Council discusses splitting at‑large seat after high underrate votes; legal options include code change or charter amendment

Councilors discussed a pattern of high 'undervotes' in at‑large city council contests and proposed creating two separately numbered at‑large seats (seat 1 and seat 2) so voters would choose one candidate per ballot line rather than picking two candidates in a single pooled contest. Proponents said voters may be confused by the instruction to select two names and that separate seats could reduce undervotes.

City legal staff said plurality‑at‑large has historic roots in the charter and municipal practice but that nothing in the charter, code or state statute requires that system. Counsel proposed two paths: pursue a municipal-code amendment to create numbered seats, which council could adopt as a policy matter, or pursue a charter amendment to change election structure (for example, to stagger at‑large terms). Councilors and clerks raised concerns about strategic candidate behavior (last-minute seat selection), voter confusion if names appear twice on ballots, and the possibility that splitting seats could elect candidates with lower total votes across the two ballots. Several council members asked for further study — including alternatives such as staggering seats or considering ranked‑choice voting — and directed staff to return with additional analysis and options.