Raleigh voters deserve to be heard on big City Council changes | Opinion
Raleigh voters may have an election about elections.
The Raleigh City Council voted this month to change council terms from two years to four years and add a spring primary, starting in 2026, but some object to that change being made without the consent of the voters. The citizen advocacy group Livable Raleigh is seeking to make the change subject to a vote on the November ballot.
The group also wants to add a second referendum on whether the City Council should be expanded from eight to 11 members by adding three district seats. Supporters of the change say the council should grow to better represent a city that has added more than 200,000 residents in the past two decades.
It will take 5,000 signatures on each of the issues to get them added to an already crowded ballot.
Both issues have merits and drawbacks. We support extending City Council members’ terms and giving voters a direct say on whether that should happen. We are not convinced that adding three more council members elected by district will improve representation.
Tim Niles of Livable Raleigh said his group is neutral on extending council terms, but it is opposed to having the council make that decision on its own. He said a majority of the council had promised to put the change to a citywide vote, but instead made the change themselves.
“They have been saying for over a year that they would put it on the ballot. Then, for some reason, they just did an about face,” Niles told the Editorial Board.
Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin said there was no about face. She said the council simply voted to follow the unanimous advice of a task force that had evaluated how and for how long the city’s leaders should be elected. She doesn’t object, however, to letting voters decide.
“There was never a promise made to put it on the ballot but it’s entirely within their right to do the petition drive and try to force the issue,” she said.
Voters may disagree with the extension. City surveys show that most respondents preferred keeping their council members on two-year terms. The reason is that shorter terms keep city leaders sensitive to public opinion and reduce the time it takes to vote out unpopular council members.
But extending council terms wouldn’t leave voters unable to voice disapproval. Because the four-year terms would be staggered, voters would have a chance every two years to make major changes in the council’s makeup.
Longer terms may also make council members more effective. A two-year election cycle is a constant one. A four-year term would allow new council members to become familiar with city issues and city government processes. All members could make decisions outside of a charged campaign environment.
“Running every two years, the first year you’re learning and the second year you’re running. That is a distraction to governing,” said Baldwin, who is not seeking reelection.
First-term council member Jane Harrison said it can take more than a year for a proposed ordinance to reach final adoption. “Governing effectively through this complexity demands a level of persistent attention and strategic focus that is challenging with 2-year election cycles,” she said in a statement.
Adding three district seats to the council – there are now five, along with two at-large seats and the mayor – is not clearly an improvement. It’s true that the city’s growth increases each district’s population and makes it harder for council members to be aware of their district’s concerns. But the recent restoration of Citizens Advisory Councils and other changes that would improve how the city hears and responds to residents can offset the effects of more populous districts.
Meanwhile, at the City Council level itself, having three more voices at the table could make reaching consensus more difficult and actually inhibit the responsiveness of city government.
The current City Council has a diverse membership and no shortage of different perspectives. The city would do better to improve how it listens to residents rather than adding more council members with something to say.
On the council changes, we’ve offered our choices. Now the voters should decide.
