Dramatic Changes for St. Louis’ 2023 Primary & General Elections

The 2023 spring municipal elections in St. Louis will be very different than any of us have every experienced. There’ll still be a March primary and an April general — but the primary will be non-partisan, both will begin the change from 28 wards to 14.  The primary is 8 weeks from tomorrow.

We’ve had the nonpartisan primary for one or two elections, but with 28 total wards. This being the first election downsizing to 14 there are no incumbents — all 14 seats are new and up for election. Seven will be elected to an initial 2-year term, the other 7 to a 4-year term. This will make future elections staggered, with only half the seats up for election every two odd years. 

Until changed, races with only 1-2 candidates will be the same for primary & general elections — rather silly. Races with 3+ primary candidates will have the top 2 primary finishers on our general election ballots.

Remember— nearly everyone in the city has a new ward number. The March 7th & April 4th elections are both important — at least wards with 3 or more candidates in the primary.

Okay, let’s look at each race. The number in parentheses is the number of candidates in the primary, the areas listed are some/all of the neighborhoods in this ward. The President and ward headings are all links to relevant maps.

President of the Board of Alderman (1): Citywide

Incumbent Megan Ellyia Green only recently won a challenged special election to finish the term of disgraced Lewis Reed, so it’s no surprise she’s not challenged now. I suspect this will not be the case in 2027.

Ward 1 (3): Bevo Mill, Holly Hills, Carondelet, Patch…

This far south ward has three people running for the seat:
– Annie Schweitzer (current 13th ward alderman)
– Matthew Kotraba
– Tony Kirchner

All three live in the 63116 zip code.

Ward 2 (3): Bevo Mill, Boulevard Hts, Princeton Hts, St. Louis Hills…

This southwest ward also has three candidates:
– Phill Menendez
– Thomas R. Oldenburg (current 16th ward alderman)
– Katie Bellis

All three live in the 63109 zip code.

Ward 3 (1): Dutchtown, Carondelet, Mount Pleasant, Gravois Park…

Current 25th ward alderman Shane Cohn is the only candidate, he lives in the 63111 zip code.

Ward 4 (3): Lindenwood Park, Clifton Heights, Ellendale, Franz Park…

This southwest ward has three candidates — one of several races pitting current aldermen against each other:
– Bret Narayan, current 24th ward alderman
– Joseph (Joe) Vaccaro, current 23rd ward alderman
– Casey Otto

All three live in the 63139 zip code.

Ward 5 (2): Southampton, North Hampton, The Hill, SW Garden…

This south ward has only two candidates, so both will appear on the March & April ballots:
– Joseph (Joe) Vollmer, current 10th ward alderman
– Helen Petty

Both live in the 63110 zip code.

Ward 6 (2): Tower Grove South, Shaw, Compton Heights…

This south ward also has only two candidates, so both will be on both the primary & general ballots:
– Daniela Valezquez
– Jennifer Florida

Valezquez lives in 63110, Florida in 63116.

Ward 7 (3): Gravois Park, Benton Park West, Tower Grove East, Fox Park…

This south ward has three candidates:
– Alisha Sonnier
– J.P. Mitchom
– Cedric (C-Sharp) Redmon

They live in the 63118, 63110, 63104 zip codes, respectively.

Ward 8 (3): Marine Villa, Benton Park, Soulard, Downtown…

This south ward has three candidates:
– Shedrick (Nato Caliph) Kelley
– Cara Spencer, current 20th ward alderman
– Kenneth A. (Ken) Ortmann

Kelley lives in the 63104 zip code, Spencer and Ortmann in 63118.

Ward 9 (3): Forest Park Southeast, Central West End, Kings Oak…

This central corridor ward has three candidates, including 2 current aldermen:
– Tina (Sweet-T) Pihl, current 17th ward alderman
– Michael Browning
– Michael J. Gras, current 28th ward alderman

Pihl and Browning live in the 63110 zip code, Gras in 63108.

