A Charter Commissioner’s Guide to Election Reform

This January, dozens of Cascadians are sitting down for the first meetings of charter review commissions across the region with the same goal in mind: improving local government.  

They picked a great place to start. Municipal charter reviews—during which a panel of residents suggests amendments to what are basically local constitutions—can be a powerful and collaborative way to kickstart positive change. Healthier elections can ultimately mean better outcomes for voters and communities that achieve their local priorities.   

So, if election reform is a goal, where’s a commissioner to begin? Sightline staff reached out to former commission members and researched past efforts to answer that question. The result is a list of six recommendations for getting election reform from initial commission discussions to a ballot measure in front of voters, spanning from whom to contact to how to frame the case for your community.  

Whether you just landed a seat on an upcoming charter review commission or want to stand out as one of the thousands of residents living in the cities and counties under review, this guide is here to help. 

Definitions and norms 

Home rule charter 

More than half of US states allow municipalities to adopt home rule charters, which allow local governments and services to differ from what is laid out in state law. Essentially, the charter serves as a local constitution, dictating the government’s design and setting ground rules for how it will run. Typically, amending the charter requires voter approval.¹ 

Charter review commission 

Municipalities change over time. Populations and industries grow and shrink, and as such, a community’s wants and needs may not be the same today as they were ten years ago. A charter review commission allows residents an opportunity to review the charter, take public input, deliberate on improvements, and suggest amendments to improve local government.²  

Take Snohomish County, Washington, for example, where population increased by an estimated 43 percent from 2000 to 2024. That’s about 258,000 new residents, more than the entire population of nearby Whatcom County!³ Snohomish County’s 2016 charter commission posed seven charter amendments to the growing and diversifying voter base, which approved the establishment of an advisory commission on human rights and a new Office of Public Advocate to mediate community complaints (among other changes). 

How election reform factors in 

Election reform is one avenue to reaching a commission’s goal: a local government that better serves voters. (Other paths include government restructuring, rethinking public officials’ roles, and creating, merging, or eliminating offices and divisions.)  

Depending on local and state law, electoral reforms may help solve specific problems:  

• If an Alaskan municipality sees consistently low voter turnout, commissioners could consider changing the timing or frequency of local elections (thanks to flexible state statutes). Denali Borough, for example, aligns municipal elections with statewide ones.    
• If residents are concerned with the sway of wealthy individuals in local politics, a commission might suggest a democracy voucher or small donor elections program.  
• In Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, forms of local ranked choice voting can address problems like spoiler candidates or a council that only represents one kind of voter.  

Past Cascadian charter reviews have delivered voters a fairer redistricting process for Snohomish County, a Portland City Council that finally reflects its population, and a prohibition on government interference in Whatcom County’s ballot initiative process. 

Six recommendations for reforming elections through charter review 

Ushering an election upgrade from the ideas phase to action requires research, collaboration, and more than a little tact. Former local charter review commissioners from Oregon and Washington offered the following advice to those just kicking off the process: lay the groundwork, do your homework, and communicate how better elections can address real concerns from community members and leaders.  

1. Come to a consensus on good governance goals  

If commissioners can agree on a set of broadly acceptable (and nonpartisan) guiding principles for what they want to accomplish, they can collectively set the stage for electoral reforms that bring a municipality closer to its values. 

Some goals that might be conducive to later reform efforts include: 

• Keeping government processes open and transparent; 
• A local governing body that reflects the community; 
• Improving accountability; 
• Patching weak points in the electoral process; 
• Improving efficiency of government processes; or  
• Government responsiveness to community needs. 

2. Reach out to experts—they’re eager to help 

It’s never been easier to tap into the minds of experts who study and implement reform. Staffers at election reform organizations (like Sightline Institute, FairVote, or More Equitable Democracy) are eager to help answer questions about what’s possible, how reform has improved conditions elsewhere, or whom to speak with next. Researchers, advocates, political scientists, and even government officials with first-hand experience are often no further than an email or Zoom call away. 

3. People relate to stories; let data tell them  

Election reform gains traction when commissioners can prove a proposal responds to real local issues, not abstract concerns. Election-related data, usually available through municipal and state government websites, can provide most or all elements of a great, clear story: who, what, when, where, why, and, most importantly, how reform can make it better.  

Past election results, for example, might contain instances in which winning candidates took office without majority support—like when most voters cast ballots against all three winners of the crowded 2020 Gladstone, Oregon, city council elections.⁴ Surely there’s a better way to let majority rule? (Spoiler: There is.) 

For something a little more hands-on, combining local district maps with presidential election results or voter registration data might indicate that local boundaries benefit voters who support one party at the possible expense of another. In that case, maybe it’s time to reconsider who draws districts, as Snohomish County did, or (where possible) even move to a proportional district model, like Portland. 

4. Note community concerns, and speak to them  

Soliciting public input, especially from frustrated voters or community groups who feel the political process excludes them, might surface breakthrough ideas and perspectives. Commissioners might also consider reaching out to elected officials and community leaders to get a sense of their concerns and interests.  

Former officials can have particularly valuable viewpoints. Distance from elected or appointed office can bring fresh perspective on what is worth changing in local government—without the pressure of having to seek reelection or retain one’s job.  

5. Divide and conquer to study reforms and legal realities  

With problems clearly defined, commissioners can turn their focus to reforms that plausibly move the community closer to its values. Not all reforms will be possible everywhere: it might be a really great idea for Washington cities to move to even-year elections, but it’s not currently possible under state law.  

Understanding federal, state, and local law is essential if commissioners want to avoid advancing reforms that are appealing in theory but unworkable in practice. Breaking into subcommittees that report back to the whole commission may make it easier to study different reforms, compare legal options, consult specialists, and understand tradeoffs.  

The most recent City of Portland Charter Review Commission, for example, had separate subcommittees that helped design its ultimately successful proposal. One group studied methods for running city council elections, the other different forms of government. Committee members did research, solicited input, and reported back up to the commission as a whole to inform next steps. 

6. Keep the public informed with concise, curated communication 

Successful commissions communicate early, clearly, and often. Regular updates through websites, newsletters, and public meetings not only help build understanding and keep the public engaged; they also allow commissioners to condense their new knowledge into easy-to-understand language for audiences without an election reform background.  

Any number of factors—historical, personal, political, legal, and logistical—can ultimately impact whether a charter commission can see reform through from start to finish, not to mention whether voters will approve the change. A commissioner’s role, then, is simply to conduct diligent research, have thoughtful discussions, and keep the public informed and invested.  

And speaking of experts (recommendation 2!), Sightline’s friendly and informed Democracy and Elections team is here to help.