City Council kills charter amendments sponsors said were aimed at reform

 

Cincinnati City Council voted down charter amendments Wednesday proposed by three council members, who said they were aimed at reforming City Hall after the arrests of three of members in 2020.

 

But not enough of their colleagues believed the reforms addressed problems that led to the federal public corruption charges accusing council members Tamaya Dennard, Jeff Pastor and P.G. Sittenfeld of trading government action for cash bribes or campaign contributions. Dennard and Sittenfeld are Democrats, while Pastor is a Republican.

 

Dennard pleaded guilty and is serving a federal prison sentence in West Virginia. Sittenfeld and Pastor have not yet stood trial, with Sittenfeld proclaiming his innocence, while Pastor has pleaded not guilty.

 

Council voted to scuttle Councilwoman Liz Keating’s proposal to require council members or the mayor who start raising money to run for a higher office to resign. The vote was 3-6 for the amendment, with Keating, Councilwoman Betsy Sundermann and Councilman David Mann voting for it. Keating and Sundermann are Republicans, while Mann is a Democrat.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/09/01/city-council-kills-charter-amendments-sponsors-sai.html

Cranley: Conservative lawmaker’s major charter amendment ‘a Republican coup in the city’

 

A conservative state lawmaker has gathered enough signatures to put a series of a sweeping changes to Cincinnati’s charter on the November ballot, including slashing council pay, allowing the recall of the mayor and requiring council to approve all lawsuits filed by the solicitor.

 

Presenting an unusually united front, Mayor John Cranley, Vice Mayor Christopher Smitherman, an independent, and council Democrats blasted away at state Rep. Tom Brinkman’s amendment, which contains seven major changes, before voting to put it on the Nov. 2 ballot, as they are required to do by law.

 

“This is a clever attempt of a Republican coup in the city,” said Cranley, who for years has depended upon GOP votes to pass his agenda and stop ordinances he does not like. Cranley is running for the Democratic nomination for governor in the 2022 election.

 

“There are many elements of this that are either good ideas or kernels of good ideas,” he added, but other portions are “deeply problematic.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/09/01/cranley-conservative-lawmaker-s-major-charter.html

Here is what the amendment proposes, in order of my favorite to least favorite:

• Eliminate the pocket veto.
• Require one-year residency in the city to serve as mayor or as a council member. (Personally, I'd make it longer than that)
• Eliminate the designee replacement system, Change the way vacancies are filled so the next highest election finisher would be first in line.
• Allow individual liability of city employees for some violations of open meetings and public records law violations.
• Make council salaries equal to the median household income for the city.
• Provide for the recall of the mayor.
• Require Council approval of all lawsuits filed by the city.

 

The merits of some may be debatable, others should have widespread support (like eliminating the pocket veto) - but I don't see how any are a "republican coup" or would benefit Republicans at all. As Brinkman noted in the article, if this had been passed before the FBI rolled up to city hall with a paddy wagon, there'd be zero Republicans on council right now.

 

Also, I think the quotes in that article about the salary cut are out of touch, Landsman's in particular. Half the city makes less than the median, and a good portion of folks would see a substantial quality of life improvement if they made that much. The claim that a working class person couldn't survive on a council salary don't make sense when half of the working class is already getting by on less, in some cases much less.

This charter amendment is a mess

 

• Eliminate the pocket veto.

I like this. It's a shame that Sunderman removed her amendment to change this. It would probably pass in November, and this charter amendment sucks.

• Require one-year residency in the city to serve as mayor or as a council member.

I don't really care about this. One year is fine, by the deadline is fine. Personally, I think if you can vote for city council, you should be able to run (barring term limit issues).

• Eliminate the designee replacement system, Change the way vacancies are filled so the next highest election finisher would be first in line.

I don't like this. The will of the voter was for whoever was elected to council. I'd rather see that person's political leanings represented in a replacement, and the designee system seems to be the best way of doing that.

• Allow individual liability of city employees for some violations of open meetings and public records law violations.

These legal changes are going to really muck up things that we might not anticipate. Very bad precedent, and just gives COAST more reasons to sue.

• Make council salaries equal to the median household income for the city.

I don't really care about this, but I think council should be a full time job. I want councilmembers who are spending full-time hours on the job. Whether that's writing proposed legislation, talking to residents/businesses, learning about best practices from other cities, etc.

