While nothing was included in the ballot language to reflect this change for voters, the ordinance language proposing this Charter change states that it: “Updated the timeframe allowed for the City Clerk to examine petitions because volumes (such as numbers of petition signatures to review) have increased since these current provisions were adopted. The new timeframes are more in line with the examination periods in state statutes.”
This examination period is moved from 5 working days to 15 working days. This timing is not more in line with the examination period in state statute for recalls - it is actually 3 times as long as what is provided under statute for this time critical process.
Any increases in time to the recall process actually further narrows an already limited window for seeking recall of a Fort Collins elected official, especially the mayor. This is because of the restrictions on the timing for circulation and submission of a recall petition during the first year or last six months of a term in Fort Collins. These restrictions are already in the Charter, and are unique to Fort Collins. Under the State Constitution and state law, the only similar restriction applies only during the first six months of a term, and no restriction at the end of a term.
Because the Mayor serves a two year term, there is already just a six month period during which a recall process can be initiated. Lengthening the recall process in any way essentially ensures the office of mayor can never be subject to recall. It is especially problematic to include process changes that lengthen the time for a recall that benefit the City but not voters.
Clarifies the usage of the term “shall” by replacing with “will,” “must” or other appropriate language;
This assertion is incomplete.
Two instances of the term 'shall' remain in the proposed amended article and would need to be further updated to complete this work, in:
Section 2(G)(c)
Section 4(c)
Modernizes the language to be more inclusive by removing he/she language
This is accomplished in the proposed language.
Revises and reorganizes Article IX to be simpler, easier to follow and clearer
While the content is revised and reorganized, it is somewhat subjective to evaluate whether it is simpler, easier to follow, or clearer. It appears new issues with cure periods may have been inadvertently introduced into the recall process, adding substantial confusion and lack of clarity.
Because the proposed Charter language removes any reference to a cure period, Fort Collins would no longer have any provisions in its charter or ordinances about a cure period. The State Constitution requires the Charter and ordinances of a municipality to be read in conjunction with state statute for recall specifically, with statute applying where municipal regulations are silent. This would seem to make the cure period from statute still applicable. As noted in a 2021 district court ruling against the City of Westminster regarding recall proceedings, "state law, which applies by default in the absence of a municipal provision,..." regarding that municipality's silence on protest provisions.
In order to avoid this interplay and uncertainly, the Charter language should have indicated "No cure period shall be provided" or something to that effect if that was the desired outcome.
As an election administrator who has managed multiple petition processes, it's hard to imagine a way to make this more confusing to voters and City staff administering the process than what this change does.
Retains the same percentage requirements for signatures (based on first-choice votes with ranked choice voting) and increases timeframes for circulation of a recall petition, with an additional increase in the time to circulate a petition to recall the mayor
First issue with this ballot language:
The Charter language to base signature requirements on first-choice votes was only changed in one of two places it appears, successively, in the article, meaning if this change is necessary, it won't apply to initial recall attempts:
CHARTER ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2 (e) Number of signatures required. (PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE)
(1) First recall attempt. The petition must be signed by registered electors equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total of votes cast at the last preceding regular city election for the office to which the incumbent sought to be recalled was elected.
(2) Subsequent recall attempts. After one (1) recall petition and election, a recall petition filed against the same officer during the same term for which elected must be signed by registered electors equal in number to at least fifty (50) percent of the total of first choice votes cast at the last preceding regular city election for the office to which the incumbent sought to be recalled was elected.
Second issue with this ballot language:
The ballot language is potentially incomplete, as the minimal additional time proposed for circulation - that now also would be minus a cure period to correct any issues - brings total days to 35 for district councilmembers and 49 for mayor - still far below the level allowed in state law of 60 days. There was a lot of discussion when these ordinances were adopted on July 2 about the importance of making provisions align more with state law, however that alignment was selectively applied, generally in favor of the City in terms of processing and not when such changes would more likely favor Fort Collins voters.
Simplifies review process and removes the allowance for time for “cure” of technical errors and omissions;
Elimination of cure provisions is in this instance the elimination of a core element of the recall process. State law includes cure provisions for recall petitions, as does the petition process used by council candidates found in Article VIII and part of Ballot Question 2B - all three charter questions only strip voters of the right to a cure period.
Calling this a technical cure period lessens the significance of allowing voters an opportunity to fix minor issues in a complicated process most of them have never done before in order to demonstrate their compliance with the provisions for the recall petition. Without this cure period, litigation over issues that could encompass substantial compliance is more likely, at additional time and expense to both the City (and its taxpayers) and the Fort Collins voters pursuing this right.
