DENVER — Denver city council’s new charter review committee met Monday to hear a presentation about a possible ballot initiative that would reduce the time elected leaders in Denver can stay in office.
“It's something that I heard a lot on the campaign trail from residents, people saying, 'You know, 12 years feels too long,'” said newly re-elected Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer.
Sawyer and Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval released the results of an online survey they conducted during the meeting Monday. It showed an overwhelming majority of Denver residents, about 70%, would support reducing the length of time the mayor and others could stay in office to two terms, or eight years.
“I think eight years is probably long enough. If it's good enough for the president of the United States and it's good enough for our governor and our legislature, it's probably good enough for us,” Sawyer told Denver7 in July.
Sawyer said council staff studied 39 major cities across the country. They found 54% of cities limited their mayors to eight years in office, with about 60% allowing city council members to serve 12 years or longer.
Denver is one of the cities that allows its elected leaders to serve up to 12 years in office, thanks to a ballot measure voters approved in 2000.
The case for longer or unlimited term limits
Those who favor allowing elected officials to serve longer or not have any term limits argue that the experience and institutional knowledge they build up enable them to serve more effectively.
“Voters are very smart here. They return good people, and they vote out people they don’t like,” said Councilman Kevin Flynn, who is serving his final term in office serving District 2.
Flynn said of the 39 council members who have served since the 2000 ballot initiative was implemented, only 12 have served three terms.
Some were defeated for reelection. Others chose not to run for a third term.
Several council members joined Flynn in expressing skepticism about doing away with the three-term limit, saying it provides a good balance of experience, fresh ideas, and diversity.
“I do think 12 years is the sweet spot,” said Councilman Paul Kashmann, who ran unopposed for the second time earlier this year.
Councilman Chris Hands agreed.
“I would also agree about the lost institutional knowledge if we went from three terms to two terms,” said Hinds.
Councilwoman Flor Alvidrez, one of six Latinas elected on the council, worries that reducing the amount of time members could serve would hurt the council’s diversity.
“As our city becomes more gentrified, it is harder for people of color to have a voice at the table, and so when there’s only a limited number of us, I would be concerned with being term-limited,” said Alvidrez.
Some council members also expressed concerns about the lack of diversity among survey respondents.
Over 80% of the respondents were white; only 10% were Hispanic or Latino, and less than 5% were Black. Most of the respondents, 38%, lived in Sawyer and Sandoval’s districts. Only 30 people, or 4% of the respondents, lived in Councilwoman Shontel Lewis’ district.
“Because there were only 30 respondents from District 8, I’d be hesitant to make a decision for my entire district,” said Lewis.
What about mayoral term limits?
While many council members appeared skeptical of reducing term limits for themselves, several seemed open to reducing how long the mayor could serve.
No proposed ballot language has been introduced, and any initiative they approve would be on the ballot in November 2024 for voters to consider.
Sawyer said such an initiative would likely not apply to current elected officials, since they were elected under the current 12-year/three-term rules.
Sawyer, noting that Monday's presentation was meant to start a conversation, said if council members express little interest in pursuing an initiative in the coming weeks, the idea won’t move ahead.
