Vote

Redmond ballots are packed with possible changes in how city government would work.

One ballot measure that would allow the mayor to run only for two consecutive terms and switch the mayor’s term to four years.

A second ballot measure that would limit councilors to two consecutive four-year terms.

A third ballot measure that would prohibit any person to be on the same council with a relation — we will define that more precisely — who is the mayor or a councilor.

If you follow Redmond politics at all and if this feels like Mayor Ed Fitch v. former Mayor George Endicott, that is because it is very much like Fitch v. Endicott.

Fitch brought these ideas forward. When we talked to him about them, it’s clear he had Endicott’s time in office in mind. For one, Endicott served some of his time as mayor at the same time Krista Endicott, his spouse, served as a councilor. Endicott submitted testimony to the Council against the proposed changes.

You can look at it as Fitch v. Endicott. It may be wiser to strip the personalities out.

What would the change to the mayor’s office do?

Beginning in 2026, the mayor would be limited to two, consecutive four-year terms. The mayor serves a two-year term now. If the mayor served the two terms under the ballot measure, they could run for councilor or wait four years and run for mayor again.

What would the change to the councilors do?

Councilors would be limited to two, consecutive four-year terms. They can continue to serve now as often as they are re-elected. If the change is approved, they could run for mayor after serving two terms or wait two years and run in the next council election.

What would the change for relatives or relations do?

The language of the ballot measure refers to “first degree consanguinity” and “first degree relatives by affinity.” That is sure to confuse many people. We had to look it up. The plain language is that a person could not serve in office with a person who is the mayor or a councilor and who is their spouse, domestic partner, parent or child.

Why vote against these measures?

Redmond already has term limits, in a way. They are called elections. Voters can make up their own mind if a person should continue to serve. People do tend to get better at a job over time.

A similar argument could be made about people who are related serving together. Great people to serve as mayor or councilor may be married to one another. Voters can make up their own mind and don’t need a prohibition.

As for the term of the mayor’s office growing to four years, voters may not like that because a two-year term does enforce more direct and immediate accountability.

Why vote for these measures?

Term limits would give more opportunity for more Redmond residents to serve in office and may make it possible for more viewpoints and perspectives to hold power.

Incumbency has arguable advantages when running for office again. Serving year after year may mean that a person accumulates power or is better at using their office. Those are not necessarily good things.

The timeline for getting things done in government is not short. A longer term of four years, rather than two years for mayor, gives that person a better chance to realize the vision for the city.

Relatives and relations serving together could create a de facto voting bloc on council. It might be easier for them to accomplish a shared agenda, but harder for everyone else on council if they don’t work well with the bloc.

Whatever you decide, please vote.