Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

All three local referendums fail during midterm elections

Memphis citizens struck down three referendums on midterm election ballots after the majority of votes were cast against extending term limits for city leaders, repealing instant runoff voting (IRV) for some Memphis elections and runoff elections completely. 

Some people thought the wording on the ballot was confusing, which caused controversy before election day. 

IRV, also referred to as ranked choice voting, is a method in which losing candidates are eliminated, and the highest two vote-getting candidates run against one another with the voters ranking them.

Aaron Fowles, a representative from Save IRV Memphis, said a University of Memphis professor analyzed the wording on the ballots and determined the referendums at a Ph.D level. He said this could have repealed runoff voting before it was ever implemented. 

“The city councils wanted to make it easier for themselves to stay in power,” Fowles said. “That’s the whole thing. They weren’t trying to make it easier for voters. They weren’t trying to make it easier for new candidates. They were trying to make it easier for themselves.” 

Each of the referendums failed to pass , according to the Shelby County Election Comission. 60.2 percent of voters rejected the extension of Term Limits, 62.6 percent rejected the repeat of IRV and 54.1 percent rejected the repeal of runoff voting in entirety. 

“We’re thrilled that the people of Memphis saw through the city council’s attempts at misdirection and the various private balloteers to vote in such a way as to preserve democracy in Memphis,” Fowles said.

Fowles said citizens who weren’t able to vote in prior elections or moved to Memphis within the past 10 years were unaware about current citizens voting to institute a limit of two terms during the 2008 election.

“The council attempted to benefit from selectively informing voters of the fact that these issues had already been voted on,” Fowles said.

Fowles said the way the ballots were worded to the average person would seem like they were voting to implement term limits that never existed before, but in fact, term limits previously existed. 

“That directly benefits six council members,” Fowles said. “Now, there are six council members who will not be able to run in 2019. If otherwise, they would have been able to.”

Otis Sanford, political commentator and journalism professor at the U of M, said the city council was not being honest with the citizens of Memphis by using confusing wording. 

“The voters spoke loudly and clearly that they do not trust the city council to act in the best interest of the public,” Sanford said. “As for the other two ballot questions, I believed some voters did not understand them, so the natural inclination is to vote no.”

Sanford said the council masked their intentions of keeping their seats by claiming that new council members would not be able to learn the job during their term.

“Several council members want to have at least three terms for their own selfish reasons,” Sanford said. “They argue they cannot learn the job and be effective in eight years. I don’t buy it, and neither did the voters.”


Similar Posts