• Provide for the recall of the mayor.

As much as I hate our current mayor, and would love to see him gone, this is going to be messy and not fun. I would say maybe a unanimous council or 8 yes votes should be able to remove the mayor or recommend the removal of the mayor to the voters at the next possible election. In that scenario I would say the highest ranking councilmember should take over in the case of a removal. I don't want to play with a signature collecting effort. It's probably best to just leave this alone.

• Require Council approval of all lawsuits filed by the city.

Again, legal changes are going to create a lot of really bad unintended (to the average voter) consequences. It's probably COAST's dream scenario.

 

Quote

 

I was on a call with Brinkman in May and he was touting this plan. I thought a lot of it was excessive overreach on his end that was going to create more problems in exchange for many of the problems he was looking to solve. 

 

Certainly, the city has issues and the council that was elected 4 years ago was a horrible example of leadership, but Brinkman is trying to take somethign that needs a scalpal and using a machete.  His solution, especially about the next highest candidate getting the seat of a council member that steps down is not a great idea either. In the jungle ballot, you get stuck with someone who really only appeals to a small minority of voters winning the seat then. In the current case, it would have been someone crazy like Michelle Dillingham who would have been a horrible addition to council. 

 

The best thing that could be done has been done and that has been going back to 2 year terms. There is less time to allow the council member to engage in malfeasance and if they have to step down, their short term replacement will have to be on the ballot sooner than later. 

Rob Harris was approved, even though he had more than 1,000 signatures, which brings the total of approved candidates to 33, with 2 yet to be determined. According to Wartman, the BoE may reconsider the votes for these 2 candidates but it was not clear to him how they will proceed. Otherwise, they go to the Ohio Secretary of State. BoE has a meeting scheduled for Thursday to reconsider Brinkman's application. Powell and Matthews may also be heard if they file appeals, though Powell will have to go to SoS if not resolved locally.

Edited September 7, 20213 yr by Dev

 

He looks like an older taestell!

Startup CEO, ex-P&G exec makes City Council bid, wants a greener Cincinnati

 

Mark Jeffreys has been a bricklayer, a janitor, a waiter, a security guard, a mover, a marketing executive at Procter & Gamble and is now the CEO of a startup focused on data mining.

 

Jeffreys is running for Cincinnati City Council believing that 2021 could be a turning point for the city as it emerges from the pandemic and four years of political infighting and corruption scandals.

 

All nine Cincinnati City Council seats are up for election on Nov. 2, with five incumbents running and 35 candidates on the ballot. Council members will serve a two-year term.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/09/30/startup-ceo-ex-p-g-exec-makes-council-bid-wants-a.html

 

At raucous meeting, council tries to fix snafu that could impede voters from slashing its pay

 

A Cincinnati City Council committee approved an ordinance Thursday intended to fix an error in the language voters will see when they cast ballots on Issue 3, a city charter amendment that would, among many other things, cut council members’ pay.

 

The text of the charter amendment that would go into effect if Issue 3 passes would set council’s pay at the city’s median household income, which is about $46,000, instead of the current $60,000.

 

But the text of the language passed by City Council and sent by the city solicitor’s office to the Hamilton County Board of Elections instead said the pay would be the median family income, which is about $63,000. Such figures are determined annually by the U.S. Census Bureau.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/09/30/council-tries-to-fix-snafu-that-could-impede-voter.html

 

Cincinnati City Council won’t pay for mailer to tell voters about city’s big ballot snafu

 

Cincinnati City Council members killed a $96,356 proposal on Monday to send a mailer to the city’s registered voters telling them about an error the city made on ballot language for a charter amendment that would, among other things, cut council members’ pay.

 

The Budget and Finance Committee voted down the proposal by Councilwoman Betsy Sundermann, a Republican, on a 6-1 vote. Sundermann’s Republican colleagues, Liz Keating and Steve Goodin, joined three Democrats, David Mann, Greg Landsman and Wendell Young, in shelving the ordinance.

 

The text of the charter amendment that would go into effect if Issue 3 passes would set council’s pay at the city’s median household income, which is about $46,000, instead of the current $60,000.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/10/04/council-rejects-plan-to-play-for-mailers.html

Cincinnati City Council candidate says she'd bring a West Side, young mother's perspective

 

Jackie Frondorf was talking about how Cincinnati needed to make the city’s streets safer for people to walk and bike on if it’s going to attract more families when a car slammed into the rear end of another vehicle just outside the Muse Café in Westwood.

