Opinion: January election best of bad options for Denver

Voters are ready if commission can pull it off

http://tinyurl.com/yfyd8u

December 14, 2006
The Denver City Council has an opportunity to exorcise the Ghost of the Election Past, which threatens to haunt local residents in subsequent elections unless serious reform occurs.

Today, a council committee has the chance to call for a special election on Jan. 30 to amend the City Charter and replace the three-member Denver Election Commission with a single elected official to supervise future balloting.

It should do so. While some critics have said a late January election would not allow enough time to fully consider the implications of a charter change, election reform has been a hot topic in Denver for more than a year. Several council members and the city auditor have separately proposed structural reforms in voting, and we believe a single elected clerk and recorder would be more accountable to the public than the current unwieldy system.

It's not a panacea, but every Colorado county other than Denver and Broomfield now elects a clerk and recorder. It's a tried and tested system.

Why move so quickly? Keeping the current Election Commission structure in place until after May's election - which would be the consequence of waiting - would create other problems, as we'll explain. A Jan. 30 special election offers the best option on a menu of less-than-perfect solutions.

There's a potential serious hitch, though. Could the Election Commission find a vendor to print ballots in time? If not, then obviously it would be idiotic to invite another fiasco, meaning any vote to change the charter should be delayed until Denver's regular election in May.

On Wednesday, Larimer Clerk & Recorder Scott Doyle told the panel appointed by Mayor John Hickenlooper to examine the Nov. 7 fiasco that a January election was impossible because of the vendor issue. And he may be right. But council doesn't have to pull the trigger in favor of a special election until Dec. 26. In the meantime, it could begin the formal process to set an election while checking with vendors - and if Doyle is right, council can stop the process.

The advantages of a January election are just too great to dismiss without further investigation. To begin with, all three commissioners (two are elected) have announced plans to either resign or not seek new terms in May. A complete change at the top is inevitable. It's an ideal time to make structural repairs that would enhance accountability within city government.

For that matter, if the charter changes go on the May ballot, the earliest that balloting for a new clerk and recorder could occur is in a special summer election, with the winner taking charge in November. However, the first date a summer election could be held is July 31 - technically, 90 days after the May 1 balloting.

In other words, the election commissioners picked in May (and who on Earth would want to run?) would be lame ducks before they entered office. And the staff would also know that some of them were likely to lose their jobs within a few months. Talk about an invitation for mischief in an already-dysfunctional department!

By contrast, if the charter is amended at a special election in January, the first election for clerk and recorder would be held at the city's general election in May. The winner would take office in July, allowing more than a year to prepare for the 2008 primary and general elections.

Whenever the charter amendment goes to voters, it should incorporate two major reforms:

• Replacing the Election Commission with a full-time elected clerk and recorder. The director of elections would be an administrator appointed by the clerk and recorder.

• Granting Career Service status to the clerk and recorder's staff; this would allow the city to establish professional standards for those positions. Current Election Commission employees would have to apply for jobs in the new office.

One final note: Assuming a January election turns out to be practical - and given the general incompetence of the Election Commission - council will need to recommend an all-mail vote. Much as we oppose all-mail ballots generally, in this instance election officials will have no other choice.

It's an emergency, after all.