The only party benefited by eliminating the cure period is City staff wanting to streamline the process to be administered and elected officials who want to protect themselves against recall. This will in fact be more confusing for voters, since the cure period is allowed under state statute and is not addressed at all in the proposed Charter language, as addressed above under the issues with line 3 of this ballot question language:
Because the proposed Charter language removes any reference to a cure period, Fort Collins would no longer have any provisions in its charter or ordinances about a cure period. The State Constitution requires the Charter and ordinances of a municipality to be read in conjunction with state statute for recall specifically, with statute applying where municipal regulations are silent. This would seem to make the cure period from statute still applicable. As noted in a 2021 district court ruling against the City of Westminster regarding recall proceedings, "state law, which applies by default in the absence of a municipal provision,..." regarding that municipality's silence on protest provisions.
Tightens timeframe for protest hearing and decision
In truth, this timing is actually extended - the quoted reduction of time for issuance of a decision on a protest, including in the Coloradoan, compares the current 30 calendar days against 20 business days. This is factually not less time.
The additional changes at other steps add further potential time to the protest process, including the date for the hearing itself which would be later than under current provisions. The benefit of more time for this process could be argued, but instead the ballot language inaccurately represents what is being done.
Any timing changes for the recall process should have received thorough attention and consideration, including clearly outlining the benefits and disadvantages to voters, sitting elected officials, candidates, and process administration. That consideration also needed to include public outreach and a valid opportunity for input on the known real impacts of such changes, instead of being presented as insignificant to excuse limited notice and availability to the public.
Requires Council to set recall measure for vote for the next Tuesday for which all election deadlines can be met and if that earliest meetable date is within 77 days of a November election, it must go on that ballot.
This language leaves it solely to the discretion of the city clerk to determine when that earliest 'meetable' date is - in responding to a question from the council when this language was adopted, the current clerk indicated it would be 'months' before she could be ready for a recall election - while under current language it must be done within 60-90 days of when a recall petition is declared sufficient. This shift is likely in many scenarios to take away the opportunity for pursuing a recall from voters entirely, almost certainly for the office of mayor in every instance.
All of the changes to petition processes affecting voters share a focus on trying to push any related election to coincide with a November election, to the detriment of voters, so City staff doesn't have to administer an election. During the Council discussion when these ordinances were considered on July 2, it was stated it would be difficult to procure equipment to conduct a special election. Numerous other obstacles were mentioned as well, and while there is a degree of validity to some timing concerns relating to black out dates under state law, the other concerns raised were spurious. Regarding equipment in particular, it would be a tremendous waste of City resources to procure equipment for a limited - most likely single issue - special election. Even with a ranked voting contest for an office, using equipment is unnecessary and not a standard of best practice.
This false argument is based on lack of information and understanding of elections processes and should not be used to disallow Fort Collins voters the ability to exercise their rights to the recall process. As of 2023, no tabulation software was yet approved for use in the state of Minnesota, where only election equipment certified by both the EAC and the Secretary of State can be used, and more than half a dozen municipalities use ranked choice voting. Minneapolis, with over 400,000 residents, has conducted RCV municipal elections since 2009 and Saint Paul, with over 300,000 people, has since 2013. Minneapolis' 2009 municipal election was fully counted by hand, including 22 offices on the ballot, several of which were multi-seat races. I participated in administering that election, as well as the 2013 municipal election, again with 22 races, 35 candidates for mayor, and 33 rounds of manual tabulation done just for the mayor's race in an election with over 78,000 ballots. Hand counting a Fort Collins special election for a recall, including likely a single contest with RCV votes, would not be technically complicated and would be far more cost and time efficient than trying to obtain and program equipment and specialized ballots.
Waiting undefined 'months' is not in the interest of voters trying to exercise their right of recall of their elected officials, and this ballot language obscures the impact of this change to voters.
In addition, there are significant issues with the potential for placing a recall election on a November ballot as a coordinated election. Given the ballot real estate required for a recall election - including the 200 word statement of the petitioners, the 300 word statement of defense, and that ranked voting election for candidate requiring multiple columns or other more extensive layout, it is highly unlikely such content is likely to be possible to fit on a coordinated election ballot, especially in an even year, without requiring its own side of a ballot card. This will cost the City more money to cover that additional page, as well as increase the likelihood that ballot card is not completed and City voters don't vote in the special election on that November ballot. Each additional ballot card used adds to the likelihood that voters do not complete the full ballot.
A look at ballot cards for the November 2024 election demonstrates there is not room for all this additional content on the two full double-sided ballot cards already used. It would be good to know if this discussed with Larimer County at all before the language was adopted trying to push more recalls to fall into that timing.
Clarifies that if the office held by the subject of the recall is on the next November election ballot and the election on the recall would be at that election or later, the recall process terminates
By pushing more elections to November, the likelihood the office will already be on the ballot increases, increasing the likelihood for eliminating the potential for recall. This is absolutely the case for the office of mayor.
Adds rules for computation of time and consistent deadline timeframe
No issues are apparent in this language, although it does not prevent voters from losing time for their steps in a petition process due to holidays or other non-City work days because calendar days are maintained in the calculations affecting voters, while business days are used for the timing impacting the City.