Ward 10 (2): Wydown Skinker, Skinker DeBaliviere, Academy, Lewis Place…

This northwest ward has only two candidates:
– Sameem Clark Hubbard, current 26th ward alderman
– Emmett L. Coleman

Both live in the 63112 zip code.

Ward 11 (2): O’Fallon, Jeff Vanderlou, Midtown…

This north central ward has only two candidates:
– Laura Keys, recently elected 21st ward alderman, finishing term of John Collins-Muhammad.
– Carla (Coffee) Wright

Both live in the 63115 zip code.

Ward 12 (5): The Ville, Baden, Mark Twain…

At five, this north ward has the most candidates of any! Seven filed, but one didn’t meet the signature obligation and the other withdrew. The remaining five on the ballot are:
– Darron M. Collins-Bey
– Tishara T. Earl
– Yolanda (Glass) Brown
– Walter Rush
– Sharon Tyus, currently the 1st ward alderman

Collins-Bey, Brown, and Rush live in the 63115 zip code, Earl in 63147, Tyus in 63113.

Ward 13 (3): Wells Goodfellow, Walnut Park (East & West), Baden…

This far north ward has three candidates — all three currently serving on the Board of Aldermen:
– Norma J. Walker, recently elected 22nd ward alderman, finishing term of Jeffrey Boyd
– Pamela Boyd, current 27th ward alderman
– Lisa Middlebrook, current 2nd ward alderman

Walker lives in the 63120 zip code, Boyd in 63136, Middlebrook in 63147.

Ward 14 (4): College Hill, Hyde Park, Old North, Columbus Square…

This north ward is my ward, I’ll have four candidates to choose from in the primary:
– James Page, currently serving as 5th ward alderman
– Brandon Bosley, currently serving as 3rd ward alderman
– Rasheen Aldridge, currently serving as 78th district state representative
– Ebony M. Washington

James Page lives in the 63103 zip code, Bosley and Aldridge in 63107, Washington in 63106.

Current aldermen not running in 2023

The following ten aldermen are not candidates (current ward):
– Dwinderlin Evans (4th)
– Christine Ingrassia (6th)
– Jack Coatar (7th)
– Annie Rice (8th)
– Dan Guenther (9th)
– James Lappe (11th)
– Bill Stephens (12th)
– Carol Howard (14th)
– Jesse Todd (18th)
– Marlene Davis (19th)

Additional thoughts

All this means at least fifteen of the current 27 (there’s one vacancy) ward Board of Aldermen will end their service in a few months. Given that 28 wards are being cut in half to 14 this isn’t a surprise. As many as 25 of the current 27 could be out of office after the general election in April — that number is shocking!

Two former aldermen, Florida & Ortmann, are hoping to return to the board. Both previously lost a reelection bid to a challenger in a democratic primary. Again, city elections are now nonpartisan. Florida will face the same person in the primary and general, Ortmann is in a 3-way race that includes a current alderman so his immediate goal is to finish in the top two in the March 7th primary so he can try to win the April 4th general.

Voter information

I want to leave you with helpful resources to help make your decision and voting easier. I’m very curious if we’ll see any significant change in voter turnout. Analysis will be a challenge since we can’t compare the 14 new apples to apples, but we can see citywide as well as compare old vs new in the same part of town.

Okay, here are some resources for you:
– St Louis Board of Elections: March 7th Primary
– St. Louis Board of Elections: March 7 Candidate List
– St Louis Board of Elections: April 4th General (includes relevant dates)
– Find your ward, poling places, etc (includes locations for no excuse voter information held the two weeks prior to election day, as well as citywide voting locations where any registered voter can cast their ballot on election day.
– Current 28 wards & aldermen (likely won’t be available after primary or general election).
– City’s Redistricting FAQ page (includes link to proposition voters approved way back in 2012 to reduce the number of wards from 28 to 14).
– League of Women Voters/St. Louis (hopefully they’ll conduct some debates, at least the races with 4+ candidates).

