Researching for the General Election April 2, 2019

I’m preparing to mail in my absentee ballot for next month’s general election. Yes, another election. Remember, last month was just so the various political parties could select their nominee. Next month nominees will face each other in the general.

At least they would if we didn’t live in a one party city.

It continues to be foolish why continue having a partisan primary followed by an even lower turnout general election.   The democratic nominees for president of the board of aldermen and the 14 even-numbered wards will all win, only a few have any marginal challenge.

But on the upcoming ballot is two open school board seats, one junior college trustee seat, and a proposition. See sample ballot.

SCHOOL BOARD

Seven candidates for two school board seats:

This election is more important than many prior school board elections.

Seven candidates are running for the St. Louis Board of Education next month. It’s very likely those elected to the board on April 2 will be handed back power over St. Louis Public Schools later this year. After nearly 12 years of state control, the state school board is expected to vote to reinstate the elected board in April.
(St. Louis Public Radio — recommended)

None of the seven are incumbents. I’m still researching, I’ve eliminated three so far. The West End Word has a brief summary of all 7 here. Vote411 has info here.

JUNIOR COLLEGE (only applies to some city voters)

• PAULA M. SAVARINO
• ANNE ADAMS MARSHALL

Vote411 has info on both here.

PROPOSITION S

Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Proposition S
Simple majority required.

Ballot wording: Shall the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) charge a Stormwater Capital Rate upon all customers, whether public or private, within the District based on the amount of impervious area on the real property of each customer for the purpose of providing revenue to fund capital improvements for flooding and erosion control, as set forth in the following schedule? Single-family Residential (per month) for the following tiers, Tier 1 (200-2,000 sq. ft. of impervious area) $1.42 Tier 2 (2,001-3,600 sq. ft. of impervious area) $2.25 Tier 3 (3,601-6,000 sq. ft. of impervious area) $3.74 Tier 4 (over 6,000 sq. ft. of impervious area) $6.84 Commercial and Multi-Family Residential (per month) $2.25 per 2,600 sq. ft. of impervious area.

Summary:  The measure would allow the district to impose a new stormwater charge to generate money to addressing local and regional flooding and stream erosion that threaten structures, roads or yards. The charge would be based on the amount of a property’s surface area that does not absorb rainwater. Funds would be used for property buyouts, rain scaping, natural creek bank stabilization, stormwater drainage systems and other improvements. All public and private property in MSD’s service area, including properties owned by governmental or nonprofit entities and those not receiving MSD wastewater services, would be subject to this charge.  If passed, the charge would raise $30 million annually and the average residential property owner would pay an additional $27 per year. 

Proponents say that the increased revenue is necessary to address local and regional flooding, erosion issues and to improve water quality for stormwater. They also say that the proposed rate imposes a fair and reasonable burden on all classes of ratepayers with an incentive system. Opponents say that there are no detailed engineering plans on the proposed projects and that there is insufficient funding for the projects proposed. They also say that the projects are not required by any regulation or law. (Vote411)

No clue how I’m going to vote on this.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Can Anything Be Done To Increase Voter Turnout In Local Elections

Voter turnout in last week’s St. Louis partisan primary was low, ranging from 10.09% (5th Ward) to 28.02% (8th Ward) — source.

St. Louis voter participation is always the lowest in the region.

Among the eight counties in the St. Louis region, voter turnout tends to be highest in Monroe and St. Charles counties and is often lowest in the city of St. Louis and in St. Clair County. In the 2018 mid-term election, voter turnout among registered voters was highest in St. Charles (64.1 percent), St. Louis (60.8 percent), and in Monroe counties (60.5 percent) and lowest in St. Clair County and in the city of St. Louis (both 51.9 percent).  During the 2016 presidential election, voter turnout was highest in Monroe County (78.4 percent) and lowest in in city of St. Louis (59.2 percent). — source.

Today’s poll is about voter turnout.

This poll will close at 8pm, come back Wednesday for the results and my thoughts on the topic.

— Steve Patterson

Re-Vote 78th House District Today, Absentee Ballot Process, Legal Challenge In 5th Ward Democratic Committeeman Race

On Monday a 3-judge appellate court heard Penny Hubbard’s appeal to the Sept 2nd circuit court ruling that tossed out the results of the August 2nd primary in that race, ordering a special election for today. I was in the courtroom for the opening arguments in the circuit case and for the appeal earlier this week. The appeal was much quicker. Both sides had filed briefs, and each got 10 minutes to make their case to persuade to panel to affirm or reverse the original decision. Hubbard’s team also got 2 minutes for rebuttal. Done within a half an hour!

