Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-26 Public Comment - M. Bateson - Re_ No Wards for Bozeman PleaseFrom:Mary Bateson To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission; Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: No Wards for Bozeman Please Date:Monday, March 30, 2026 12:43:02 PM Attachments:At-large_VS_Wards_3.12.26.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attachment: At_large_VS_Wards3.12.26 Apologies for not attaching this to previous email On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 12:37 PM Mary Bateson <mbateson5@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Study Commissioners of Bozeman, I have spoken at two meetings of your Commission this year, and am happy to have that opportunity to interact with you that way. With this letter I am submitting my comments (at letter’s end) in written form for your record. I will also expand on my arguments at the beginning of this letter, because I believe that the question of the voting method that I am concerned about is quite complex and deserves more than a couple of three-minute comments can capture. I appreciate the Commission’s time and care in reviewing the facts available concerning this issue which you demonstrated by asking thoughtful questions at the March 24, 2026 meeting. The document (attached) provided by Dan Clark of the MSU Local Government Center provides an organized framework for considering the advantages and disadvantages of Wards versus At-Large elections for Bozeman. Included in his summary are advantages to Wards that may be important in other localities, but do not apply to Bozeman. Bozeman does not have sufficiently large and geographically concentrated minorities, or low-income populations. This shifts the number and weight of the benefits away from the Ward system and towards the At-Large voting system. Also, the advantages of Wards list two other problems with At-Large election systems that could be solved with other methods. 1. The cost of campaigns for potential commission candidates could be leveled by methods to cap campaign spending, or provide assistance to candidates, possibly through a voucher system as described by one commenter at the March 25 meeting. Another aspect of campaign costs that is being ignored by the proponents of the Ward system is the cost of organizing Candidate Forums if separate Forums are desired, rather than only one. Or, they could all be combined to really confuse the public! 2.Stronger neighborhood advocacy can be achieved by expanding and empowering the already existing Inter-neighborhood Council (INC), rather than reinventing the wheel in a rather clunky and expensive way through the Ward voting system. Responsiveness to neighborhoods can be more effectively achieved by using this more flexible method. The INC needs to be given more clout, rather than being ignored. One of the disadvantages of At-Large elections contends that this system provides an over- representation of business or elite interests. This may be at work in Bozeman, with its seeming dominance of influence by development interests that have changed our landscape, racing towards luxury high rise buildings. I would contend that this is exacerbated by the influence of the emphasis that our City Commission has placed on listening to the Community Development Board and Community Development Department while diminishing its attention on other city boards, departments, and concerned citizens. These problems are not likely to be solved by voting according to Wards. After reading through the advantages and disadvantages of these two systems, At-Large versus Wards, I find that the At-Large system clearly is better for Bozeman. I also do not see in the disadvantages of Wards the MAJOR issue that Wards limit the choices that voters are presented. I do not want to be forced to vote for what I believe is a less qualified candidate, merely because they live closer to my place of residence. A voter may wish to support a candidate that they have met through employment (which is likely to be across town), not in their residential neighborhood. They may wish to support a candidate that they have met while walking a dog at Snow-fill, or ambling through the many GVLT and city supported trails or parks. Maybe they want to support a candidate they have met through their church, Library outreach programs, Eagle Mount, Bridger Bowl or Crosscut Mountain Sports Center. None of these activities or places is tied to a mailing or voting address, but they are more important to how a voter wants to be represented in city governance. When I read through the advantages of a Hybrid system, my head spins. I find that the increased complexity of this for voters will be a death knell for voter participation. Personally, I do not want a more complex system to face me at the ballot box (or in my living room when I prepare my mail- in ballot). The voter participation in Bozeman is nothing to brag about, and I believe the complexities and limits of voting based on Wards or their evil twin: Hybrid Systems would make the situation worse. Please don’t remove our At-Large voting system. If you want to make a change, I would suggest returning to a previous practice of voting for all members of the City Commission At-Large, and then choosing the mayor from the winner’s pool in another way. Previously it was the highest vote earner who became Mayor. If this does not seem fair, possibly the new Mayor could be chosen by votes or consensus by the Commissioners, or by the Commissioners in combination with all Advisory Board members. I do not believe that the position of Mayor needs to be given such importance that the Mayor is chosen in a separate election. It is just another confusion that results in a weaker selection of people on our commission. Thank you so much for your service, and for considering my suggestions. Mary Bateson 427 N Tracy Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Comments by Mary Bateson, presented at the Study Commission of Bozeman Meeting, March25, 2026 Thank you for the opportunity to speak about what I call “Wards for Bozeman: A Solution in Search of a Problem.” While I am not entirely satisfied with our current City Commission, I am in favor of our At-Large elections. Please carefully consider the Disadvantages to Wards and Advantages of At-Large elections pointed out in the MSU Local Government Center document assigned for today’s meeting. I would like to counter the four Advantages to Wards listed. To the first and second advantages: Bozeman does not have a sufficiently large and geographically concentrated racial or ethnic minority. Also, lower-income and renter neighborhoods are not sufficiently concentrated, with many renters living in what are traditionally considered higher income neighborhoods. Wards would not increase any of these group’s representation on our City Commission. 