— Steve
————————————————————————
St. Louis urban planning, policy, and politics @ UrbanReviewSTL since October 31, 2004. For additional content please consider following on Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Bluesky, and/or X (Twitter).

Local Elections In Missouri Tomorrow: 2 Propositions For City Voters, 4 Propositions For County Voters

Voters in Missouri will be going to the polls tomorrow, unless they voted absentee as I did. The post will cover St. Louis city & St. Louis County. For voters in Jefferson & St. Charles counties click here or here, respectively.

The ballots in the city are identical, and short. Only two propositions.

PROPOSITION R (Proposed by Initiative Petition [the full text of which is available at all polling places])

Shall Article IV of the City of St. Louis Charter be amended to:

• Prohibit Aldermen from taking actions on matters pending before the Board of Aldermen where they have a personal or financial conflict of interest;
• Require that Aldermen’s financial disclosure statements be open to the public;
• Have ward boundary maps drawn by an independent citizens commission after each decennial census; and
• Prohibit the Board of Aldermen from changing voter-enacted voting methods for municipal offices without first submitting such changes to the voters?

YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

PROPOSITION 1 OFFICIAL BALLOT – BOND ELECTION

Shall the following be adopted:

Proposition to issue bonds of The City of St. Louis, Missouri in an amount not to exceed Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000) for all or a portion of the following purposes: (1) improving, resurfacing, repaving and/or repairing streets; (2) designing and constructing public safety facilities; (3) designing and constructing pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities; (4) maintaining and improving the safety and security of correctional facilities and improving public safety systems; (5) providing local matching share funds, where applicable and necessary, to utilize federal funds in furtherance of any of the cited projects herein; (6) replacing, improving, renovating and maintaining buildings, bridges, and equipment of the City of St. Louis, such as neighborhood recreation centers and firehouses; and (7) paying for expenses associated with the issuance of such bonds. If this proposition is approved, the property tax levy is estimated to remain unchanged.

YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

I favor both propositions.

Campaigns for both:

• Prop R
• Prop 1

St. Louis County voters will have different offices/issues on their ballots based on their address, but all will have the same four county-wide propositions. A simple majority is needed for each to pass.

PROPOSITION A

Shall the Charter of St. Louis County be amended to require that all costs associated with employees appointed by the County Executive be covered under the County Executives budget and to eliminate the authority of department heads to employ one executive assistant and one secretary for each of them outside of the merit system, as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 28,307, on file with the St. Louis County Administrative Director and the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners?

YES NO

PROPOSITION B

Shall the Charter of St. Louis County be amended to change the requirements for the position of county executive so that the county executive shall hold no other employment nor shall the county executive perform work as an independent contractor during the term of office and that a violation of either of these restrictions shall cause the county executive to forfeit the office and the office shall be declared vacant as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 28,308, on file with the St. Louis County Administrative Director and the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners?

YES NO

PROPOSITION C

Shall St. Louis County impose a local use tax at the same rate as the total local sales tax rate, provided that if the local sales tax rate is reduced or raised by voter approval, the local use tax rate shall also be reduced or raised by the same action?

YES NO

PROPOSITION D

Shall St. Louis County be authorized to enter into a lease agreement with Raintree Foundation for a building and surrounding ground located in Queeny Park for the operation of a pre-primary and primary grade school pursuant to the terms as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 28,324, on file with the St. Louis County Administrative Director and the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners?

YES NO

For more information on St. Louis County elections/ballots check out the St. Louis County Board of Elections.

If you are a registered voter in Missouri please be sure to vote tomorrow.

— Steve Patterson

I Was Partially Wrong About How Our Non-Partisan Elections Will Work

I try to avoid making mistakes, but it does happen. I like to verify information before publishing these posts, but when I didn’t get an answer from the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners I should’ve looked harder to find the answer. My apologies if my mistake caused any confusion.