 

A woman came in to ask for a first aid kit but assured everyone that there were no serious injuries. First responders arrived within minutes.

 

Frondorf, a fourth-grade math, science and social studies teacher at St. Catherine of Siena in Westwood, said accidents routinely occur at the intersection of Montana and Harrison avenues and show why the city must do more to make neighborhoods more livable.

 

“Collecting signatures (to get on the ballot) on Boudinot Avenue was terrifying with five children in tow,” she said.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/10/05/jackie-frondorf-profile.html

 

Going off of my previous post about independents not winning, I wanted to reiterate the point with a graphic I made in Excel.

 

 

The one incorrect statement I made in the past is about the closest an independent has come to winning a spot on city council. In 2003, Damon Lynch III finished in 10th place and fell just 949 votes behind ninth place. His run was two years after the 2001 civil unrest, and most of his campaign centered on police accountability. This is the closest a true independent has ever been to winning.

 

There have been 3 individuals who have won in a year they ran without the endorsement of the Democrats, Republicans, or Charter Committee.

 

• Guy Guckenberger won in 1991. He is largely a Republican figure, but was not endorsed by the Republican Party. He had been on council since 1970, so he was an institution on council. He is an outlier for this reason.
• Jeff Berding was an endorsed Democrat in 2007. He lost his endorsement during the 2009 race, but he still won a seat as an incumbent.
• Christopher Smitherman first won a seat on council with a Charter endorsement in 2003. He lost reelection in 2005. When he returned to the 2011 council race he was running far to the right of where he was in 2005. He received vast Republican support, and his position as the head of the Cincinnati NAACP gave him the added name recognition he needed to return to city council.

 

Outside of these four individuals, the closest a true independent has gotten to city council is Mike Allen, who finished 16th and 8,000+ votes behind the last elected council person in 2011. Laure Quinlivan did not receive the Democratic endorsement in 2017. The lost endorsement likely cost her a seat, and she finished over 5,000 votes behind the 9th place finisher (Jeff Pastor).

 

I strongly believe that Green, independent, and other minor party candidates cannot win a race for city council without some other extenuating circumstance like the three individuals above who had previously been elected.

 

Michelle Dillingham will probably perform the best out of the unendorsed candidates, and she will likely fall many thousands of votes short of being elected based on past results. I wish independents had better chances of winning in general, but it simply isn't the case.

 

If you want to vote for someone who can win, you likely want to stick to voting for one of the three major parties (Charter, Republican, Democrat). And if you really want to have an outsized impact on the election, vote for nine candidates. There are plenty of people who don't vote for all nine slots, and that negatively impacts your desired outcome on council. There must be a top nine candidates you want to see on council. You are way more likely to push someone you think is okay over someone you don't like than to push someone you think is okay over someone you really like.

 

Also, in my non-expert opinion, I believe the Charter Committee has a real shot at getting a near majority elected to council this cycle. Republicans only endorsed 4 candidates, and the Democrats endorsed a fairly weak slate in my opinion. We'll see what happens!

Great work, really sobering stuff. As frustrating as it is, it is refreshing to know that "Cincinnatians love independents" is not at all true. I've seen would be reformers say that and it always felt disingenuous because that's just not how democracy works. It always trends towards organized political factions.

My guess is that council will be 4/5 Dem, 3/2 non-GOP Charter, and 2 GOP. It's pretty clear that there are not enough voters who run the full Dem slate in any other year and it'll probably get worse this time around. I am seeing lots of comments complaining about their slate.

Thinking out loud here but I would think that Landsman, Kearney, Keating, and Goodin all seem like safe picks to win. Of the rest of the Dem slate, I would assume Jeffreys and Harris have the best chances of making it on. I don't think Flynn will get back on because of his perceived flip-flop on the streetcar, which was both not a sign of good government as well as getting way too much criticism from both sides. Of the rest of the Charter slate I think Frondorf has a really good chance, and possibly Gordon. After that I'm less confident. Possibly Tarbell, Frost or Owens?

