Electing a public official without actually having an election would be an appointment, wouldn’t it? But an appointment by whom? Who has the authority to appoint, or reappoint, a normally elected (not a term-finishing replacement) position such as dog catcher, judge, legislator, or mayor???
Temporary replacement due to death, impeachment, voluntary resignation, whatever, should already be covered by state laws.
If the law which created the public position says that the position will be filled by election, then there must be an election.
Because you don’t have someone who is a candidate for an electable position being granted that position by an election functionary.
Maybe if it kicks up to the Governor for approval, where he can be given the authority to appoint persons in an unopposed election scenario.
Since the overwhelming majority of these situations occur during an election where there are multiple other elections going on concurrently, there doesn’t seem to be to be a real purpose to cancelling the election of Podunk County Judge out of the middle of the ballot. Going to cause confusion and more problems than it solves.
State and federal elective offices receive their legitimacy through election itself. You can’t skip that part. You’d have to rewrite ever constitution to provide for an alternative source of legitimacy when there’s no opponent. Why bother?
Whether or not the filling of a particular public office requires a ballot, it is some functionary’s position to ensure that the office is filled in accordance with the legally mandated rules and procedures - check the validity of the nominations, ensure that the poll (if there is one) is conducted lawfully and the votes are counted accurately, tally the results, declare the winner.
If the law doesn’t require a ballot in a case where there is only one nomination, then it is the duty of that functionary to check the validity of the sole nomination, wait for the nomination deadline to apply, and then certify that there are no other nominations and that the sole nominee is therefore elected and will take up office on the relevant date.
If the law does require a ballot in this circumstance, then of course it is the duty of the functionary to conduct the ballot. But why would the law require this charade? The ballot is utterly pointless; regardless of how many votes are cast for the sole candidate, he will take up office on the appointed date, and the functionary will so declare. In reality he need not bother to count the votes; they are not affect the outcome of the process in the smallest degree. Pretending that holding a ballot in these circumstances somehow guarantees democratic legitimacy is just silly; it’s the kind of argument they might offer in somewhere like North Korea.
In that scenario, either he is bound to appoint the sole nominated candidate, in which case what is the point of troubling him, or he has the right to appoint somebody who didn’t nominate for the position, to the exclusion of the person who did. Meaning, if you don’t think you can win an election but the Governor is your buddy, your best strategy may be not to nominate against the incumbent, and to persuade others not to nominate either.
Not democratic at all. The only way to secure the office should be to nominate for the position, and take your chances that others will nominate also and that you will have to go to a ballot. Appointing a person who didn’t nominate should only be possible where nobody has nominated.
The question is not should we cancel the ballot for the position; the question is whether we should hold one. A ballot is a mechanism to allow the voters to choose democratically between alternative candidates. If there is only one candidate there is no alternative, no choice and so no reason to hold a ballot. I can’t see how failing to hold a ballot in these circumstances could cause any confusion; rather, holding it will cause confusion, by given the voters the impression that their vote means something when in reality it means nothing at all.
FWIW, this is exactly what happened in my city earlier this year. The Mayor and both of the city council positions open in this cycle had their incumbents run unopposed, so the election was cancelled.
According to the Texas Secretary of State, elections are supposed to be held in odd numbered years. Which makes me question why Frisco, TX attempted to hold an election in 2014? Is Frisco attempting to change their election cycle to meet a fairly recent change in Texas law? Were the Mayor and both of the city council positions extended to the next odd-numbered year (2015, 2017?) or were they granted another full term?
*Election Advisory No. 2013-17
May 10, 2014 Election Law Calendar
Note on May Uniform Date (Odd-Numbered Years)
Counties are not authorized to hold an election ordered by county authority on the May uniform election date in an even-numbered year. A county elections administrator may refuse to provide election services by contract for an election that is held on the May uniform election date in an even-numbered year. (Sec. 41.001(d), Senate Bill 100 (2011)). Thus, for May 9, 2015 (odd-numbered year) we return to the general rules: counties are authorized to hold an election ordered by county authority in May 2015; and a county elections administrator may not refuse to provide election services by contract in May 2013.
Second, many entities have chosen to re-schedule their general elections as a result of changes made by Senate Bill 100 (2011). If you have changed your general election date, we recommend updating your records with our office*.
That’s for counties, Frisco is a city. The city spreads across 2 different counties, and at least three different school districts, thus the note about checking with other authorities for other elections.