The Colorado Springs city clerk recently mailed city election ballots to 306,000 registered voters. That is nearly twice the number of registered voters the city had just 12 years ago in 2011. This emphatically confirms the population growth we have been witnessing.

At least 115,000 registered voters will likely vote. That could be about 35% to maybe even a high of 40% of those who are registered.

Who will vote? Homeowners vote in much higher numbers than non- homeowners. Other groups with high turnout rates are business owners, city employees, teachers, and people involved in housing development and real estate. People who have lived in the city for 10 years or longer are more likely to vote than newcomers. People ages 45 to 70 outvote those under the age of 30.

Voter turnout in city elections is lower than turnout in state and national elections. Also, this is a nonpartisan election, with the Democratic and Republican parties not involved. When the two major political parties are not working hard to turn out the vote, voter numbers naturally go down.

When you open and look at your mail-in ballot, you will probably not have heard of many of the candidates. This is in part because a would-be candidate only needs 100 signatures to be approved to run for mayor. And a candidate does not have to be a property owner. Thus, there are a number of earnest walk-ons (to use a sports term). They are not seasoned politicians in contrast to half of the candidates.

In addition, a candidate for mayor only has to live in Colorado Springs for one year. One candidate this time around had lived in Pueblo until recently. Another young candidate moved here just a few years ago. Yet most of these walk-ons have been earnest candidates. They have shown up for the multiple mayoral forums, town halls, and podcasts.

A second thing you’ll you will note as you open your mail-in ballot is the listing of candidates from Sallie Clark, in the first position, to Wayne Williams, in the 12th position. This is striking because they are the two presumptive front runners. This ballot order is the result of a city mandated lottery held in late January. Candidates are listed on the ballot in the order their names came out of a hat. This comes from the 1979 City Charter.

Many studies, yet not all, have found a statistical

benefit to those whose names are at the top of the ballot compared to those whose names are lower down. Many states and localities have introduced a statistical system that rotates the order of the names on the various ballots so as to lessen any ballot placement advantage.

Sallie Clark was lucky and will likely gain some votes by being listed first on the ballot. Wayne Williams, on the other hand, “drew the short straw.”

Will that make a difference? Probably not much, because we believe Sallie Clark and Wayne Williams will probably be the top two finishers in this preliminary election and will in be in a runoff on May 16.

This is the fourth mayoral election in Colorado Springs since city voters approved the “strong mayor” form of government.

April 2011: Eight candidates ran. No one received the required 50% or more of the vote to avoid a runoff election, Councilman Richard Skorman won close to 36% of the vote. Businessman Steve Bach won more than 33%. A month later, in May 2011, Bach defeated Skorman 57% to 43% in the runoff.

April 2015: Six candidates ran. Former district attorney and Colorado attorney general John Suthers won 46%. Former Colorado Springs mayor Mary Lou Makepeace took 24%. A month later Suthers beat Makepeace 68% to 32% in the runoff.

April 2019: Four candidates ran. Incumbent Mayor John Suthers garnered 73% of the vote. No runoff election was required because Suthers won more than 50% of the vote in the preliminary election.

In 2011, 91,000 ballots were cast in the April election. In 2015, 89,000 votes were cast. In 2019, over 96, 000 ballots were cast.

With 12 candidates running in the preliminary mayoral election on April 4, we estimate the two front-runners, Clark and Williams, could each get at least 30% of the vote and proceed to a runoff election in May.

Here are a few paradoxes arising in this election:

The Suthers paradox: The incumbent mayor is widely admired. Virtually none of the candidates running this year criticize him. Yet candidates are almost always required to call for change and fresh thinking and more proactive leadership. They are doing this. Yet candidates have had to dance around calling for change but not suggesting any criticism of the incumbent mayor.

But Suthers has endorsed Williams in this election. In some ways, that makes this election a referendum on Suthers and the present City Council. Williams can be regarded as a semi-incumbent, and this has both benefits and liabilities. As his ads suggest, he has to play defense more than his rivals.

The “We hate professional politicians” paradox. Voters regularly say they dislike politics and politicians. On the other hand, they say they want to vote for candidates with a record of political experience.

Virtually all the candidates in the mayoral election who have not held office complain of “professional politicians.” The voters approve of term limits, but they dislike the way politicians go from one office to another once they have reached the term limits. Mayoral candidates who have not held office also emphasize that we need “new blood,” “fresh thinking,” and “citizen leaders rather than career politicians.”

Still, when it comes time to vote, a majority of voters understandably want to know that a candidate understands how to navigate in the messy world of politics and has the political savvy and political experience to accomplish things. That is why Councilman Williams has advertisements that celebrate him as a “get things done” city leader. It is why Clark boasts of having experience at all levels of government.

The “Bash the housing developers” paradox: Many of the candidates who are running behind in the race for mayor have criticized big housing developers and their generous campaign contributions to the leading candidates. Many of these trailing candidates call for more affordable housing, something that will be impossible to achieve without major participation from these same “big housing developers.” The reality is that though we all love small businesses, Americans now distrust big businesses almost as much as they distrust big government.

It is convenient to bash both politicians and housing developers, but we need both if we are to solve the affordable housing problem.

Most of the candidates, both leading and trailing, claim they will be watchdogs to keep taxes low and to reduce regulation. They state they are committed to eliminating waste and fraud. As Andrew Dalby puts it, “I will run the city but not your life.” Candidate Longines Gonzalez pledges “no new taxes.”

Colorado Springs is a conservative and libertarian leaning city. State and local taxes are relatively low, but Coloradans like it that way and wish taxes could be lower. Part of the reason we are not hearing about bold new policy initiatives is these candidates want to avoid promising any projects that even give a hint of the need to raise taxes.

Fear plays a role in many elections, and this year’s mayoral race has raised “fear” of something to a new level. Candidates have justifiably emphasized the fear of rising crime. Public safety is on everyone’s mind, and candidates pledge it is one of their top priorities. Yet few if any new ideas have emerged aside from adding new police officers.

Fear of running out of municipal water supplies spooks most of us. Who isn’t concerned to learn that 70% of the water supply of Colorado Springs comes from the rapidly drying up Colorado River.

Fear of the homeless and drug addictions is another understandable fear that candidates raise yet have few new ideas for solving.

Fear of too much automobile traffic and excessive population growth are also on the list. We have witnessed the doubling in size of the city over the past generation.

Some “smear” advertisements have been aired on local television stations for a few weeks. Some of them are paid for with “dark money,” money from unknown and unidentified sources. It is relatively easy, however, to guess who is behind these ads. This is an unseemly aspect of electoral politics. These negative ads often look misleading to us yet they are there because their campaign strategists think they are needed and that they work. Sadly, they probably do.

Our political system is fueled by ambition. Candidates have to be ambitious. They have to boast they are the best leader and that “I can fix that.” We could wish that they ran only on their character and leadership records, yet that is not the way it works.

There are not many new ideas in this mayoral race, and there have been a predictably long list of cliches and “sound bites”. In the candidate’s defense, it is impossible to outline major solutions to city’s pressing problems in the one minute answers allowed at local forums or on a postcard or in a brief TV commercial. Yet these candidates, to their credit, have shown up at dozens of debates and given brief, if not convincing, answers to countless questions.

Thanks to those who had the courage to run and give us choices. Please vote.