any proposal which would prevent the unnecessary expenditure of tax dollars.

Q2. I really haven't given it any thought.

Q3. Back to the primary, I, as you may have expected, was one of the painfully few who voted. I was surprised to see only 1 race with 3 names. No further explanation is necessary. Absolutely, all these races should be combined in an odd numbered year.

David Haas (Ward 5)

Q1. I agree with the challenges associated with a primary system that is not well utilized by the electorate. I support a system that considers the best way to ensure the greatest amount of participation by all eligible voters. This includes being mindful of the costs associated with running elections and a comprehensive understanding of historical data that can help us understand the use of certain elections (primaries in particular) to try and support election systems that encourage the best possible participation by the electorate. For these reasons, I support the charter amendment being proposed for the Saint Paul ballot to adopt Instant Runoff Voting for municipal elections.

Q2. I am proud to be one of the signatures on the petition! I think the best way to put a Charter Amendment forward would be to have the necessary thresholds passed on all these levels. If the Saint Paul Better Ballot Campaign, the Charter Commission and a Majority of City Council members could work together to fashion the best language option for the ballot and have all participants sign off and vote to support placing the language on the ballot, would provide a great chance to have the initiative pass. To the extent unified support can be achieved, it would provide a great first chance to go to voters and show the broad based support for change to increase the likelihood of success. If elected to the City Council I would be supportive of this approach, and in fact, take a leadership role in ensuring it happens, should all parties agree with this approach.

Q3. The only issue I am concerned about relating to off year city council/mayoral elections are the issues associated with public interest and participation in elections. Most recently we experienced the lowest turnout in 30 years for a primary in St. Paul and that concerns me greatly. I support efforts to increase more voter education and participation in all elections. I have not heard significant reasons how changing the elections years would improve this, but am open to listening to ideas, at any time, that would try and increase voter participation.

Pakou Hang (Ward 6)

Q1. I fully support instant runoff voting and signed on the ballot initiative in early February 2007. Having worked to educate and mobilize new Americans and young voters in numerous election cycles; I will encourage the Better Ballot Campaign to accompany this reform with good training and education so that people understand the mechanics of rank voting.

Q2. Without full knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of each method, I will support the process that best educates the public about the merits of instant runoff voting and allows for public input. I will be willing to collaborate with the Better Ballot Campaign and Charter Commission to craft language that’s acceptable to all parties.

Q3. I support the election cycle as it is because I believe that the mayor and the City Council, while all committed to the common good, are accountable to different parts of the city. A staggered election cycle allows for a balance of governance and accountability.

Kathy Lantry (Ward 7)

Q1. I do not have any issues with our current method of electing City Council members in the city of St. Paul. City Council races are non-partisan and as a result, the top 2 vote getters, regardless of party move on to the general election. Also, because the St. Paul School Board would have to continue to have primaries, I do not see the cost savings for the electorate.

Q2. Instant Runoff Voting is a grass roots effort and if and when a sufficient petition is presented to me I would gladly put it on the ballot. I believe the community driven initiatives should continue to completion.

Q3. I actually don’t mind having the City Council and the School Board run opposite cycles from the Mayor. Simply for the sake of continuity, I think there is a lot to be said for having a cycle where they differ. I also believe it keeps city issues in the forefront of people’s minds at least every 2 years.