Daniel Zhao

Starting in 2027, the city of New Haven will elect its mayor and alders to four-year terms. 

On Tuesday’s ballot, voters overwhelmingly supported the charter revision with almost two-to-one margins. 6,629 New Haveners voted ​“yes” on the question, and 3,721 ​voted “no.” Around 2,000 voters left the charter question blank. 

The new charter increases terms for elected officials from two to four years. It also increases stipends for elected alders from $2,000 to $5,000, clarifies instructions for aldermanic processes and changes the language to be gender-neutral. 

“Voters are sending a message, because if they were dissatisfied right now with the direction of the city we’re headed in, there is no way that they would have passed [the charter revision],” Elicker said on Tuesday during his post-election speech. 

Why did the city pass the charter?

Elicker told the News that while walking between polling spots, he saw a lot of “thumbs up” from voters. The charter revision result, he claimed, reflects the confidence of residents in the current administration.  

Former Mayor John DeStefano, who served as New Haven’s mayor for twenty years, also attributed the charter revision’s passing to the relatively calm political climate currently in New Haven. 

According to DeStefano, voters may not have had strong motivations to vote “yes,” but they also did not have a convincing reason to vote “no.” 

“I think there’s a little exhaustion about elections generally and politics generally, and a once per four-year election is probably appealing to some folks,” DeStefano told the News. 

DeStefano also mentioned that there was little organized opposition to charge voters against the revision. 

Abby Roth, a former alder and the only Democrat to publicly oppose the charter revision, credited the nearly two-to-one margin approving the changes to the bundling of all changes into a single yes-or-no question. 

“It is important to note that only a small number of people actually voted yes: 6,960, which is only about 13% of the city’s 52,429 registered voters, which does not reflect strong citywide support for the changes,” Roth wrote to the News.

According to Roth, proponents of the revision framed it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. 

She said these proponents argued that if voters did not approve a four-year term for the mayor now, even though it was bundled with the four-year terms for alders that voters might have disapproved of, voters would have to wait another ten years.

“However, this framing was misleading: Article XIV, section 1 of the charter (‘Mandatory Decennial Charter Review’), simply requires charter revision at least once every ten years, but there is no limit whatsoever on more frequent revisions,” Roth wrote.

Majority leader Alder Richard Furlow responded that, although New Haven could revise its charter more often, the process is costly and time-consuming. He added that, to the best of his knowledge, all cities in Connecticut revise their charters only once per decade.

Roth said she also believes that officials in favor of the charter revisions misled voters into considering the vote for the charter revision to be a party issue.

Ahead of election day, Democratic leaders in the city framed campaigns for the charter revision around Democrats supporting it and Republicans disapproving it. This idea was promoted in the mayoral debate, in a press conference with Democratic leaders and, according to one voter the News spoke with, in text messages sent out on election day.

“In a city where only 2,657 voters (out of 52,419 registered voters) are Republicans, and Republicans as a group are viewed negatively by many, the ‘Democrats are voting yes/Republicans are voting no’ messaging likely led voters who weren’t familiar with what the charter item was about to vote yes,” Roth wrote.

Elicker’s campaign also sent out a flier showing Democratic leaders who support the charter revision, encouraging constituents to vote “yes.” 

Roth claimed that the flier may have violated the Democracy Fund’s rules. 

Following a complaint about the alleged violation, the Democracy Fund held a hearing. 

Elicker, who was present at the hearing, told the News that the Democracy Fund had a private discussion and concluded that they needed to conduct further investigations. 

“We obviously think we did the right thing and continue to do so and work very, very hard to follow the rules,” Elicker told the News. “We’re happy to answer questions about the Democracy Fund because I’m a big believer in it and want to make sure that there’s the integrity of the Democracy Fund.”

New Haven voters on the charter revision 

Jairo Acevedo told the News he voted for the proposed charter revision, as “two years is too short a time.” He voiced concern about low voter turnout and confusion regarding the charter revisions on the ballot, saying there was not much information about the charter revision process.

Leslie Singer, a professor at the School of Visual Arts, said she voted for the charter revision because she thinks two-year terms are not long enough for alders to enact change. 

Michelle Frasier, an adjunct instructor at Gateway Community College, said she voted “no” on the charter revision. Frasier said that she does not support what she described as the unequal treatment and resources invested in certain neighborhoods and would not like to see that practice extended to four-year terms.

Dawn Mosher, an administrative assistant, said that she voted “yes” on the charter revision because she received a text message from a group affiliated with the Democratic Party encouraging her to vote “yes.”

Cheryl Szczarba, a real estate agent, said she also had “reluctantly” voted “yes” on the revision.

“We didn’t like the fact that they had grouped so many things together, but we really wanted to see the mayor be a four-year term,” Szczarba said. 

What is next for the city?

Former Mayor DeStefano said he does not view the charter revision as a “game changer.” The city will still need upstanding and enthusiastic candidates, regardless of whether terms are two or four years long, he said.

The most positive outcome of the city charter revision passing, according to DeStefano, will be the absence of nearly constant campaigning. Mayors and alders, he said, will be able to dedicate more time to pure governance without the interference of campaigning.

The charter revision will also allow the city to alter the structure of its government, bringing the charter “into the 21st century,” Alder Furlow said. 

Furlow said that now, as the city has more flexibility in structuring its departments, boards and commissions, alders will closely work with the mayor to reform the local government. Furlow noted that some requirements for department heads, previously described in the charter, were outdated and could not be changed except through charter reform.

He added that removing the lifetime appointments from the Parks Commission, which sparked opposition from one of its members, was not on the charter revision question. The Board of Alders will work on restructuring the Parks Commission, and other Commissions, in a “transparent” manner, Furlow said, calling on residents to come to public hearings and express their opinions. 

“You really don’t have a right to bash if you don’t give your opinion during the process,” Furlow said. “We’re gonna hear, that’s what we’re here for. We don’t have any preconceived ideas of how things should go without hearing from the public first.” 

The New Haven charter was originally written in 1662.