As important as the state measures are, your local ballot measures often have an even larger impact on your life and community. On this page, you will find a simplified explanation of each measure in your county and/or town, a bit about what proponents and opponents of each measure have to say, and the position our Alliance’s local affiliate has taken on each. We encourage every voter to weigh the information and make their own decision. You can also download our House Party Guide to learn how to share this great information with your friends and neighbors and get access to our physical Ballot Guide specific to your county that you can provide to anyone you know who may have questions about this year’s long and confusing ballot.
AMENDMENT 1 - Elections
This amendment would move Montrose’s regular city elections from April of even-numbered years to November of even-numbered years, putting city elections on the same November ballot as the regular statewide and federal elections. The change would affect when voters choose City Council members, with Districts I and II continuing on four-year cycles and the at-large seat on a two-year cycle.
Supporters say:
Supporters have pointed to the potential for greater voter participation and lower election costs.
Opponents say:
Critics have questioned whether city issues could receive enough attention when competing with much larger state and federal races.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote NO on Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 2 - 8-Year Lifetime Term Limits for City Council
This amendment would impose a lifetime maximum of eight years of elected service on Montrose City Council, rather than simply limiting a particular seat. The proposal also changes the term-limit rules for the at-large position so that its two-year terms fit within the overall limit. In practical terms, a person could serve up to eight years on Council before reaching the lifetime limit, regardless of which Council seat they held.
Supporters say:
Term limits provide regular opportunities for new council members and prevent prolonged incumbency.
Opponents say:
Voters should be able to continue electing experienced council members beyond eight years
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote NO on Amendment 2.
AMENDMENT 3 - City Council Approval of Police Chief Appointment/Removal
This amendment would change the Charter so that the City Manager could still select and discharge the Police Chief, but the City Council would have to approve those decisions. It therefore adds an elected council check to the City Manager’s authority over the Police Chief without making the Police Chief directly supervised by the Council.
Supporters say:
Supporters have described the change as adding accountability for one of the city’s most important public safety positions.
Opponents say:
Critics have raised concerns about changing the existing manager-council structure and potentially increasing political involvement in personnel decisions.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote NO on Amendment 3.
AMENDMENT 4 - Require City Council Approval of City Clerk
This amendment would require City Council approval of the City Manager’s decision to appoint or discharge the City Clerk. The City Manager would remain responsible for the day-to-day management of the position, but hiring or firing the Clerk would require approval from the elected Council.
Supporters say:
Supporters characterize the change as an additional accountability mechanism.
Opponents say:
The City Clerk has responsibilities involving municipal elections, records, petitions and other governmental functions, so critics can view it as shifting personnel authority away from the City Manager and toward elected officials.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote NO on Amendment 4.
