Jacksonville Election Date Move (November 2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

There was a Jacksonville Election Date Move proposition on the November 2 ballot in Duval County for voters in the city of Jacksonville.

This measure was defeated

  • YES 113,292 (47.83%)
  • NO 123,590 (52.17%)Defeatedd[1]

The proposed referendum would have moved the election date from May, which was when the city held its elections, to November to coincide with the national election date. Issues arose on both sides of the matter, mainly being that the proponents saw it as a way to save money by consolidating election dates but opponents saw it just as a means to keep those in office in their positions for a further 6 months. The change in election would have made it so that the next one for city offices would be in November of 2012, giving those currently in office an extended term. Opponents saw this as unfair and do not think the costs are worth that.[2]

Those wanting to run for election in May were unsure what they should do about campaigns, which usually heated up in November but would be too early if the date was pushed back. Overall the measure was seen as a good thing for the city, but the first term would be tricky due to an extension of those currently in office and those wanting to run for new positions.[3]

A financial impact statement would also be included on the ballot in order to further give voters a better idea of what the measure would entail. City officials had until April 30 to finalize the wording of the statement for the November ballot. The purpose of the statement was to make a best guess at what costs would be saved if the election was moved or what costs would not be changed. Officials were hoping this would further inform and help voters choose.[4]

City officials changed the wording of the ballot so that the election change would not take place until 2015, those running for office in 2011 would have a normal spring election date and would serve four and a half year terms. Extending the term of current officers was a strong issue against this measure, but this change would ease that issue.[5]