Regardless of how you feel about Terrence Ruth on the merits, he got 40% of the vote in 2022 and has one cycle of city-wide campaigning under his belt. I would not underestimate him.
1 Like
A lot more qualified candidates running this time around. Name recognition will only get him so far, and I’d argue that Corey Branch alone has more of that in his favor considering he’s been an active (and largely uncontroversial if not a bit plain) councilmember for the last decade or so, and Janet Cowell has State gov’t experience, which holds even more water in the “name recognition” game. Unless Ruth has considerably increased his public outreach (and even if he has) - he has a much harder uphill battle this time around, IMO. We now have more than one candidate who has actual experience in city gov’t, so I’d imagine most of the vote split will be between them.
4 Likes
Agree, I expect if we were to break down who voted for T.Ruth in 2022 and who the vote for in this election, I believe a good portion goes to Corey Branch. I’d definitely vote for Branch of those were my 2 options.
2 Likes
I’m by no means making any predictions that he will win, that he’ll get more votes than Corey, etc. I think it’s too early to tell. What I’m saying, and what I would tell Janet and Corey if I were advising them, is that - until proven otherwise - other candidates and people/orgs with an interest in the mayors race should take Terrence - who got the second most votes in the history of Raleigh’s mayoral elections (due to switching to even years), who was endorsed by both the WCDP and both black political committees, and whose name (unlike Corey’s) has already been on the ballot citywide - seriously as a challenger.
i haver seen blurbs online that the mayor is a non-partisan race? how would an R be much different than a D at the mayoral level? number of inclusion murals? level of advocating for more police? significant differences in affordable housing amounts or schemes? what separates them at any significant level at this point in Raleigh?
would an R candidate do something different than a D candidate even with the REALITY…is the REALITY at a certain level that many seek changes?
In terms of policy, the mayor doesn’t have any particular powers (beyond perhaps a bigger soapbox?) - they’re one vote among eight (and soon to be eleven). In reality, Raleigh’s a solidly Democratic city and so the members of council tend to lean towards the left on the political spectrum. The City is also significantly constrained by the policies it can enact under state law - NC generally prohibits local governments from enacting laws that usually fall under the domain of a state government (i.e. minimum wage, etc, but also prevents rent control or inclusionary zoning).
The biggest impact to the election being non-partisan is that one’s party affiliation doesn’t appear on the ballot. Not as big an issue now that Raleigh is a reliably D city, but it was significant enough as recently as 5 years ago that a republican/unaffiliated candidate could get elected without any controversy either city-wide or in North Raleigh districts (E/A/B) (see Nancy McFarlane/Bonner Gaylord/David Knight/John Odom).
2 Likes
Large city councils (I lived in Chicago, which has 50) end up becoming like legislatures. The leadership holds most of the policymaking power, but in hyperlocal matters “aldermanic prerogative” takes hold and the ward boss decides. In a prior era, it may have been good to have accountability for city services, but now we have 311 for that.
A “downtown council district” could work to the benefit or detriment of downtown. It would make downtown a minority interest on council, as policies that benefit downtown no longer benefit most councilmembers directly. In most cities, that’s balanced out by the clout and fundraising prowess that a downtown councilmember has, as the representative of downtown business interests. I’m not necessarily sure that Raleigh’s downtown business community has that much power within the city.
Proportional representation advocates once floated a proposal for electing Chicago City Council in multi-member districts – IIRC, ten districts with five members apiece. That way, each “side of town” would still have a voice at City Hall, but the direct tie of “this block is mine, that block is yours” would be broken. It would allow smaller minority groups to maintain representation even if they’re not hyper-segregated into a single neighborhood – e.g., there’s a large Polish community on the northwest side
but scattered across several wards so there isn’t a “Polish alderman” anymore.
Here’s how that would work for one proposal to end NC’s constant Congressional-map gerrymandering wars:
There’s been one Republican mayor of Raleigh in anyone’s memory, and that was Tom Fetzer. Weaker Dem candidates will drop out rather than hold on to the end if there’s a chance of a Republican victory. TRuth’s showing in 2022 likely had a lot to do with the Wake County Democratic Party endorsement, plus some anti-incumbent sentiment and Livable Raleigh anti-incumbent organizing – none of that is guaranteed in 2024.
8 Likes
You make some excellent points! Never thought of it that way i.e. a “downtown district” seat making downtown a minority interest. That is something huge to consider! Given your points, I would push more for an additional “At-large” seat, currently.
1 Like
The Raleigh City Council voted to change council member terms from two years to four years, with staggered terms starting in 2026. The city council voted to table a proposal to add three city council seats.
10 Likes
Interesting tidbit:
The change will not be a referendum on the ballot in 2024. However, if there is a petition with 5,000 signatures from Raleigh residents, it would force the city council to put the four-year term on the November ballot for a referendum.
6 Likes
And what are the opening odds that this happens?
5 Likes
I think the Baldwin recall petition topped out at about 1500 signatures.
6 Likes
That’s about how many people Livable Raleigh could muster even though they practically begged on the streets downtown. I think this would be different, but 5k is still a steep number I think.
3 Likes
I don’t even know wtf their argument would be for keeping 2-year terms, anyway. If they get one of their candidates on the council (which they now have) - wouldn’t they also want them to serve 2 more years than previously possible?
Especially since their candidates have the worst/least-informed policies, they’re more at-risk of being voted out after a single term. I think the more folks that move here from bigger, more efficient and growth-friendly cities, the more informed our voter base becomes, and the less likely it is for these Do-Nothing, Anti-growth candidates to hold seats.
5 Likes
These Council members may be able to get up to speed and get things done by having 4 year staggered terms. The two year terms barely gives them time to get going before they have to campaign again.Staggered terms also gives some continuity and historic knowledge that is needed. I am all for these changes.
15 Likes
Hell, it’s probably taken 2 years just for the LiVaBLe RaLeiGh candidates to learn how our city gov’t actually works and what they actually have the power to do lol
6 Likes
If they can get the signatures, which sounds like a big “if,” I could see this being a motivating pretense to rally certain voters. Note which councilors voted for it versus against it.
“City council members in the pocket of big out-of-state developers are already destroying our charming city with 2 year terms. Imagine how bad it’ll be if they’re there for 4 years! So much time in office not being responsible to the voters; it would be the end of Raleigh as we know it!”
2 Likes
This quote literally reinforces how groups like this can only function AGAINST things rather than being FOR things. You would think they might be open to longer terms because if a candidate they support gets elected, that candidate would get more time on council.
15 Likes
They don’t want anything to get done. If an anti-development counselor is on staff for two years, all they’ve got to do is vote no and refuse to work with developers (David Cox). Maybe over-simplifying, but it’s so much easier to not get things done than it is to get things done.
Someone who is in favor of new development has to establish relationships, manage stakeholders, manage citizen opinions that are against it, etc. It takes a lot of time to establish that level of trust.
So, even though 4 years would be theoretically better for them, from a strategic perspective, it’s still best to have that 2 year timeframe. Keeping your city council in a constant state of onboarding makes it really difficult to get anything done. Which is exactly what they want.
6 Likes