CA-2-26 Board of Supervisors of Elections Expansion

At a glance

What: Charter amendment CA-2-26 expands the Board of Supervisors of Elections (advertised as going from three to five members), changes how nominees are chosen and when the council appoints, and adds steps for filling vacancies. It originated with the Charter Review Commission.
Where it stands: On second reading 2026-10-12, Alderman Smith-Brown moved amendment one, a near-total rewrite of membership composition. A technical fix (changing "or" to "and" so a third-party seat requires the 10 percent threshold) passed by roll call with one abstention. Amendment one as amended then carried (voice vote, then roll call; at least one no). The council then turned to whether the amendments are substantive, which would require a new public hearing. The captions end mid-discussion, so the result of that question and the final vote on CA-2-26 are not recorded here.
Next: Substantive-change determination, possible second public hearing, then a final vote.

Underlying bill (sponsored by Alderman Savidge with Alderman Huntley): seats follow voter registration, roughly 60/20/20 across the largest party, second-largest party and unaffiliated voters, to keep appointments out of partisan hands. Nominations come from party committees, with a self-nomination option for some seats.
Amendment one: one seat each for the top three parties by registration (third-party seat only if the party meets the 10 percent threshold or is recognized under state law), the mayor may fill a seat if no party qualifies, a fifth seat for any registered voter, mayor appoints and council confirms, and recommendations may come from party committees, the mayor or by self-nomination.
Huntley and Savidge opposed it. Huntley said anyone could be appointed by re-registering, so the board could be partisan balanced only in name, and that the largest party (about 55 percent of registrants, versus about 25 and 20) would hold a minority of seats. Savidge said he counted at least seven drafting errors and that a charter amendment should not be repaired on the fly.
Smith-Brown and Alderman Thorp supported it, citing months of work and a long Rules and City Government Committee discussion, and arguing parties should not be the only gatekeepers.
The city attorney read the 10 percent language as ambiguous; the sponsor agreed the intent was a firm threshold.

About 30 minutes across 2 meetings (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting	Minutes
2026-10-12 - City Council (Regular Meeting) (Part 2)	29
2026-10-12 - City Council (Regular Meeting)	1

2026-10-12 - City Council (Regular Meeting) - Rules and City Government chair reported the committee's unanimous favorable recommendation of amendment one and the bill as amended (29:37-30:54). Floor debate is in Part 2.
2026-10-12 - City Council (Regular Meeting) (Part 2) - Second reading (38:46-1:07:26): amendment one debated, "or" to "and" fix adopted, amendment one as amended carried, substantive-change question raised; captions end mid-discussion.