The city of McKinney had four charter ballot measures before the public in November’s election. One of them, the controversial Prop A, asked to extend city council terms from two to three. See articles here, here, and here. The problem was that the official ballot language did not indicate any change or extension of terms. It simply stated:
Note how no context with descriptive language is used on McKinney's ballot to explain a yes vote is really extending terms from two (2) terms to three (3).
The Prop A measure failed 51-49%. Early voting favored the failure of the proposition. The election day voting favored passing the proposition. If you ask Mayor Fuller and his supporters, the surge
in pro-Prop A election day votes indicated voters became more educated as they
learned more about how important it was to have city leadership serve 12 years
instead of 8.
A more likely explanation (that most early voters voted
against Prop A and most election-day voters voted yes for Prop A) has more to do
with the lack of clear ballot language coupled with misleading mailers from the
pro-Prop A group. See the article here about the special interest backers.
 |
| A pro-Prop A mailer with "Prop A maintain term limits - 3 Terms." |
As soon as the City Council authorized the final ballot language, McKinney residents let the city leadership know they were concerned about the vague, confusing language on the ballot. The public could not understand why descriptive words like ‘extend terms’ or even simply listing the change ‘from 2 to 3 terms’ were not put in the ballot measure. After the public's outcry, there was plenty of time to change the ballot language. That did not happen.
All concerns were met with variations on the standard 'legal' requirement of ballot language. Are legal requirements the only consideration for proposition
ballot measure wording? Is there no requirement for citizens to understand what
they’re voting on?
According to Texas’ election code:
Sec. 52.072. PROPOSITIONS. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, the authority ordering the election shall prescribe the wording of a proposition that is to appear on the ballot.
In other words, the proposition language is up to the entity
writing it. There is a lot of leeway in ballot language. Ballot
language can be legal and understandable to voters. Why wasn't it?
Dallas provides their voters with descriptive and comprehensible
official ballot wording. Dallas even provided details on what specific charter spelling
and outdated charter changes it would make if approved. The city of McKinney
did not give any details on those either.
Here is a sampling of official ballot wording on many Dallas propositions that were voted on this November:
 |
| Note the word "increase" in the ballot proposition. |
 |
| Note the use of descriptive words like "deleting" and "instead." |
 |
| This one specifies what is explicitly being amended. |
How will we ensure future ballot measure wording is more descriptive and comprehensible to voters in McKinney? Who must citizens talk to in order to change our city's status quo?
