JANESVILLE— There won’t be a primary next month for Janesville City Council, ahead of the April general election
The city council voted 5-2 Friday night not to hold a Feb. 17 primary election, sending all certified candidates directly to the April 7 general election.
As a result, up to eight candidates advance to the April 7 election, with the Jan. 6 filing deadline now past. Candidates who filed paperwork to run in the spring city council election include:
- Incumbent Larry Squire, 4245 Wilshire Lane
- Incumbent Paul Williams, 2426 N. Lexington Dr.
- Benjamin Dobson, 3205 Windsor Lane
- Robert Hanson, 11 S. Palm St.
- Daniel Neal, 5030 N. Orchard View Dr.
- Cassandra Pope, 1511 King St.
- Shane Seeman, 1008 Suffolk Dr.
- Reese Wood, 1117 Grand Ave.
Three council seats are up for election. City Council President Aaron Burdick, the third seat up for election alongside that of Squire and Williams, has said he is not running.
All Janesville City Council seats are at-large, meaning council members serve the whole city rather than representing individual aldermanic districts.
Friday’s decision to not hold a primary came during a special council meeting called to consider whether to hold a February primary to narrow the field from eight council candidates to six.
Neal’s eligibility
Council member Josh Erdman raised questions during the meeting about the validity of Neal’s nomination paperwork, specifically whether Neal’s listed address is within the city limits. His address, 5030 N. Orchard View Dr., is in the town of Janesville, Erdman said. Clerk-Treasurer Lori Stottler also said that, based on a simple search, it appeared to be in the town of Janesville.
Stottler said all of the candidate’s nomination paperwork signatures have been verified but acknowledged she would need to do further review to confirm the candidates’ residency, a task she said was not able to be completed on Friday.
The 69 reached out to Neal on Sunday with no immediate response.
Council member Michael Cass objected to the residency line of discussion, arguing that questions about candidate eligibility were not relevant to the immediate decision on whether to hold a primary.
“I don’t feel it’s pertinent to decide if we’re going to have a primary or not,” Cass said, calling the matter more appropriate for review by election officials.
Vote on primary
Williams made the motion not to hold a primary, citing cost concerns and the belief that voters should have the opportunity to consider all candidates on the April ballot. Council Member Richard Neeno seconded the motion.
“I don’t think that it’s necessary,” Williams said, noting that not holding a primary “would save the taxpayers approximately $17,000,” in election administration costs.
“I believe we should give the voters of Janesville the opportunity to look at all the candidates individually and hold the election in April,” Williams added.
Several other council members echoed those sentiments, noting that the city of Janesville has historically declined to hold primaries even when candidate numbers exceeded twice the number of available seats.
“I see no point in spending money to narrow a field by two candidates,” Neeno said. “In past years, we’ve had this many or more candidates and didn’t do anything differently.”
Edrman, Miller dissent
Council Members Josh Erdman and Heather Miller voted against skipping the primary, saying a primary could benefit voters by reducing the field, encouraging earlier campaigning, and allowing residents more opportunity to meaningfully evaluate candidates.
Erdman said the issue deserved discussion, noting that while the cost of a primary was clearly outlined in staff memos, the potential benefits were not.
“This is the largest field-to-seat ratio we’ve had since 2003, other than 2008,” Erdman said. “There are pros to narrowing the field; it allows voters to get to know candidates earlier, improves the quality of candidate forums, and helps focus the general election on candidates most likely to serve effectively.”
Miller also expressed concern about the size of the candidate pool, particularly when it comes to public forums and voter engagement.
“When you have six or more candidates at forums, it’s difficult for voters to really evaluate them,” Miller said. “It’s not good for the candidates, and it’s not good for the public.”
