Mt. Pleasant's election jitters

Mount Pleasant Town Council's election second thoughts were reflected in a decision last week to hold an advisory referendum on an earlier decision to change the date of the next municipal election. It's hard, as it should be, for politicians to vote against allowing the public to have its say. But we're not convinced that a stand-alone, advisory referendum in a special election next March will give council anything close to a true measurement of public sentiment on this issue.

The small percentage of voters who have turned out for the town's general elections in September of even-numbered years is the key reason Mount Pleasant officials finally voted to move the election to November of odd-numbered years. Only 11 percent went to the polls in a council election last September. State and local election officials, along with the S.C. Municipal Association, have been urging municipalities to go to one uniform election date to reduce the cost of conducting the elections and to attract more voter attention.

While an estimated 75 communities across the state have made the change to November of odd-numbered years, several Mount Pleasant town council members have been adamantly opposed to the revision. The primary objection has been the resulting de facto extension of the terms of mayor and council for 14 months. The mayor's seat is among those that would have been up for election next September.

The election date change was finally approved by council this summer and the new November 2009 date already has received Justice Department approval.

But several members have continued to object to the lack of public input. In recent weeks, former Gov. James B. Edwards, a long-time town resident, and a League of Women Voters representative have advocated allowing the voters to speak on the issue. Council voted 5-3 last week to hold the advisory referendum March 18 — close to the deadline if the decision is to revert to the old election date.

Unfortunately, special elections are notorious for poor voter turnouts even when money issues are on the ballot. It's hard to imagine that an advisory referendum on whether terms of office should be extended in order to move the town's election date from even-numbered years in September to odd numbered years in November would have much of a chance of attracting many voters to the polls. No question those who want to retreat to the September 2008 election date have the greatest motivation to turn out, particularly in view of those who want to run for mayor sooner than later.

It should be noted that North Charleston recently agreed to move its June odd-numbered year elections to November of odd-numbered year with little fanfare. Granted, that change only will amount to term extension of about six months. The town of Rockville currently is considering extending the terms of its town officials by 17 months with an election change from June of even-numbered years to November of odd-numbered years.

It is possible, according to an attorney general's opinion, to make election date changes that would shorten rather than lengthen officials' terms. While state law is clear that terms of office may be only for two or four years, the attorney general has concluded that there is no prohibition against local governments effectively altering officials' terms "in order to transition to a different election date." Howard Duvall, executive director of the S.C. Municipal Association, tells us that some of the 75 towns that have made the change did shorten terms, but isn't certain of the number.

The attorney general's office has concluded in three separate opinions to the town that it has the legal right to make an election change that has the effect of extending officials' terms. Perhaps the political cold feet the majority of council now appears to be feeling can be resolved by an advisory referendum — even if only a few show up. But absent a public outcry, there also are decisions that the voters expect their elected officials to make so long as — in the words of the attorney general's opinion — the exercise of the power "is reasonable" and "for a public purpose."

We believe the goal of a uniform municipal election date in odd-numbered years to encourage voter turnout meets that test.