Their decision in the expedited case came out less than 24 hours later, affirming the lower court’s ruling. Today’s special election will take place. Registered voters in the 78th district need to vote today — hopefully for Bruce Franks From Tuesday’s opinion:

C. Trial Court’s Findings and Conclusions
In its Memorandum, Order and Final Judgment (“Judgment”), the trial court found the Board “disregarded” the “tedious and specific statutory process” created by the Missouri legislature and stated the statutory provisions “must be specifically followed.” Furthermore, the trial court was “firmly convinced” that the irregularities in the collection and acceptance of absentee ballots “affected the outcome of the election,” and the irregularities were more than “petty procedural infirmities” that violate election law. Although, the trial court found that the number of votes in dispute was 238, the trial court concluded that 142 of those votes, in addition to the 8 votes the parties stipulated were improperly counted, “violated Missouri law” and exceeded the apparent margin of victory (90 votes). Accordingly, the trial court held that the irregularities were of “sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the validity of the initial election,” and it ordered the Board to conduct a “special election” for the District on Friday, September 16, 2016. Hubbard now appeals.

…

In her first point on appeal, Hubbard contends the trial court erred in ordering a new election pursuant to § 115.549, RSMo 2000 because the Board’s failure to require the use of absentee ballot envelopes for absentee voting on electronic voting systems, even if deemed an irregularity, in the absence of fraud, was not of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the validity of the initial election. We disagree.

…

In her brief, Hubbard argues the trial testimony showed that poll workers at the central location used ballot applications of in-person voters in lieu of the ballot envelopes and that the
difference between the two is “a distinction without a legal difference.” We disagree. Evidence at trial demonstrated the application for an absentee ballot is not notarized, does not indicate a person is signing under penalty of perjury and is not labeled as an affidavit. However, the statement on a ballot envelope is an affidavit, made under penalty of perjury, and required to be notarized unless the person is voting absentee due to their incapacity or care of another who is incapacitated. Additionally, the application does not use the statutory language from § 115.283.1 which provides, in great detail, the requirements of the ballot envelope.

…

The evidence at trial does not support the conclusion that the application’s warning that making a false statement on the application can subject the signer to criminal penalties is substantially equivalent to the voter making a sworn statement, notarized by a notary public, that they are lawfully casting their vote under Chapter 115. The intent behind each is significantly different; in applying to vote by absentee ballot, the applicant is stating they understand the penalty for making a fraudulent application is a Class One Election offense. Whereas, on an absentee ballot, the signor is making a covenant that they have lawfully cast their vote, the information included within their ballot envelope is true, and they will not cast another vote in the same election. We find there is a significant legal distinction between the voters’ notarized sworn statement on an absentee ballot envelope and their signature on the application for an absentee ballot.

Basically, the St, Louis Board of Election didn’t have the authority to permit absentee balloting in a manner different than what’s outlined in Missouri’s statutes. They’ve scrapped their secondary process and are now following the process outlined by law.  If Missouri should implement a vote by mail process to replace the absentee process.

For those of us in the 5th Ward this isn’t surprising.

For weeks, debate surrounding the Aug. 2 Democratic Primary has focused on irregularities in absentee voting, some of which were featured in an Aug. 31 Post-Dispatch report. But the information gathered by the newspaper suggests that members of state Rep. Penny Hubbard’s family were seen on Election Day in or near two polling places. State law bans electioneering within 25 feet of the door of a polling place.

In one instance, Hubbard’s husband, Rodney Hubbard Sr., a candidate for Fifth Ward committeeman, parked his Mercedes in the grass a few feet from the entrance of a polling site at the Carr Square Tenant Management Corp. and watched voters come and go, two campaign workers say. (Post-Dispatch)

Just like Bruce Franks, Rasheen Aldridge won the election day voting at the polls in his race against Rodney Hubbard for 5th Ward Democratic Committeeman. Even with absentee ballots included, Aldridge won six of eight precincts in the 5th Ward — but two precincts had an overwhelming number of absentee ballots and voters for Hubbard.  With Franks having successfully challenged the August 2nd primary results in court, Aldridge is raising money to do the same in his race.

Dave Roland, the attorney who represented Franks, is also legal counsel for Aldridge.

“The election between Aldridge and Rodney Hubbard Sr. was plagued by precisely the same illegalities that the courts found in Franks v. Hubbard,” Roland said Wednesday morning after filling a petition with the St. Louis Circuit Court contesting the results.