First, what I got right:

• Candidates for local office are no longer listed on the ballot by political party, all are independent. Thus, non-partisan.
• As independent candidates they can’t just pay a fee to their party of choice to get on the ballot — they must submit a petition signed by registered voters.
• Voters can vote for as many candidates as they like. Example: Three candidates for a race means a voter could select 0-3 of them.

What I got wrong:

• I knew that in a race with three or more candidates the top two in March would face each other in April. I incorrectly thought if one got 50% of the votes in March the race was over — WRONG.

The full petition behind Proposition D passed in November 2020 says:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in the primary election for the offices of Mayor, Comptroller, President of the Board of Aldermen, and Alderman, voters shall select as many candidates as they approve of for each office. The two candidates receiving the most votes for each office shall advance to the general election. The candidate for each office receiving the most votes in the general election shall be declared the winner.” [Emphasis added]

So what does this mean? In races with only one or two candidates on the ballot the March & April ballots for that race will look the same. In races with two candidates one might win in March but the other win in April.  Most likely the March result will be similar to April.

The big difference will be seen in races with three or more candidates, like the 4-way mayoral race or 6-way aldermanic race in the 21st ward. In these races we know the election won’t be over in March with April only a formality. The month between the March primary and April general will determine the winner.

The candidate that comes in a close second place in March can win in April if they keep pushing and trying to win over voters who selected candidates that got eliminated by placing third or later.

Though I wish the language had been like I thought it was, I understand that would’ve been a lot more complicated of a change. I’m still glad Prop D passed.

I hope the next change is a thorough overhaul: Eliminate the March primary and have ranked-choice voting in April with ballot measures and school board races.

Again, my apologies for my mistake.

— Steve Patterson

Longtime Election Board Building Was Previously Police Headquarters (1907-1929)

For most of the 16 years on this blog I’ve often used a vintage photo, below, when posting about local elections.

Though I’d been using this photo I didn’t know anything about it. From the cars I knew not only was it from before I arrived in St. Louis (August 1990) but before I was born (February 1967). I also knew I’d never been to this building, the only location of the Board of Election Commissionrs I’d ever visited was the current, 300 North Tucker.

Another photo I use often for election-related posts:

Not sure where I registered to vote, but my first time going to the election board offices was in January 2005 when I filed to run for alderman — at 300 North Tucker.

Recently I was more and more curious about that vintage photo, so I contacted a lifetime resident who is a St. Louis political encyclopedia. He suggested I look in the book “We Elect! The Story of St. Louis Government and Politics”, published by the St. Louis Public Schools in 1967. I received a copy years ago as part of the Beckerle collection.

So now I know the address but that didn’t tell me when they moved out of the building and why. Was the building built for them or a previous occupant? I know the new city jail currently occupies that and additional land.

Let’s begin with the election board moving into the current location, 300 North Tucker. Thankfully St. Louis Library members can search Post-Dispatch archives online.

An August 1998 article (8/27/1998, p18) indicated the move from 208 South Tucker to 300 North Tucker will happen in December. A December 6, 1998 article indicated the move would happen on December 14, 1998. The earlier article mentions 208 South Tucker is 91 years old. Both articles indicate the election board moved in during the ‘late 1930s.” They got the decade right, the 1930s. But it wasn’t late in the decade — it opened on February 12, 1932 (P-D page 14 of 48).

The Post-Dispatch in 1998 said it was 91 years old, so built in 1907 — if they got that research right. That means the building was roughly a quarter century old. Who was the previous occupant?

The headline gave away the answer, the building was previously police headquarters. Growing city outgrew the police headquarters just a couple of decades after building it? Not exactly. As part of young Harland Bartholomew’s plan, the 12th right-of-way would be widened from 60 feet to a massive 150 feet, 40 feet would come from the east side of 12th. In 1919 a condemnation suit began to take the 40 feet from property owners.  Police would lose the front 40 feet of their headquarters, only 12 years old.

