The real reason Labor opposes special elections? Chavez lost to Mahan in both D8 and D10

After viewing the district by district data from the mayoral election (see nearby), it's impossible to pass over (though, of course, Labor-leaning local newsrooms did) this simple fact: Labor wants to suppress special, replacement council elections in two Districts (8 and 10) that they lost to Mahan in the mayoral election. All their talk of cost and voter turnout sure looks like a smokescreen to cover the fact that Labor fears a second thumping in both districts. The Merc editorial page chimes in with the facts the newsrooms ignored.

In the Nov. 8 election, voters in both districts signaled their desire for moderate city leadership by backing Mahan for mayor over labor-stalwart Cindy Chavez. Our analysis of precinct results shows that Mahan won 52% of the vote in District 8 and 63% of the vote in District 10. It would be a gross injustice for the labor-majority on the council to ignore those results and disenfranchise voters in the two districts by filling the vacancies in lieu of an election.

The city charter gives the council the option to choose either path. At a special council meeting called for 5 p.m. Monday, we will find out whether the council will do the honorable thing or run roughshod over the voters’ will. Make no mistake, with a current 6-5 majority on the council, the progressive labor faction has the votes to do the latter.

We’re not talking about someone filling out a few weeks or months remaining in a term. We’re talking about representation for two seats through the end of 2024, along with incumbency advantage in the next election. And we’re talking about determination of the balance of power on the council.

Those are decisions voters should make, not elected officials from outside the two districts.

Read the whole thing (watch for subscriber paywall) here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity