Analysis

I think any review of “What Voters Said” after an election should start by looking at how many voters said Yes or No on the questions they were given. Here are the total numbers of people marking a valid Yes or No on the four Charter Change ballot measures, adding together the three counties with voters in Portland:

Measure 26-89 (Ongoing Charter Review)… : 75,337

Measure 26-90 (Civil Service changes)……. : 76,210

Measure 26-91 (Form of Government)…….. : 78,967

Measure 26-92 (PDC Governance)………….. : 78,114

More people voted one way or the other on the Form of Government debate than any other measure. And more people, 60,136, voted No on that measure than voted Yes on any other. Three thousand more people voted No on 26-91 than voted Yes on 26-89.

The election result showed 76% opposed to the proposed switch from the current commission-style City Council in Portland. Looking back to the poll reported on City Hall Blog in March, back then the Form of Government proposal was opposed by 47% of those polled, with 20% undecided. So over the course of the campaign, more people decided to vote No. The collective mood of voters changed from, “Meh, I don’t think so”, to “Absolutely not”.

Contrast that with the polls vs. actual on the other measures, in round numbers:

Charter reform – poll 76% in favor, vote 76% in favor. No change in support over the campaign, although the 10% undecided in the initial poll were moved to vote No.

Civil Service – poll 40% in favor, 27% opposed, 33% undecided. Vote 54% Yes, 46% No. The undecideds split fairly evenly after the campaign – slightly more to the No side.

Portland Development Commission – poll 68% in favor, 20% opposed, 13% undecided. Vote 53% Yes, 47% No. The campaign moved voters away from their initial opinion supporting the concept, but not enough to change the outcome.

My thoughts:

* Portlanders like our commission form of government. We’ve said so eight times. More people were more sure of their No on 26-91 than voted Yes on 26-89 for ongoing Charter Review – 60,136 to 57,135. Scott Moore at the Mercury notes the 76% opposed mirrors the result from 2002. People probably voted No for a myriad of reasons. Some doubtless want change, but not the one proposed. Many folks I spoke with who are not especially active in city politics don’t feel there is a particular problem at City Hall requiring any major changes.

* Some of the people voting Yes on ongoing Charter Reform may want changes other than the form of government. Term limits, for example. Or districts without a Stronger Mayor. A role for the City in supporting its public schools, perhaps. Or maybe just simple housekeeping changes that really are housekeeping changes, like taking out ancient language about punishing paupers and prohibiting the display of deformed persons. Pundits have no basis for the assumption that all those voting for 26-89 want major changes in the form of government.

* All the attention to the Form of Government debate merely solidified opposition to it, and likely distracted voters from review of the Civil Service and particularly Portland Development Commission changes. Some of the Civil Service losses, and the details of why ongoing Charter review may not be desirable, were difficult to explain in the soundbites of the campaign. But citizens have read many articles about PDC, and might have weighed in to the debate more but for all the attention on 26-91.

I was disappointed with the superficial nature of the citywide outreach process. And like many citizens, I thought the mailers from both sides didn’t provide much useful information. I most liked the small postcard in opposition to Measure 26-92, which I received the last Saturday of the voting period. Although it mostly listed the opinions of a variety of opponents, I appreciated seeing Charter Commission chairman David Wang among them. “The wording inserted by City Council does not reflect the recommendation of the Charter Review Commission”, he wrote. It was appropriate that he should have one of the last words in this campaign, which turned out to be not what many hoped for in the process or the outcomes.