A four-to-three deadlock on the City Council over the issue of staggered terms has killed the potential for a charter amendment to reshape the city’s election — at least for this year. That means the action of the lame-duck City Council earlier this year to abandon the longtime tradition of springtime election in favor of November balloting will land the municipal election in the middle of a presidential campaign. Council members could take another stab at a charter amendment next year, although two or more members would need to retreat from their entrenched positions for that to work.

In a heated debate Tuesday night, council members could not come to a consensus for a charter amendment to send to Richmond next year. Because members of the Republican-controlled House of Delegates could potentially make their own changes to a charter amendment perceived as partisan, council members wanted to reach a threshold of at least five votes on any charter amendment that changes the city’s system of elections. When it became clear that a five-vote coalition could not be assembled, Vice Mayor Kerry Donley offered a motion to abandon the charter amendment changing the city’s election and move forward with electing City Council and School Board members in November 2012.

"For people who are concerned about the conflict with the presidential election, that would only happen once every 12 years," said Donley while offering his motion. "So I think that sort of mutes that argument a little."

At that point, Councilman Paul Smedberg quickly offered a second to Donley’s motion. Without missing a beat, Councilman Rob Krupicka called the question — a procedural tactic to end the debate. But Councilman Frank Fannon wanted to offer a substitute motion, and Councilman Del Pepper was ready to present her own plan for election reform. Euille told Fannon and Pepper they would have to wait until after the vote on Donley’s motion. Councilwoman Alicia Hughes called for discussion, but Euille said further commentary would have to wait until after the vote.

"The question has been called," responded Euille, moving forward with the vote.

SINCE THE 18TH century, Alexandria has held separate elections for local offices. Some of the earliest city records from the 1750s show that municipal elections were held in February. By the early 1800s, they were moved to the second Tuesday in March. After the Civil War, they were scheduled for the second Tuesday in June. From 1973 to 2009, local campaigns were held in May. But this year’s May election was the end of an era.

After two Democrats lost their seats on the City Council, several prominent Democrats began advocating for doing away with the May elections in favor of November. Republicans criticized the move as a cynical ploy to take advantage of increased turnout of Democrats for national and statewide elections, but some Democrats defended the idea as a way to increase participation. Despite a daylong hearing in which speakers opposed the measure by a three-to-one-margin, the City Council approved the ordinance on a five-to-two margin.

"This was done by a lame-duck City Council," said Fannon. "And there were a lot of people in the city who came here and spoke on that Saturday who were upset about the way this was being handled."

Wilson and others who advocated moving the election from May to November said at the time that they were not in favor of conducting the municipal elections on the presidential ballot. Aside from distracting from local issues, Wilson and others argued, the logistics of conducting City Council and School Board elections in a presidential year could be problematic. According to Registrar Tom Parkins, the city would need to purchase $200,000 to $300,000 worth of new machines to accommodate increased voter time at the polls if City Council and School Board races are added to the November 2012 ballot.

"This will significantly increase the time voters wait in line unless the city is willing to purchase additional voting equipment," said Parkins Tuesday night. "If the city purchases additional voting equipment, it will be doable."

SINCE THE JUNE vote to abandon the longtime tradition of conducting springtime municipal elections, several proposals and counter proposals emerged as a way forward. Fannon offered the first proposal, calling for the next election to take place in November 2011 with all members serving simultaneous four-year terms. Then Krupicka sent a memorandum that offered a number of different scenarios that would create staggered terms, ending the tradition of having all council members on the ballot at the same time.

"This is not good government," said Pepper in reference to staggered terms. "It makes it possible for the incumbents who are not running to turn their friends and resources over to those council members who are running who think and vote like themselves."

When members could not agree on whether or not to move forward with staggered terms, Pepper offered a compromise that would create four-year terms and make changes after November 2015. Then Hughes called for a referendum to determine what the voters thought. Last week, Euille predicted that the issue of staggered terms would not be a "deal-breaker," preventing some kind of charter amendment on election changes that would prevent the municipal election from overlapping with the presidential campaign. But a five-vote coalition failed to emerge, and staggered terms ended up being a deal-breaker after all.

"There are four members up here who could have jammed something through that would have been staggered, but we’ve said no to that because we couldn’t get five votes," said Donley. "That’s why we are maintaining the status quo."