31 minutes ago, Dev said:

Thinking out loud here but I would think that Landsman, Kearney, Keating, and Goodin all seem like safe picks to win. 

 

I agree. I do think all 4 will win in November. The other 5 could be surprises, but I think all 5 will be endorsed by one of the three major parties, and the Charter Committee seems to be doing a pretty good job campaigning. I think the Democrats hurt themselves by refusing to allow the cross-endorsement with Charter Committee.

11*

Disappointed Betsy Sundermann was included. All she wants to do is play partisan politics and create controversy. She is not "ready to lead" as the Chamber phrased their candidate list.

On 10/8/2021 at 11:44 AM, ryanlammi said:

 

I agree. I do think all 4 will win in November. The other 5 could be surprises, but I think all 5 will be endorsed by one of the three major parties, and the Charter Committee seems to be doing a pretty good job campaigning. I think the Democrats hurt themselves by refusing to allow the cross-endorsement with Charter Committee.

I dont think we can project a ballot with all of them on there.  Certainly I think Landsman and Kearney win.  There will be at least 1 Republican on there and I would tend to think it would be Goodin or Sunderman. I like Keating but she really is not overly vocal and therefore may not have name recognition (although it helps to have the name Keating in town).  

Landsman and Kearney will likely be top 5 which makes them fairly safe bets. Once you get to the bottom half the ballot crazy things seem to happen and it always seems like a crapshoot. 

Former ballet dancer, community developer seeking City Council seat

 

For some Cincinnati transplants, it can take a lifetime to feel part of this region, with its often parochial, where-did-you-go-to-high-school nature. Reggie Harris, a fourth-generation native of Chicago’s South Side, isn't worried about that as he runs for Cincinnati City Council after living here for only six years.

 

Harris has lived all over, including Austin, Texas, and Seattle. He and his husband, Aaron Shield, came to the region after Shield landed a tenure-track job at Miami University.

 

“I met a few validators who introduced me to folks. I was able to get into spaces. I was able to form a little more of a community and establish myself as a known entity that is not of us but with us,” Harris said. “My first year was really hard. Universities come with a little bit more social structure.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/10/12/reggie-harris-profile.html

 

On 10/7/2021 at 11:19 AM, ryanlammi said:

Going off of my previous post about independents not winning, I wanted to reiterate the point with a graphic I made in Excel.

 

The average of these elections comes out to 5 Dems, 2 GOP, and 1 exclusively endorsed Charterite. The odds of who fills the last seat fluctuates a bit if you count Berding and Smitherman unendorsed runs as independent or not. I might turn this into a bar chart in the future to plot some trendlines.

On 10/8/2021 at 11:10 AM, Dev said:

My guess is that council will be 4/5 Dem, 3/2 non-GOP Charter, and 2 GOP. It's pretty clear that there are not enough voters who run the full Dem slate in any other year and it'll probably get worse this time around. I am seeing lots of comments complaining about their slate.
 

 

On the other hand, it seems like the slate card is becoming more and more influential. So who knows? My prediction is, in order of votes:

 

Kearney

Landsman

Harris

Jeffreys

Cramerding 

Goodin

Keating

Gordon

Parks

48 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

On the other hand, it seems like the slate card is becoming more and more influential. So who knows? My prediction is, in order of votes:

 

Kearney

Landsman

Harris

Jeffreys

Cramerding 

Goodin

Keating

Gordon

Parks

Who do you have in the 10/11 spots.

given recent history, they may be called upon, lol

 

more importantly, it always seems like 8-11 are crapshoots and are the hardest to predict, chances are if you are wrong on 8/9 it is likely they will be in the 10/11 slots

16 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Who do you have in the 10/11 spots.

given recent history, they may be called upon, lol

 

more importantly, it always seems like 8-11 are crapshoots and are the hardest to predict, chances are if you are wrong on 8/9 it is likely they will be in the 10/11 slots

 

I think any of the following could sneak in in those bottom spots:

 

Frondorf

Castle

Flynn

Johnson

O'Neal

Owens

 

Frondorf is well-known on the west side, and she could get enough support there to push her over the top. Castle has name recognition from her Congressional run. Flynn has name recognition as a former councilperson and a well-funded campaign. And the other three benefit from being on the Democratic slate card.

