Should Manteca elect its mayor every two years?

It is a question that deserves exploring before this election disappears in the rearview mirror.

Here are four areas that are worthy of consideration.
*Electing a mayor every two years.

Based on the last four months, that might seem like a line from “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

It does, though, deserve consideration.

For starters, it seems to work in Lathrop.

Sonny Dhaliwal has just been elected to his second two-year term as Lathrop’s mayor.

That might seem like a two-year term is a built-in advantage for the incumbent, but the exact opposite is likely true.

Four years is a long-time between a citywide referendum on whether Manteca is on the right course.

At the end of the day, the mayor only has one vote. The mayor, however, is perceived as the face — and voice — of the city.

More importantly, the mayor in their position runs council meetings and therefore sets the tone for public discourse

And if the mayor isn’t wedded to a rigid agenda, the position can lend itself to bringing all sides together to find common ground needed to make progress that the most people will buy into.

 A two-year term wouldn’t create an issue if a sitting mayor decides to run for another office.

Not only would it force them to decide between seeking another term for mayor or running for something else, but if they win it won’t create a situation where the council could appoint someone to serve as mayor for the remaining two years of the term.

Remember, Manteca has switched to districtwide elections. If the council appoints one of their own to be mayor they have created a situation where an appointment will be made by the council members — of which at least two  won’t reside within the district where the vacancy is created.

Or course, if a mayor or council member moves away, is unable to continue serving, or dies it create a similar dilemma.

The difference is the former can be anticipated by a change in terms and the latter is at the whim of life.

*Going to primary elections.

Given the mayor is now the only citywide elected position on the council, do we want a situation where someone is elected that couldn’t even garner a majority of the votes cast?

At this stage in the count the chances of Gary Singh losing election as mayor is slim to none.

But what is a strong possibility is he may end up with less than 50 percent of the vote.

Given the contentious nature of all politics, that doesn’t bode well for the four years that follow.

Let’s say there was a primary this time around. Singh didn’t receive 50 percent plus one in the June primary to be elected outright queuing up a runoff in November.

Those that voted for whoever came in third in the primary — Lei Ann Larson or Ben Cantu — may opt in large enough numbers to support the No 2 finisher to create a situation where Singh doesn’t come out on top on November.

The divisiveness not having a primary could create would be much more acute if the three candidates are from three different perspectives when it comes to what needs to be done. Also, the more candidates, the more the vote can be splintered raising the possibility someone with even less than  a third if the vote could end up as mayor.

Adding a primary is also a sound argument for council seats given the most positions anyone in Manteca will have the opportunity to vote on to determine the council compositions under the new system is just two — their district representative and mayor.

If a candidate gets 50 percent plus one in the primary there would be no need for a November vote for that position.

While the primary election would cost money, it is an add on cost to the existing primary election. It is not a standalone expense that is significantly  higher.

There is also the argument that the ability any given citizen in Manteca has to decide the makeup of the council has been effectively diluted to two-fifths. It is a small cost to assure that the people’s voice is at least heard at the ballot box.

*Campaign spending caps.

There are a lot of pros and cons on this one. But there are some who do believe the amount of money being spent for the mayor’s race may scare off potential candidates.

As such, a spending cap of $1 per registered voter based on when the filing date closes could be a good place to start.

As of July 22, 2022, there were 46,329 registered voters in Manteca. That would translate into a $46,29 spending cap per candidate.

You could allow the dollar count start all over again if there is a runoff after the primary.

*Switching the mayor and all council seats to two year terms.

That ends the question of someone creating a vacancy if they run and are elected mayor while midway through a four-year council term.

Yes, it does mean everyone would be running every two years.

Again, voters have had their say diminished in making up the council composition so it would seem fitting to have the frequency they can vote for the two positions they can influence at the ballot box — mayor and their district council member — increased.

The argument, of course, is that offsetting four year terms creates consistency as there could always be  two or three council members with some level of experience.

But if the mood is to jettison all or the majority of the council it is certainly less divisive than recall elections wedded with regular elections would be.

Some, none, or all of the aforementioned and whatever could be thrown out there may or may not make sense.

That said, it’s a great disservice to voters and the process if we don’t periodically look at the way we are doing things to make sure that how we elect city leaders is done in the best possible manner.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com