By March 18, 1926 a site for a new headquarters was secured on the southwest corner of 12th & Clark — consolidated from 18 owners.  That headquarters opened in late 1928 or early 1929.

The headquarters that became the board of elections was opened in August 1907, after a long delay. Three residences were bought and razed to construct the building.

Original plans called for the police department to occupy half the basement of the new city hall, but that was scrapped once the decision was made to make the basement ceilings only nine feet high.  Police would need to stay across the street at “four courts” building. Prior to Bartholomew’s arrival they already had plans to widen 12th, not sure how much. (P-D 4/24/1898, p9).

In July 2014 the St. Louis police headquarters moved again, this time to a renovated office building on Olive between 19th-20th.

— Steve Patterson

Local St. Louis Elections Finally Go Non-Partisan!

I’ve lived in St. Louis over three decades now and one constant in Spring elections has been races are decided in the March Democratic primary, not the April general election. I’ve spoken out against partisan plurality voting for years now.

• March 2005: What St. Louis’ Political Scene Needs
• February 2006: Political Reform Needed in City of St. Louis
• December 2006: Welcome to the 6th Ward Circus
• March 2009: I Guess I’ll Vote Today
• October 2009: Readers Favor Breaking Up the St. Louis Political Machine, But How?
• February 2017: Opinion: St. Louis Needs Ranked Choice Voting
• March 2019: Opinion: St. Louis Region Needs To Seriously Look At Our Low Voter Turnout Problem

The last link above mentioned the effort to collect signatures to get Approval Voting on the ballot — that became Prop D that voters approved yesterday.

Proposition D makes three changes to the voting process for St. Louis city elections.

First, it creates a nonpartisan primary. Second, voters have the ability to approve (or disapprove) of every candidate on the ballot. Finally, the two candidates with the most votes in the primary advance to the general election.

Proposition D was endorsed by Congresswoman-elect Cori Bush, St. Louis Treasurer Tishaura O. Jones, state Rep. Rasheen Aldridge, and Rev. Darryl Gray.  (St. Louis American)

At this point I think it would be helpful to explain a few of the many types of voting systems.

Plurality voting system is what St. Louis has always had:

Plurality system, electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected. It is distinguished from the majority system, in which, to win, a candidate must receive more votes than all other candidates combined. Election by a plurality is the most common method of selecting candidates for public office. (Britannica) 

This is the voting system most of our elections in the U.S. use. With two candidates the winner is very clear, unless tied. With three or more candidates the winner doesn’t necessarily have a majority of votes. Say you’ve got a 3-way race and 1,000 voters. Candidate A gets 275 votes, B gets 375 votes, and C gets 350 votes. Nobody has a majority of 501 or more votes. Under our plurality system Candidate B would be the winner by receiving more votes than A or C — even though B didn’t get a majority.

Plurality voting is often manipulated with the addition of one or more spoiler candidates to dilute the opposition to the establishment’s preferred candidate.  The spoiler(s) ensures the well-funded candidate backed by the establishment receives more votes than the candidate in second place, even if just one more vote.

Approval voting that won yesterday takes a different approach.

Approval Voting is a single-winner voting method in where a voter can approve of any number of candidates. The candidate that gets the most approval votes wins office. This would help eliminate some of the disadvantages third party candidates have. They no longer would be splitting the vote and voters will be more likely to throw their support behind someone they don’t think it will be wasted on. (Follow my vote) See video.

Let’s use our same example from above to explain how this will work in St. Louis. So we have a 3-way race and 1,000 voters. A third vote for all three candidates (999 votes), a third votes for two candidates (666 votes), and the rest vote for one candidate (334 votes). This example means there are 1,999 total votes among our three candidates. Candidate A gets 500 votes, B gets 750, and C gets 699 — a very close second. In our new system Candidate A would be eliminated and candidates B & C would face each other in a runoff. The winner of the runoff might be B, might be C. We do know the final winner will have a majority of votes as it is a 2-way race.