On 10/12/2021 at 4:13 PM, Dev said:

The average of these elections comes out to 5 Dems, 2 GOP, and 1 exclusively endorsed Charterite. The odds of who fills the last seat fluctuates a bit if you count Berding and Smitherman unendorsed runs as independent or not. I might turn this into a bar chart in the future to plot some trendlines.

Here is my attempt at a bar chart. For simplicity, I counted the unendorsed runs by Berding and Smitherman in the "other" group and only counted candidates as Charter if that was their only endorsement.

So far I've got 7 candidates I'm voting for. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm not going to vote for any independent candidates since I don't think any will come close to being elected. The biggest issues for me are historic preservation, reducing car dependency, increasing density, and improving pedestrian safety.

 

Here are my 7 candidates so far.

 

Jackie Frondorf (C)

Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney (D)

Greg Landsman (D)

Mark Jeffreys (D)

Reggie Harris (D)

Meeka Owens (D)

Victoria Parks (D)

 

Does anyone have any strong opinions about the other endorsed (Charter/Dem/Rep only) candidates? I'm leaning toward a few of them. Jim Tarbell, Jeff Cramerding, Galen Gordon, and John Williams.

20 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

So far I've got 7 candidates I'm voting for. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm not going to vote for any independent candidates since I don't think any will come close to being elected. The biggest issues for me are historic preservation, reducing car dependency, increasing density, and improving pedestrian safety.

 

Here are my 7 candidates so far.

 

Jackie Frondorf (C)

Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney (D)

Greg Landsman (D)

Mark Jeffreys (D)

Reggie Harris (D)

Meeka Owens (D)

Victoria Parks (D)

 

Does anyone have any strong opinions about the other endorsed (Charter/Dem/Rep only) candidates? I'm leaning toward a few of them. Jim Tarbell, Jeff Cramerding, Galen Gordon, and John Williams.

 

Gordon and Cramerding seem to get it, in my opinion. They say all the right things regarding car dependency, density, ped safety, and public transit. My sleeper is Liz Keating. I haven't voted for an R in over a decade but she could be it. She is all in on density and ped safety. She is behind the ordinance eliminating density requirements and she also wants to reduce setbacks, decrease minimum lot sizes, and push to allow small multi-family buildings in single-family zones. 

 

Edit to add: I like Tarbell but I think he is 80? As a general rule, I'd rather someone younger get a chance to lead.

Edited October 27, 20213 yr by DEPACincy

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

Gordon and Cramerding seem to get it, in my opinion.

Ditto.

Gordon sounds like he is a results oriented person who will look towards policy changes and will be a champion for multi-modalism.

Cramerding was also at the Tri-State Trails annual fundraiser as well as their sponsored candidate bike ride in the spring. On the other hand, I got a mailer recently touting the preservation of a golf course as an accomplishment, which seems more like a reactionary, anti-urban move but I don't know the details.

Cincinnati Blog has made some predictions about the outcome of the vote, putting each candidate into a category: Likely to Win, Strong Chance, Possible, and Not Going to Win. I would mostly agree with this list, with the exception that I would probably move a few names from the Possible to the Not Going to Win category — it is nearly impossible to win if you don't have a party endorsement and also don't have extremely strong name recognition. Just thought this would be helpful to some people who are still deciding on their list.

I might move Tarbell and Johnson to "possible", move Sundermann to "strong", and then move a whole bunch of "possible" down to "not going to win". 

 

I'm guessing Dillingham finishes in the top 15, but likely 4000+ votes short. She'll be the top independent candidate. I don't think any other independent makes the top 18.

13 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I might move Tarbell and Johnson to "possible", move Sundermann to "strong", and then move a whole bunch of "possible" down to "not going to win". 

 

I'm guessing Dillingham finishes in the top 15, but likely 4000+ votes short. She'll be the top independent candidate. I don't think any other independent makes the top 18.

Any Mayor Predictions?

I think Aftab wins handidly but not by a landslide, 55-45%. 

 

Sunderman I do not see being on council, I do not think Brinkman has enough name recognition to win in the city.. 

 

The council as a whole would be better off having both Keating and Goodin rather than have only Sunderman win, Keating and Goodin work with the community and actually seem to work with other council members, Betsy is all about stunts and gotchas. Her defend the police press conference was an embarassment to the city and to herself.

