.. .. ..
City of Show Low
RECEI\ IED
December 24, 2008
OFFICE Of THE Pkl: SIDENT
The Honorable President
Arizona State Senate
1700 W. Washington, Senate Wing
Phoenix, AZ 85007
The Honorable Speaker
Arizona House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington, House Wing
Phoenix, AZ 85007
SUbject: City of Show Low's 2008 Mail Ballot Elections
Dear Sirs:
550 North 9th Place
Show Low, AZ 85901
Telephone ( 928) 532- 4000
Facsimile ( 928) 532- 4009
info@ ci. show- Iow. az. us
www. ci. show- Iow. az. us
In September 2007, the Show'Low City Council unanimously approved the mail ballot
election process for all current and future municipal elections unless directed otherwise
by the Council. Show Low holds elections every two years because of the staggered
terms of its mayor and six Council members. Subsequently, the City of Show Low held
mail ballot elections in March and May 2008. Pursuant to A. R. S. § 16- 409( B), the City
of Show Low is submitting the following report on the results of its 2008 mail ballot
elections.
1. Changes in voter turnout
In addition to 2008, the Show Low City Council approved the mail ballot election
process forthe2002 and 2006 elections. The Councilopted for the traditional
election process in 2004. Historical data show that voter turnout averaged 14- 16%
prior to the Council apprOVing the first ballot- by- mail election in 2002. In 2008, voter
turnout calculated to 44% for the March 11 Primary Election and 33% for the May 20
General Election.
General 2008
:. Primary 2008
General 2006
Primary 2006
33%
44%
25%
34%
( mail ballot election)
( mail ballot election)
( mail ballot election, one name on ballot for one council
seat)
( mail ballot election)
•
Election Report
December 24, 2008
Page 2
General 2004
Primary 2004
General 2002
Primary 2002
Primary 2000
Primary 1998
General 1996
Primary 1996
Primary 1994
Primary 1992
32%
32%
48%
37%
14%
14%
31%
15%
2%
17%
( traditional election, first directly elected mayor)
( traditional election, first directly elected mayor)
( second mail ballot election, included recall election)
( first mail ballot election, included ballot question of direct
election of mayor)
( regular election, combined with school bond election)
( three incumbents ran unopposed)
2. Relative cost of the mail ballot election compared to traditional elections
The City of Show Low contracted with Navajo County's Election Services
Department to conduct the 2008 mail ballot elections. The 2008 Primary Election
ballot included two propositions, one to approve the Alternative Expenditure
Limitation and one to approve the General Plan. A publicity pamphlet in English and
Spanish was prepared and mailed to all registered voters. The consultant's fee for
preparing the ballots, publicity pamphlet, and other election materials ( such as an
election notification postcard) is not included in the calculations below.
The cost of 2008' s two mail ballot elections, based on votes cast, is lower than a
traditional election of years past when the City historically paid approximately $ 9.23
per voter. Based on votes cast, the cost per voter was $ 3.61 in the 2008 Primary
Election and $ 4.73 in the 2008 General Election. These charges include the
County's charges for conducting the mail ballot elections and precinct registers.
However, if compared to 2004' s traditional- style elections, the cost per voter is
slightly higher. The cost per voter in 2004 was $ 3.23, which included the County's
fees of$ t. 25 per active registered voterfor using the optlcaJscan voting equipment
and for precinct registers, plus election board expenses. The County's fees per
active registered voter have increased substantially since 2004, accounting for the
variance.
3. Suggestions for improving or refining the mail ballot program
Because the City has held ballot- by- mail elections in prior years, most voters are
familiar with the process. In addition, a media campaign was launched to notify
voters to expect ballots in the mail. The campaign included press releases sent to
local print media, articles in the City's monthly newsletter distributed with utility
invoices, information posted on the City's website and public bulletin boards, and a
televised interview with the mayor about the elections process that was aired on the
City's government access channel. Also, all registered voters received informational
Election Report
December 24,2008
Page 3
postcards prior to the elections. Consequently, both elections ran smoothly and
there are no suggestions for improvement.
4. Frequency and severity of mail ballot irregularities
There were no mail ballot irregularities reported or noted with either election.
5. Voter satisfaction with the election process
Voter feedbfilck was very positive and votersseel11ed satisfied with the process. The
majority of positive comments referred to the convenience of voting by mail.
6. Number of nondeliverable ballots
The County's Election Services Department mailed 4,524 ballots for the March 11,
2008 Primary. The County does not keep a tally of returned ballots, but they
estimate that no more than 25 to 30 ballots were returned as undeliverable. The
County mailed 4,647 ballots for the May 20,2008 General. Again, the County
estimates that perhaps 25 to 30 ballots were returned. The County credits cleaning
up its voter registration rolls for the low percentage of nondeliverable ballots.
In summary, the mail ballot process increases voter turnout, cleans up voter registration
rolls, and is much more convenient to our voters than a traditional election.
Sincerely,
~~
Ann Kurasaki, CMC
City Clerk
