Monday, June 15, 2009 | Goldsmith argued that “approval of a majority vote of the members” of the retirement program means the vote was invalid because only 35.5% of the eligible ballots were cast. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Goldsmith informs Police Chief Sanders that he was never legally sworn in as mayor, since the same “majority vote” requirement is in the Municipal Code governing city elections, and only 33% of eligible voters cast a vote in the last election for mayor. In fact, Sanders garnered only 18% of eligible voters, which is far lower than the support by retirees in the election for DROP.

For that matter, it is not clear whether Goldsmith has the authority to render an opinion as City Attorney in the first place, since only 43% of registered voters voted for him in his “majority vote” election. It wasn’t clear whether Goldsmith was arguing that a majority of eligible voters must vote in favor for an issue to pass, or whether 50+% votes must be cast for the election to be valid and then a simple majority would suffice. Either way, Ann Smith is going to eat this ridiculous argument for breakfast, making the City and Jan Goldsmith look ridiculous for floating it.

Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.