 

My 9 that I think would be a good mixture of realistic but also a bit of a council I could see working well with each other.

 

Frondorf (C)

Parks (D)

Landsman (D)

Tarbell (C)

Harris (D)

Kearney (D)

Dillingham (D)

Keating (R)

Castle (D)

 

I think uber realistically the democratic slate will win, and Keating and Goodin have best shot of keeping their seats. But I do not think Sunderman has the support to keep hers in the city. 

 

We have to remember even despite corruption, the amount of democrats in hamilton county has grown MUCH larger since even 2016. 

 

 

 

 

I did my part. And not a bad walk to my polling location! 
 

 

I won't be surprised either way with mayor. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I would put money on Aftab if I had to make a choice. 

 

My prediction for council:

 

Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney

Greg Landsman

Steve Goodin

Liz Keating

Betsy Sundermann

Jeff Cramerding

Reggie Harris

Victoria Parks

Meeka Owens

 

Those last few are very possible to be wrong. I would be shocked if the top 4 don't make it. There's a real chance that a charter only candidate or two make it (Tarbell, Gordon, Frondorf, and Flynn are my odds favorite in that group). With 9 finishers it's really tough to predict.

I'm surprised so many people think Betsy is such a sure thing. I really don't see her winning. There just aren't that many Republicans left in the city and the ones who do exist are more likely to be the Keating/Goodin type than the Sundermann/Trump type.

^ Incumbents typically do quite well, even appointed ones.

 

In previous years, many term limited council members would step down a few months before the end of their term and appoint a replacement for this reason.

 

We'll see if it holds true this year. At a minimum, she has more name recognition than about 90% of the rest of the field.

Yeah, and Republican votes won't be split. Democratic votes likely will with some branching off to support Dillingham, Garry, and some Charter candidates. I even hear some Democrats supporting Goodin and Keating because they aren't hyper partisan. The Democrats aren't voting in a block, so many Democratic candidates will miss out at the "bottom" of the slate which should be enough to get Sundermann through in my opinion. I don't think she gets fifth in vote totals (despite me putting her fifth on my list). Maybe 7-9 territory. The top 4 are my locks. There are definitely turnout scenarios where Sundermann doesn't win.

3 hours ago, richNcincy said:

I did my part. And not a bad walk to my polling location! 
 

 

 

Alot more pleasant than what I dealt with at Board of Elections in Norwood on Sunday. You would have thought it was a presidential election year, the were louder and nastier this year...

^ I don't think the Hamilton County Democratic Party has much to be worried about in terms of the outcome of tonight's election. The top 9 candidates in early voting were exactly the 9 candidates endorsed by the party. As more precincts started coming in, Liz Keating moved up to #9, bumping endorsed Democrat Phillip O'Neal to #10. All of the Republicans will probably move up a few slots as more votes are counted, but currently Sundermann and Goodin are down at #13 and #14, so it's possible we might end up with only 1 or 2 Republicans on council.

With two-thirds of precincts now reporting, it seems almost certain that the new council will be (in alphabetical order):

• Jeff Cramerding
• Reggie Harris
• Mark Jeffreys
• Scotty Johnson
• Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney
• Liz Keating
• Greg Landsman
• Meeka Owens
• Victoria Parks

Eight of them are party-endorsed Democrats, with Keating being the only Republican.

 

Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney has been the clear first place lead all night, currently with an almost 2,000 vote lead over Greg Landsman.

It's official.  The top 8 vote-getters were endorsed Democrats.  Liz Keating sneaks in at number 9, and Michelle Dillingham led the rest of the vote-getters.  

 

A bad night for the GOP and the Charterites.  I think both groups felt like they put forward pretty strong slates. 

Very shocked Goodin didn't get elected. And Dillingham came closer than I expected.

 

1st place in 2017 received 39,815 votes. 1st place in 2021 received 27,575 votes.

 

9th place in 2017 received 21,996 votes. 9th place in 2021 received 16,766 votes.

 

Clearly the votes were more dispersed this time around or more people didn't vote for a full 9 possible people. I don't know how turnout differed. It'll be interesting to look at the data more.

13 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Very shocked Goodin didn't get elected. And Dillingham came closer than I expected.

 

1st place in 2017 received 39,815 votes. 1st place in 2021 received 27,575 votes.

