Ann Arbor election reform proposals may be headed for defeat

ANN ARBOR, MI — Two citizen-initiated proposals aiming to significantly reform the way Ann Arbor elects its mayor and City Council went before voters Tuesday, Nov. 5.

With polls closed as of 8 p.m., votes are now being tallied and early results show opposition to both ballot measures.

With all 47 precincts in the city partially counted, Prop C to make city elections nonpartisan has 6,482 yes votes to 13,613 no votes, 68% against it so far.

Prop D, which calls for introducing public financing of mayor and council campaigns, has 6,924 yes votes and 12,898 no votes, 65% against it so far.

Live results for the Tuesday, Nov. 5 general election in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County

While there's been a fair amount of debate over the proposals among close observers of city politics, most voters who spoke with MLive/The Ann Arbor News after voting said they either didn't have strong feelings about the proposals or didn't feel like they knew enough about them to support them.

Some said they were swayed by Mayor Christopher Taylor and his City Council allies urging a no vote on both.

"I listened to mostly the City Council and the mayor on those two issues," said Bryan Ukena, after he voted early at city hall on Sunday, Nov. 3. He might have been more open to introducing city taxpayer funding of mayor and council campaigns if the proposal was structured differently, he said.

"I think also there wasn't a lot of information out there," he said. "It would have been helpful to have more of a debate about it. I didn't have a full grasp of what the ramifications would be, where it's been done in other areas, what the pros and cons of it are."

Fake Trump ads are latest twist in debate over Ann Arbor ballot proposals

Austin Baker, who also voted early at city hall, said he didn't see a problem with dropping party labels for mayor and council candidates, so he supported Prop C.

"Especially if we know who we're voting for, I don't think having the party label on there really matters," he said.

As for Prop D, he wasn't sure about it, so he voted no, he said, describing the proposal as wonky.

Other voters said, rather than putting hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from the city budget into a campaign finance fund to match small campaign donations for candidates, they'd rather the city spend the money on other needs.

Some voters also said they had concerns about landlords helping fund the pro-Prop C and D campaigns, as differing opinions over new dense housing development in the city has been at the center of the debate over the proposals.

See who's behind over $385K poured into fight over Ann Arbor Props C and D

Prop C proposed dropping party labels for mayor and council candidates and getting rid of the city's August primaries, so candidates of all political stripes would compete for city offices in November when voter turnout is higher.

Prop D, which the Michigan attorney general's office said conflicts with state law , called for starting a taxpayer-funded campaign finance program, putting hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from the city budget into a Fair Elections Fund to match small campaign donations of up to $50 for mayor and council candidates at a 9-to-1 ratio.

That means for every $50 someone gave a candidate for city office, they would get another $450 from the city — up to a maximum of $40,000 for council candidates and up to $90,000 for mayoral candidates. But they would have to agree to lower campaign contribution limits and refuse donations from corporations, PACs and other organizations.

Would nonpartisan elections disenfranchise Democratic voters in Ann Arbor? Groups debate

A group called the Coalition for Ann Arbor's Future collected over 11,000 signatures to get the proposals on the ballot. The group is comprised of residents and former council members concerned about the way city elections have gone in recent years and the level of campaign spending in city races.

They have characterized the proposals as an attempt at progressive reform to fight the influence of big money in city politics and help more people complete for office, but Taylor and his allies branded it as an attempt to get more conservative-minded, anti-housing candidates elected to council and said it would disenfranchise Democratic voters by getting rid of Democratic primaries. They also had concerns about the potential for fraud and abuse of public funds, while Taylor specifically argued in campaign literature it could help fund candidates running on extreme or hateful platforms.

The debate over the proposals has been reflective of the deep factional divisions that existed on council for years before Taylor and his allies gained control of all 11 seats in recent elections.

Elizabeth Nelson, one of the former council members who collected signatures to get the proposals on the ballot, wrote in her latest blog post on Election Day she was anxious and worried about the consequences of Tuesday's election and what it means for democracy, both at the federal and local levels.

"This year, the country has a choice between supporting leaders who believe in an inclusive democracy or supporting others who aim to serve themselves and profit interests," she wrote. "I hold out hope that enough voters are able to recognize and reject ugly rhetoric and fear mongering in order to make choices that uplift our democracy. At the local level, I hope for the same."

Ann Arbor" daily newsletter.