Roland said it was “indisputable” that at least 113 of the absentee votes counted in the Democratic committeeman race should not have been counted because they were cast improperly. That number includes 71 absentee ballots cast without the use of envelopes, something state law requires, as highlighted in a Post-Dispatch report. An additional 42 ballots were placed in envelopes not fully filled out. In his filing, Roland lists the names of the 113 voters he said had cast absentee ballots inappropriately. (Post Dispatch)

Please vote today (78th Dist voters) and give at least $5 to help Rasheen Aldridge get a new election in the race for 5th Ward Democratic Committeeman.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Five Propositions On April 5th Ballot

The April 5th ballot in the City of St. Louis contains five items. Today’s poll is actually five polls — one for each on the ballot. They are in order, with the exact ballot language first, in ballot order.  Please vote in all five.

PROPOSITION E

Shall the earnings tax of 1%, imposed by the City of St. Louis, be continued for a period of five (5) years commencing January 1 immediately following the date of this election?

YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

Shall the following be adopted:
PROPOSITION F
Proposition to issue bonds of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, in an amount not to exceed Twenty-Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000) for the purpose of purchasing, replacing, improving, and maintaining the buildings, bridges, and equipment of the City of St. Louis, including (1) acquiring fire trucks, ambulances, personal protective equipment, and other fire-fighting apparatus for the St. Louis Fire Department; (2) acquiring refuse trucks for the Refuse Department; (3) updating computer hardware and software for City departments; (4) providing match share funds to repair, renovate, and replace bridges; (5) renovating recreation centers, buildings, and facilities owned by the City of St. Louis; and (6) for expenses associated with the issuance of the bonds. If this proposition is approved, the property tax levy is estimated to remain unchanged.

YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

OFFICIAL BALLOT SCHOOL TAX ELECTION CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI

PROPOSITION 1

Shall the Special Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St. Louis be authorized to increase the operating tax levy of the District by $0.75 per $100 of assessed valuation to continue offering early childhood education, to expand character and alternative education options, to improve safety and security equipment and personnel, and to offer competitive salaries to teachers and staff? If this proposition is approved, the adjusted operating tax levy of the District is estimated to be $4.50 per $100 of assessed valuation.

YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

BOND ELECTION
THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT

PROPOSITION Y

To comply with federal and state clean water requirements, shall The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) issue its sewer revenue bonds in the amount of Nine Hundred Million Dollars ($900,000,000) for the purpose of designing, constructing, improving, renovating, repairing, replacing and equiping new and existing MSD sewer and drainage facilities and systems, including sewage treatment and disposal plants, sanitary sewers, and acquisition of easements and real property related thereto, the cost of operation and maintenance of said facilities and systems and the principal of and interest on said revenue bonds to be payable solely from the revenues derived by MSD from the operation of its wastewater sewer system, including all future extensions and improvements thereto?

YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT

PROPOSITION S

Shall the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) impose a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance property tax upon all real and tangible personal property within the district at a rate of not more than Ten Cents ($0.10) per One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation for the purpose of providing revenue for the operations of the district’s stormwater utility, including stormwater system operation and maintenance, rehabilitation and limited construction of infrastructure and other capital improvements, and an operating reserve?

If this proposition is approved, MSD will repeal (a) the existing stormwater operations and maintenance property tax of approximately Seven Cents ($0.07) per One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation that is imposed on property within the original boundaries of MSD, as defined in the MSD Charter, and within the annexed areas described in MSD Ordinance No. 3753, and (b) the existing monthly 24-Cent or 18-Cent stormwater service charge that is imposed on each MSD customer account. As a result, a uniform districtwide stormwater revenue system for operations, maintenance, and limited capital improvements will be in place.

YES – FOR THE PROPOSITION NO – AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: To vote on a proposition, if you are in favor of the proposition, darken the oval to the left of the word “YES.” If you are against the proposition, darken the oval to the left of the word “NO.” Do not try to punch through the ballot. Use only a pencil or blue or black ink to mark your ballot. If you tear, deface, or make a mistake and incorrectly mark your ballot, notify an election official to obtain a new ballot.

—

These non-scientific polls will remain open until 8pm.

