A rigged election

Before the 2012 election passes into history, there is a local lesson that should be taken away from it. It should not be forgotten that the Reno City Council engaged in serious ethical misconduct in an effort to predetermine the outcome of one line on the ballot.

A question was placed on the ballot to find out whether the public wants general elections conducted by ward or city-wide. That is, should a ward’s councilmember be elected by that ward’s residents or by all city residents?

The Council has authority over the language of city ballot questions. In this case, because the measure dealt with the Council itself, it was a conflict of interest. The public had a right to expect that the mayor and Council would do nothing to take unfair advantage of their control of the language. But they did. As it appeared on the ballot, city Question RNO-1 read this way:

“Shall the five (5) City Council members representing wards continue to be voted upon by all registered voters of the City in the General Election?”

That language was approved by the Reno City Council. It was slanted and designed to elicit a particular outcome. So was accompanying explanatory language.

In a measure dealing with whether ward or citywide general elections should be held, the ballot question excluded the ward choice so the voters did not know what the alternative to the citywide choice is. Accompanying ballot language provided both choices, but the ballot question itself did not.

In addition, the question was framed so that a “yes” vote represented the status quo and a “no” vote represented change, which was counter-intuitive. In order to change the system, a voter had to cast a “no” vote. In order to keep it as it is, the voter had to check “yes.” That alone makes the results suspect.

The business community loves city-wide elections. They make city politics more expensive, keeping officeseeking out of the reach of most people, which gives those with money for campaign contributions more influence. Their subsidized allies on the Council made sure that less affluent residents will not be getting a level playing field any time soon. For example, Neoma Jardon spent $140,978 for her $64,000 a year job.

It is especially disappointing that Mayor Bob Cashell joined in this scheme. Though he is consistently conservative, he has also consistently insisted that opposing viewpoints be fairly presented. This was a lousy time for him to take a time-out from that policy.

The mayor and council succeeded in their effort to defeat the ballot measure by manipulating the language, but in an era when distrust of government is endemic, their sleazy conduct gives local voters just one more reason for cynicism, for avoiding the system, for not voting.

Fortunately, as the new Council showed with its slowdown of the old Council’s $30 million gift to the builders of the baseball stadium, new members have the spine to do what’s right for the community. Let’s see how they handle this challenge.