I think a lot of what you’re saying are factually wrong (Livable is a volunteer-based organization and is not “backed by big money” -unless you know something we don’t?) and it was just really hard to read in general. …but still,
True, I’m surprised I haven’t seen anything like that. (or… haven’t seen this community do, I guess??)
Amen to that! Maybe 4-year terms, but with staggered elections? For example, having district officers be elected alongside presidential elections (since they could use all the votes they can get), and at-large offices with midterms (since mayoral elections and at-large council districts can grab headlines more easily)?
“A petition signed by electors entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be removed, equal in number of at least twenty-five (25) per centum of the entire number of voters casting votes at the last preceding general municipal election, demanding an election of a successor of the person sought to be removed, shall be filed with the Clerk, which petition shall contain a general statement of the grounds on which the removal is sought.”
So, yes, if you wanted to recall either the mayor or one of the two at-large members, you would need 14,000 signatures or whatever the exact number is. That’s a lot of signatures to collect. Now, if you wanted to wanted to recall one of the representatives of the five districts, you’d only need 2,800 or whatever. That may superficially seem like it’d be an easier lift. But those 2,800 signatures would all have to come from that council member’s district. So you’d need to simultaneously run one campaign in District A, another in District C, another in District D, and another in District E, that would all overlap with the campaign to recall the officials elected citywide. That’s a fantastically difficult operation. Most people couldn’t even tell you what district they live in, much less who their district representative is.
In short, this recall procedure is feasible if you’re trying to recall one person who has done something specific and bad to get themselves in the news. Trying to replace a whole council, the way LR is proposing, is a fantastically difficult operation. And that’s just to force a recall election in the first place, let alone actually winning enough of the various recall elections.
Note: I am a lawyer, but I do not specifically practice election law, and absolutely nothing I say should be construed as my giving legal advice to anyone.
I thought this clause applied regardless of what office you’re trying to make a petition for, but I see how I misunderstood that. It’d be weird if a district B resident could put Stormie Forte (district D’s councillor)'s seat at risk, after all.
I guess the math I tried to do in a later post is more reflective of that, then, assuming all petitioners are from the appropriate district like you said. This would be much harder, yeah, but I feel like super-local organizations like churches (read: organizations that participate in OneWake) would be at more of an advantage, then, no?
Thanks for catching that If it ain’t clear that (as much as I do love nerding out over politics and policy) I’m an engineer and not a lawyer…
The recall law was written when city council districts did not exist, yet. Due to this and other historical weirdnesses, the whole recall process (with all its weirdnesses) would not exist at all if Raleigh were to get a brand-new charter today.
The rules in the charter conflict with modern voting rules like early and absentee voting. Add that to the growing list of reasons why you could say Livable’s proposal is actually less democratic as it stands now:
(and I promise the ellipses aren’t taking out critical text, this time lol)
If their thinking is correct, the signatures would have to come from the corresponding districts. Just like I can’t sign the petition to have Gov. Newsome recalled, because I don’t live in Ca.
And I saw @daviddonovan addressed this above. So nvm.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s official now. Interesting that Cooper didn’t sign it, but didn’t veto it (since it was passed with bipartisan support).
…so his position’s effectively that the election move etc. is okay, but we really should’ve been more democratic and transparent about it. Yeah, communication and public input could’ve totally been handled better (e.g. letting Livable make their complaints, and ignoring it because of its impractical implications), so I guess I’m cool with this in the end.
I assume Liveable Raleigh believes they’d get us in the top 10? It’s hard to defend their mission when our city gets such high praises with the “corrupt” and despicable leaders in place today.
I guess every city has orgs like this. I should probably put a little effort forth to just ignore them like I do with NextDoor.
If you look at the article the tweet links to, it says it’s a mix of high school graduation rates and “the share of public schools rated by GreatSchools.org with above average score”.
The way this website works is actually kinda interesting! (click to see why)
GreatSchools seems to aggregate a lot of data about (usually public) schools and compare them on a state-by-state basis. But let’s be honest: when most people say a school is “good”, they’re not talking about a data-driven conversation involving average GPAs or SAT scores (which are a pretty bad indicators of student success as adults, anyways). It sounds like GreatSchools calculates their overall scores a bit more carefully, to some surprising results.
Case in point: look at how Enloe, one of the most well-known magnet schools around for college prep, ends up scoring 2/10 on equity due to its lack of racial and economic diversity. This pops up in other schools, too, like how Cary High School seems to struggle with helping its students from lower-income families move up between grades.
TL/DR: Wake County schools are good at the traditional metrics of average GPA, graduation rates, SAT/ACT scores etc. But once you stop treating students as test-taking statistical machines and more like complex people whose success depends on a confluence of different lived experiences, things look different. …and that seems to be what this website’s data are capturing.
Separate post since this isn’t related to the Wake County school system: this Wednesday, City Council’s task force on councilmembers’ terms, elections etc. will meet again to talk, in part, about expanding the size of its Council. The group’s latest minutes from just before Independence Day suggests that this could take up a solid chunk of discussions:
Interesting. Without understanding the cons for increasing the council size, I think I am for it expanding. I think I would prefer to add more district seats than at-large. I assume that would mean reducing the size of the current districts to make room for two or three more?
I imagine they’ll talk about the pros and cons of different types of council seats tomorrow. Keeping in mind that these are the districts we have now (plus 2 at-large seats)…
…I think this is a great opportunity to reorganize several seats so that they’re more in line with where communities and corridor development plans actually are. Put another way: as things stand now, are we okay with how ITB doesn’t have one councilmember who’s strictly representing its interests? Could this be an opportunity to change that?
Thinking about what a new district could look like, I guess there’s one possible con of adding new districts: changing district borders may change the political landscape and cause more intense NIMBY-YIMBY fights. If the parts of districts A and E broke off to form a new North Hills/Midtown constituency, for example, could that give more power to rich homeowners in City Council who already have outsized voices heard in planning studies and rezoning hearings?
Yeah currently this looks like some gerrymandered garbage. I’m in district D just south of Wade Ave, but the Art Museum that I can walk to is in District E. Meanwhile downtown has 3 districts but the population centers for all of them are outside downtown. Not to mention the floating islands of district C… It’s nuts. I don’t really care what they end up doing, but I’d think the districts need to reflect the population centers and corridors that actually exist.
I’m 100% in support of a downtown district. It doesn’t necessarily have to cover all of ITB as traditional borders, but I think it might/should include North Hills as the challenges there and downtown are similar. I could be convinced otherwise, but that’s an off-the-cuff opinion.
If it ain’t clear that (as much as I do love nerding out over politics and policy) I’m an engineer and not a lawyer…
It’s hard to defend their mission when our city gets such high praises with the “corrupt” and despicable leaders in place today.