3rd advantage “Stronger Neighborhood Responsiveness”: Please re-read my comments from your Jan. 28 meeting (below). We need city-wide perspectives for the Bozeman community. I want to vote for the best candidate sharing my views, not be forced to vote for a near but mediocre candidate. 4th advantage: Lower campaign costs for candidates: Maybe true. But a more important barrier to candidacy is that commissioners are not adequately financially compensated for their work. My next questions are not addressed in the MSU document: Who bears the cost of creating and maintaining Wards? If Wards, compact and equal in population and geographic area could be drawn, who does this and how often would these lines need to be adjusted as Bozeman grows? Are the people who live near the edges of the Ward boundaries going to be constantly thrown into different Wards as Bozeman’s boundaries change? How about the Commissioners themselves? If they move out of their Ward, are they made ineligible to run again in that Ward? This exact issue of changed boundaries has eliminated a County Commission hopeful from participating as a candidate this year because of errors made in determining her District. Please do not add this level of complication to our voting. The level of voter participation is already embarrassingly low (31% this November!). The complication of Wards or Hybrid Systems could make this even worse. Please let us continue to vote At-Large for our City Commissioners. Thank you for your attention. Comments by Mary Bateson, presented at the Study Commission of Bozeman Meeting, January28, 2026 I don’t think this is today’s topic, but to me, the most disturbing issue before you is the proposal to split the Bozeman electorate into wards. The decisions of our City Commission affect all locations in this community, and commissioners need to be keeping the whole in mind. Often a person lives at one address, works across town, and recreates all over. People shop at several different stores, even several different grocery stores! People live in the whole community. For me, the most important characteristics of a candidate for any office is their experience, what they say they believe in, and how they represent themselves. I do not want to be voting on candidates based on where they live in Bozeman. I want to be able to vote on candidates because of their views. In the past election, one of my favorite candidates did not live near me. I expect that in the future, the candidates that could best represent me would not necessarily be in my ward. So, are wards a solution in search of a problem? One reason I have heard for why wards are preferred is that in the past, commissioners have been mostly from the south side of town, in the older neighborhoods. Isn’t that historically where more well-off people have lived? Isn’t this really an issue of who can afford to serve? The compensation for the work of commissioner is in no way commensurate with the time and effort required. If you want the commission to be more representative, we need to increase their pay. Unless the main qualification for commission positions is meant to be wealth. I believe that today’s topics are decisions on the governing body. Some of these depend on whether or not the ward system gets proposed and accepted by voters. Size: I think 5 is adequate, but with wards you would need more. Pay: should be higher. But with more members needed for wards this becomes even more expensive. I hope to hear more discussion of these issues over the course of this meeting and your future meetings. Thank you again for your service. Sincerely, Mary Bateson, Bozeman Resident Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. Comparison of Electoral Systems in Medium-Sized Cities Prepared by the MSU Extension Local Government Center Introduction The City of Bozeman has a long history of conducting its elections on an at-large basis. When the study commission first proposed a city charter in 1976, it recommended electing city commissioners nominated by wards but elected at-large; however, that charter was ultimately rejected by the voters. In the Final Report prepared by the City’s first local government review, the study commission documented findings from a community survey indicating concerns about responsiveness in local government. As the report noted, citizens expressed “some dissatisfaction with the apparent unwillingness of local government officials to listen to them. The commission feels that the election of some of the commissioners by districts may cause those, so elected, to be more responsive to residents of their [ward]. A recognized danger in this method of electing commissioners is that they may become overly responsive to the citizens of their area. This may result in less concern for issues that affect the whole city and may cause a lack of harmony among commissioners. Election of all commissioners by the total electorate of the city will reduce the likelihood that these situations will develop.” Fifty years ago, the study commission had identified many of the same advantages and disadvantages associated with ward-based and at-large elections that continue to shape the discussion today. Below is a review of the advantages and disadvantages of elections conducted by wards, at-large, and hybrid