 

9th place in 2017 received 21,996 votes. 9th place in 2021 received 16,766 votes.

 

Clearly the votes were more dispersed this time around or more people didn't vote for a full 9 possible people. I don't know how turnout differed. It'll be interesting to look at the data more.

so can someone sum up how this balances our city council. Is this a positive? Negative? 

Not sure what you mean by balances.  There's an 8-1 Democratic majority--almost certainly the biggest Democratic majority in city history.  

58 minutes ago, jdm00 said:

Not sure what you mean by balances.  There's an 8-1 Democratic majority--almost certainly the biggest Democratic majority in city history.  

I mean are these people that will benefit our city with street car expansions? Historic preservation? Continue to strengthen development in our city? Do they believe I. affordable housing? How does this city council play out in the grand scheme of things in their identity.

 

8 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

I mean are these people that will benefit our city with street car expansions? Historic preservation? Continue to strengthen development in our city? Do they believe I. affordable housing? How does this city council play out in the grand scheme of things in their identity.

 

We've had a Democrat majority council and a Democrat mayor for how long now? I think the only real change to expect going forward is a more creative solution to who the scapegoat is going to be, since they won't be able to blame Cranley anymore.

1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

We've had a Democrat majority council and a Democrat mayor for how long now? I think the only real change to expect going forward is a more creative solution to who the scapegoat is going to be, since they won't be able to blame Cranley anymore.

 

I think the old blue bloods in the city wont have as much say anymore at city or council now that there boy Cranley is gone. Worked with so many outside developers that have said for years Cincinnati is not friendly to outside development dollars, Cranely favored the local boys. 

So the big question is: was turnout super low? Were votes split more evenly than last time?

 

The Mayoral race is a good proxy for votes cast in the election. In 2017 there were 62,491 votes cast. In 2021 there were 50,331 votes cast. That's a pretty big drop-off. Perhaps its because politics were less divisive at the city level? This election was definitely less "exciting' than 2017's mayoral election.

 

In 2017 there were 413,754 votes cast for council candidates. That means for every vote for mayor, there were 6.62 votes for council. 

In 2021 there were 369,542 votes cast for council candidates. That means for every vote for mayor, there were 7.34 votes for council.

 

So every single person who voted on average voted for almost 1 additional council candidate in 2021 vs 2017.

 

My predictions early on were that the Democratic slate was pretty weak, and that one or two charter candidates could make it. If I had to make a guess, I would say that the Charter Committee hurt their slate by endorsing so many candidates. For a smaller party that wants to get the votes of typical Republican and Democratic voters, they should have only endorsed 4-5 candidates. I doubt many people took the slate they endorsed, and voted down the line. Instead, they voted their typical 6 Democratic candidates they liked, and then picked 1 or two from the Charter Committee and possibly Dillingham. Since there were 8 Charter candidates, they likely chose their favorite couple, but that could have been fractured across the voting base, and led to no Charter member receiving many votes. Going forward, they should probably endorse fewer candidates to concentrate their potential votes to a couple of good candidates.

 

One thing that stands out is that in 2011 we had 7 Democrats elected to city council, and that was on the back of SB5 which was a huge motivator for democrats across the state. We didn't have that kind of pull to the polls this year. Could it be that Republicans just don't care to turn out? Are there that many fewer Republicans in the city than 10 years ago? Were the candidates just not "good" enough? Still lots of questions.

11 hours ago, jdm00 said:

It's official.  The top 8 vote-getters were endorsed Democrats.  Liz Keating sneaks in at number 9, and Michelle Dillingham led the rest of the vote-getters.

 

In 11th Place, Phillip O'Neal. He was the only endorsed Democrat I didn't receive a mailer from. 

My hot take: If the HCDP would have endorsed Michelle Dillingham instead of Phillip O'Neal, they would have taken all 9 seats yesterday with their 9 endorsed candidates.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that would have happened. O'Neal barely had a campaign. This was all of the information I could find on his campaign website. He provided no details, no new ideas, and just put through boilerplate campaign language.

 

11 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that would have happened. O'Neal barely had a campaign. This was all of the information I could find on his campaign website. He provided no details, no new ideas, and just put through boilerplate campaign language.

At least he has a website. Scotty Johnson still has a blank, reserved GoDaddy site