Members will decide this week how many of 12 proposed city-led charter amendments should join a citizen-led petition on the November ballot.
AUSTIN, Texas — Austin City Council members are weighing whether voters should decide as many as 13 proposed charter amendments on the November ballot, with some expressing concern that a lengthy ballot could discourage participation in local elections.
The discussion comes as voters are already expected to cast ballots in several high-profile federal and state races this fall, including contests for U.S. Senate, governor and the Texas Legislature. Council members debated on Tuesday whether adding numerous city propositions could create longer wait times at polling places and make it less likely that voters complete the ballot.
This story continues below.
During a public hearing, residents voiced opinions on both a citizen-led proposal requiring periodic independent efficiency audits of the city and a series of council-proposed charter amendments.
The citizen-led petition, which met the required signature threshold, would require outside efficiency audits of city government spending every five years.
Other proposed charter amendments under consideration include:
Raising the threshold required to recall City Council members.Giving the City Council the authority to appoint and remove the city attorney.Allowing city staff to communicate with Austin’s independent citizen redistricting commission outside of a meeting.
Several speakers criticized some of the proposals, arguing they would reduce accountability or should be removed from the ballot altogether.
District 7 Council Member Mike Siegel said he is concerned a crowded ballot could lead to longer lines at polling places and discourage voter participation. He cited research from the Brennan Center for Justice suggesting longer wait times can suppress voter turnout.
“I don’t see any amendment here that is potentially worth discouraging folks from voting this November,” said Siegel.
Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela acknowledged those concerns but said delaying charter amendments until 2028, which would be required if the petition-led amendment passes, could create other challenges.
“I would rather have it on a congressional, a non-presidential year than a presidential year when we have the highest level of voter turnout and the longest lines,” he said.
District 5 Council Member Ryan Alter worried that calling an off-year charter election could mean lower turnout.
“I think it’s really important for us to consider, just like we did with the mayoral election, moving things to when we’re going to have the most people participating because democracy works best when most people participate,” said Alter.
District 8 Council Member Paige Ellis noted calling an off-year special election also costs the city extra money.
“I want to make sure that we do have good turnout, but I also understand what Council Member Siegel is saying, is that there’s going to be a lot of people turning out this November, which is very exciting, but we also want to make sure that folks have a chance to be able to evaluate what’s in front of them and make informed decisions as they look at all of these different levels of government,” said Ellis.
One charter amendment is already guaranteed to appear on the November ballot: the citizen-led proposal calling for independent efficiency audits. Because it was submitted through a petition process, City Council is required to place it before voters.
The 12 other city-proposed charter amendments are not yet final. The council is expected to decide on Thursday which of those should appear on the ballot.
A final City Council vote to officially call the charter election is expected on Aug. 6.