As former alderman Antonio French recently pointed out, Approval Voting is also subject to manipulation. Even non-manipulative voters have to decide if they vote for one or more candidates.

Approval voting forces voters to face an initial voting tactical decision as to whether to vote for (or approve) of their second-choice candidate or not. The voter may want to retain expression of preference of their favorite candidate over their second choice. But that does not allow the same voter to express preference of their second choice over any other. One simple situation in which Approval strategy is important is if there is a close election between two similar candidates A and B and one distinct one Z, in which Z has 49% support. If all of Z’s supporters approve just him, in hopes of him getting just enough to win, then supporters of A are faced with a tactical choice of whether to approve A and B (getting one of their preferred choices but having no say in which) or approving just A (possibly helping choose her over B, but risking throwing the election to Z). B’s supporters face the same dilemma. (Wikipedia)

The voting system that I’ve been promoting for years is Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV).

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. (Ballotpedia)

RCV is hardly new.

The first U.S. city to adopt at-large ranked choice voting for its city council was Ashtabula, Ohio in 1915. During the first half of the 20th century, ranked choice voting spread rapidly as part of the progressive movement. At its peak, some two-dozen cities adopted it, including Cincinnati, Cleveland, Boulder, Sacramento, and even New York City. New York City continued to use ranked choice voting for its school board until 2002 when those school boards were abolished.

As the progressive era transitioned into a period characterized by racial tensions and fear of communism, at-large ranked choice voting became a victim of its own success. In Cincinnati, ranked choice voting enabled the election of two African American city council members in the 1950’s. In 1951, African American attorney Theodore M. Berry won with the highest percent of the vote, which ordinarily would result in him becoming mayor. Instead, the city council chose one of the white councilmen to become mayor. Finally, Cincinnati repealed ranked choice voting in 1957 in the fifth Republican-led repeal attempt. Following civil unrest stemming from racial tensions in the 1960’s, the Kerner Commission cited the repeal of ranked choice voting and its effect on African American representation as one cause of the city’s violence.

Similarly, in New York City, ranked choice voting cut off the stranglehold previously held by the Democratic Party in the city. In the last election before adoption of choice voting, Democrats won 99.5% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. Under ranked choice voting in 1941, Democrats won 65.5% of the seats with 64% of the vote, a much fairer result. However, ranked choice voting enabled representation of minor parties, including members of the Communist Party. During the Cold War, the Democratic Party took advantage of fears of communism to make a successful push for repeal of ranked choice voting. That repeal successfully prevented the election of communists to the city council, along with members of all other minor parties, but it also brought back an era of unrepresentative elections to New York City. (FairVote)

I suspect the group that got Prop D onto our ballot went with Approval Voting rather than RCV because our existing voting equipment can be used. I don’t think our paper ballots or machines could do RCV. This is just an assumption on my part.

Maine voters used RCV in Tuesday’s election, but Massachusetts voters rejected a measure to switch to RCV.  Next Spring we’ll get to try out our new approval+runoff system as the mayoral race already has at least three candidates. I’m just thrilled the election will be non-partisan.

It’s not clear to me if the ward Democratic committee will have any influence when an alderman resigns from office. Currently the Democratic central committee (committee men & women from all wards) select who will be the Democratic nominee, usually that ward’s committeeman or committeewoman.  Others could run, but voters almost always pick the Democrat.

Also note this doesn’t apply to the eight (8) “county” offices: Circuit Attorney, Circuit Clerk, Collector of Revenue, License Collector, Public Administrator, Recorder of Deeds, Sheriff, and Treasurer.

It’s a new era in St. Louis.

— Steve Patterson