systems (a combination of ward-based and at-large elections). These conclusions are drawn from peer-reviewed academic literature and applied research guides, including publications from the American Journal of Political Science, Political Science Research and Methods, and the Canadian Journal of Political Science, as well as practitioner-focused resources such as the Democracy Reform Primer Series produced by the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government at the Harris School of Public Policy, and analyses from the Pacific Research Institute. Artificial intelligence tools were used to synthesize and organize findings across these sources. ELECTIONS BY WARD Below is a list of advantages and disadvantages of elections by ward. This is a familiar practice in Montana and is the statutory default option for those municipalities in Montana that have selected the commission-executive form of government. Advantages Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. • Increases descriptive representation for racial and ethnic minorities o District elections increase representation for racial/ethnic minorities when groups are moderately sized and geographically concentrated. [Source 1 & 4] o Conversion from at-large to district elections produces dramatic gains in minority officeholding when minority population share is sufficiently large. [Source 3] • Enhances representation of lower-income neighborhoods o District systems increase the proportion of elected officials from lower-income and high-renter neighborhoods. • Stronger neighborhood advocacy o Ward councilors focus on geographically defined neighborhood interests and are more responsive to localized concerns. [Source 6] o Ward-based systems create a “representational focus” on smaller areas, improving neighborhood-level responsiveness. • Lower campaign costs and higher local engagement o Candidates campaign within a smaller geographic unit, which reduces cost barriers and encourages more candidates to run. [Source 4] Disadvantages • Risk of parochialism (“ward politics”) o Councilors prioritize neighborhood interests over citywide needs, which can fragment policy decision-making. • Encourages logrolling and pork-barrel spending o Ward systems incentivize vote trading to direct geographically concentrated spending to each member’s area. [Source 8] o This can raise total municipal spending on localized capital projects. • May disadvantage women candidates o Empirical evidence shows women are less likely to be elected in single-member districts compared to at-large elections. [Source 4] • Ineffective when minorities are not geographically concentrated o District representation benefits minorities only in cities where groups are sufficiently large and segregated. Otherwise, districting provides little or no improvement. [Source 4] Options for Elections by Wards If Bozeman were to retain five elected commissioners, one option would be to continue electing the mayor at-large while electing the remaining four commissioners from wards Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. drawn to be as compact and equal in population and geographic area as practicable. Under this approach, each ward would be represented by a commissioner serving approximately 14,500 residents. By comparison, districts for the Montana House of Representatives generally include between 10,000 and 11,000 residents. To further reduce the number of residents represented by each commissioner, the study commission could propose adding two additional commission seats. Expanding the commission in this manner would allow for six wards, with each commissioner representing just under 9,700 residents and the mayor elected at-large. Possible charter language: Following each federal decennial census, the city commission shall divide the city into [the number of commissioner wards corresponding to the number of commissioners elected by ward], ensuring that the wards are as compact as practicable and equal in population and geographic area. Apportionment may occur at any time for the purpose of equalizing population and area among commissioner wards. However, a commissioner ward may not be changed in a way that affects the term of office of any city commissioner who has been elected. Additionally, changes to the boundaries of any commissioner ward may not be made between the date that is six months prior to a city commissioner primary election and the date of the general election. AT-LARGE ELECTIONS At-large elections are the statutory default option for selecting city commissioners in the Commission-Manager form of government. Advantages • Encourages citywide perspective and policy coordination o At-large councilors see their constituency as the entire city, which promotes citywide rather than neighborhood-based decision-making. [Source 6] • Reduces neighborhood parochialism o At-large elections were originally adopted to reduce corruption and the hyper-localism associated with ward systems. [Source 6] • Promotes gender diversity o Research finds at-large systems tend to elect more women compared to district systems. [Source 5] • Less susceptible to gerrymandering o Because the entire city votes, manipulation of district boundaries is not possible. [Source 4] Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. Disadvantages • Marginalizes racial and ethnic minorities o At-large systems historically diluted minority voting power and still suppress minority representation in many contexts. [Source 4] o Conversion from at-large to district elections consistently increases minority representation when minority groups are sizable. [Source 3] • Higher campaign costs o Campaigning citywide is significantly more expensive, limiting candidate diversity. [Source 2] • Overrepresentation of business or elite interests o At-large representatives tend to align more with citywide economic interests (business elites) rather than neighborhood-level concerns. [Source 6] • Lower responsiveness to neighborhoods o Councilors elected citywide pay less attention to geographically specific issues. [Source 6] HYBRID (MIXED WARD + AT-LARGE) SYSTEMS Research on hybrid systems is more limited, but emerging studies offer clear patterns. Advantages • Balances neighborhood representation with citywide perspective o Hybrid councils that are majority district-based retain the representational benefits of ward systems but incorporate at-large seats that promote citywide coordination. • Improves gender diversity o Including at-large seats in an otherwise ward-based system can increase the election of women compared to pure ward systems. • Reduces extreme drawbacks of both systems o Hybrids can prevent excessive parochialism while still protecting minority and neighborhood voices. [Source 9] Disadvantages • Minority representation depends on the proportion of ward seats o Hybrids with only a small number of district seats may still dilute minority representation compared to pure districts. [Source 9] Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. • More complex system design o Hybrid systems require balancing ward boundaries, at-large ballot design, and potential structural inequities. • Can perpetuate inequities if at-large seats dominate o Research warns that if at-large seats form a majority, hybrid systems replicate the underrepresentation issues of pure at-large models. [Source 4] Hybrid Options for Bozeman One option for structuring the City Council is to retain a five-member council, with one member serving as mayor. Under this approach, the mayor would continue to be elected at-large by voters citywide, while the remaining four council members would be associated with geographic wards. Those four wards would be drawn to be as compact and equal in population and geographic area as practicable. Within this structure, a key design choice is how the four ward associated council members would be elected. Under one variation, each of the four council members would be required to both reside in and be elected by voters within their respective wards. This approach would emphasize direct neighborhood representation and accountability between council members and the residents of their ward. Alternatively, the four council members could be required to reside in a ward but continue to be elected at-large by the entire electorate. This option would preserve a citywide voting base while ensuring geographic diversity among council members, blending elements of ward representation with at-large elections. Gallatin County uses this same method when electing the County Commissioners. Another option would be to expand the council to seven members, which would reduce the number of residents represented by each councilor and increase overall geographic representation. Under this model, one member would serve as mayor and be elected at-large, along with one additional council member elected at-large. The remaining five council members would reside in and be elected from five wards drawn to be as compact and equal in population and geographic area as practicable. This structure blends ward-based representation with at-large positions, balancing neighborhood responsiveness with a citywide perspective. It would also spread representation more evenly across the city while retaining at-large seats to address issues affecting the community as a whole. Summary Table Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. Model Advantages Disadvantages Ward Strong minority & low income representation; localized responsiveness; lower campaign costs Parochialism; logrolling; may reduce gender representation; ineffective where minorities not concentrated At-Large Unified citywide policy view; more women elected; less gerrymandering Dilutes minority representation; higher costs; elite dominance; weak neighborhood responsiveness Hybrid Balanced citywide + neighborhood representation; better gender diversity; moderates extremes Minority gains depend on ward ratio; can replicate at large inequities; structurally complex Sources: 1. Cushing-Daniels M, Jones D and Shannon B (2026) District-based elections and class- based representation: evidence from the California Voting Rights Act. Political Science Research and Methods, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2025.10070 2. Warnken, M. (2025, February 13). City representation: Single-member districts versus at-large (Free Cities Center Analysis). Pacific Research Institute. https://www.pacificresearch.org/free-cities-center-analysis-city-representation-single- member-districts-versus-at-large/ 3. Abott, Carolyn and Magazinnik, Asya. 2020. "At-Large Elections and Minority Representation in Local Government." American Journal of Political Science, 64 (3). 4. Trounstine, J. (2024). District vs. at-large elections: A practical research guide (Democracy Reform Primer Series). University of Chicago Center for Effective Government. https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu 5. Hofer, S., Huang, C., & Murray, R. (2018, October). The trade-offs between at-large and single-member districts (Hobby School of Public Affairs White Paper Series No. 14). University of Houston, Hobby School of Public Affairs. 6. Koop, R., & Kraemer, J. (2016). Wards, at-large systems and the focus of representation in Canadian cities. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, 49(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423916000512 [Wards at-l...f Poli Sci | PDF] 7. Trounstine, J., & Valdini, M. E. (2008). The context matters: The effects of single-member versus at-large districts on city council diversity. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 554–569. Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. 8. Dalenberg, D. R., & Duffy-Deno, K. T. (1991). At-large versus ward elections: Implications for public infrastructure. Public Choice, 70(3), 335–342. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30025474 [At-Large v...astructure | PDF] 9. Jasso, F., & Krebs, T. (n.d.). Hybrid city council election systems (Informational brief). Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs, California State University, Los Angeles; University of New Mexico. [Hybrid Cit...on Systems | PDF]