How the balance of power would change
Measure EE would preserve the eight-member Council and remove the mayor’s current tie-breaking vote. The mayor would gain a veto over most Council resolutions and ordinances, with specified exceptions. Overriding most vetoes would require six of eight Councilmembers; budget vetoes have a separate process. Proposed Charter §§ 200, 210, 801.
A five-member majority could pass ordinary legislation, but could not override a mayoral veto on its own. Supporters see that as a check between branches. We’re concerned that it would give one mayor the ability to block legislation supported by a majority of representatives from across the city.
Oakland’s neighborhoods need representatives who have enough authority to act on their priorities. District elections would remain, but we believe this change would weaken the Council’s ability to put those priorities into effect.
Citywide voting is not evenly distributed
Our local analysis estimates that Districts 1 and 4 together accounted for 45.8% of valid first-choice votes in Oakland’s 2022 mayoral election. That does not establish how any individual voted or whether a mayor would disregard other neighborhoods. It illustrates why a citywide election and district elections can give different parts of Oakland different levels of influence.
| Council district | Share of valid first-choice mayoral votes |
|---|---|
| District 1 | 22.2% |
| District 2 | 13.4% |
| District 3 | 13.2% |
| District 4 | 23.6% |
| District 5 | 7.4% |
| District 6 | 12.6% |
| District 7 | 7.6% |
Source: local analysis of Alameda County’s November 2022 statement of vote; 125,401 valid candidate votes. These are shares of citywide votes, not district turnout rates. Changed precincts were allocated using an area-based crosswalk, so these are modeled district estimates. See the methodology and downloadable data.
Council districts do not correspond exactly to neighborhoods, income, race, or homeownership. This analysis does not identify individual voters or their political preferences.
Councilmembers could still help with service requests
The measure explicitly preserves Councilmembers’ ability to report complaints, make and follow up on service requests, propose ideas, and ask for updates. Officials would have to provide timely and reasonable responses. Councilmembers could not direct or coerce administrative action. § 218.
Your Councilmember could still help follow up on a pothole or missed pickup. Our concern is how much influence district representatives would have when their priorities and the mayor’s priorities differ. We believe the new veto and concentration of executive authority would move that balance in the wrong direction for Oakland’s neighborhoods.