— Steve Patterson

Turnout In Tuesday’s Primary Varied Widely

Less than 10% of the city’s 181,967 registered voters actually voted in Tuesday’s partisan primary, but to get the bigger picture we need to delve deeper into the numbers. A total of  17,291 ballots were cast among the three parties selecting their candidates for the general election next month. As expected, the overwhelming majority selected a Democratic ballot:

• Democrat: 16,520  — 96%
• Republican: 651 — 4%
• Green: 120 — 1%

The purpose of holding a partisan primary is so each party can select their candidate to compete in the general election, yet in St. Louis the Democratic primary is largely the entire election — win the Democratic primary and you’re basically the winner of the seat — the general is just a formality. Why do we continue to do this?

We’ll have three people running in the same ward — a Green, a Republican, and a Democrat. Each runs unopposed in the March primary only to face each other in the April general. We need to eliminate the March primary and just have a nonpartisan primary in April. It’ll save money, voters only need to go to the polls once, and each candidate will need to present themselves to voters to get elected.

In addition to eliminating the unnecessary primary, we need Ranked Choice/Instant Run-Off Voting:

 Ranked choice voting (RCV) describes voting systems that allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and then uses those rankings to elect candidates able to combine strong first choice support with the ability to earn second and third choice support. RCV is an “instant runoff” when electing one candidate and is a form of fair representation voting when used in multi-winner elections.

More on this later, back to the numbers from Tuesday’s election. Ok, so we know 9.5% of registered voters bothered to vote. Apathy, right? Wrong!

Aldermen were elected in 17 of 28 wards, those of us in the other 11 wards knew the only race for us to vote on was President of the Board of Aldermen — Lewis Reed would get the Democratic nomination over Jimmie Matthews, the Green & Republican candidates were challenged for their party nomination. Six of the 17 wards had unchallenged incumbents — no reason to vote. Only 11 of the city’s 28 wards had challengers. Apathy wasn’t responsible for the dismal turnout — it was our system that was set up when our population was growing and the two main parties fielded viable candidates in every race

• In the six unchallenged wards the turnout ranged from a low of 4.5% (13th) to a high of 7.4% (6th) — an average of 6%
• In the eleven contested wards the turnout ranged from a low of 8.7% (22nd) to 21.9% (8th) — an average of 15%

Clearly a contested election increases voter turnout!

The number of votes in a ward election is also telling:

• The low was the uncontested 14th ward — only 242 of the 297 who voted selected the unchallenged incumbent — 55 voters (18.5%) knew their vote wouldn’t matter.
• The high was the hotly contested 8th ward — 1,587 voted in the race — only 6 voters went to the polls but didn’t vote in the race for alderman.The winner, incumbent Stephen Conway, received 843 votes in the 2-way race — that’s more votes than in 9 .

The ranked voting mentioned above is important when you have three or more candidates.

• In the 2nd ward none of the four candidates received more than 50% of the vote — only 5 votes separated the top two. Ranked voting may have selected a different winner.
• In the 3-way race in the 7th ward Jack Coatar received over 50% of the votes — ranked voting wouldn’t have mattered because he received a plurality.
• The 20th ward also had a 3-way race — Cara Spencer defeating 20-year incumbent Craig Schmid with 48% — not a plurality.
• The only other 3-way race was the 22nd where incumbent Boyd received 77%!

When I went to bed Tuesday night the early returns had Ogilvie & Bauer tied 50/50.  In the end incumbent Ogilvie received 74.5% to win a second term.

In a related note here are the results of the Sunday Poll:

Q: Which of the following best describes your political views?

1. Mostly liberal 18 [33.33%]
2. Consistently liberal 16 [29.63%]
3. Mixed 13 [24.07%]
4. Mostly conservative 4 [7.41%]
5. Consistently conservative 3 [5.56%]

Not really a surprise that self-described liberals made up nearly 63% of the responses, conservatives just 13%, with the balance (24%) in the middle.

Those with down-the-line conservative and liberal views do share some common ground; they are much more likely than others to closely follow government and political news. This carries over to their discussions of politics and government. Nearly four-in-ten consistent conservatives (39%) and 30% of consistent liberals tend to drive political discussions – that is, they talk about politics often, say others tend to turn to them for information rather than the reverse, and describe themselves as leaders rather than listeners in these kinds of conversations. Among those with mixed ideological views, just 12% play a similar role. (Pew: Political Polarization & Media Habits)

I’d like to see St. Louis eliminate the unnecessary primary and go to ranked choice voting at the same time we reduce the number of aldermen from 28 to 14 — after the results of the 2020 census are known in 2021. You can download my spreadsheet here (xlsx) and the election results here.

— Steve Patterson