Should Palm Springs voters elect their mayor? City seeks public input on possible change

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. (KESQ) - With the November election just weeks away, voters across the Coachella Valley are preparing to select their local leaders. But in Palm Springs, residents won't find a mayoral race on their ballots.

That's because the city currently operates under a rotating mayor system, where each of the five elected City Council members takes a turn serving as mayor for one year.

Now, a renewed push to return to a directly elected mayor is raising questions about representation, consistency in city leadership and whether residents should have the final say in who holds the position.

News Channel 3 spoke with Palm Springs City Councilmember Ron deHarte, community advocate Thomi Clinton and local residents about the proposed change and what it could mean for the city.

Why Palm Springs has a rotating mayor

Palm Springs previously allowed voters to elect a mayor directly. However, the city transitioned to district-based elections in 2019 following concerns involving the California Voting Rights Act and minority representation.

Under the current system, residents elect City Council members within their respective districts, and the mayoral position rotates annually among those five council members.

Supporters of the rotating system argue it gives representatives from different parts of the city an opportunity to serve as mayor.

Others believe having a different mayor each year creates challenges for continuity and long-term leadership.

Councilmember Ron deHarte, who represents District 3, supports bringing back a directly elected mayor.

"I think the biggest thing that you'll see is you'll see strategic leadership. You'll see representation that is consistent and has a stronger foothold in the community, with stakeholders and with our business partners and with business entities throughout the region," deHarte said.

He argues that allowing residents to vote directly for their mayor would give them another opportunity to participate in city government without taking away their district representation.

"We're going to get a vote for who our city council member is, and we're going to get a vote for who our mayor is," deHarte explained. "So we're increasing the opportunity to have a greater say on who runs our city."

What could change, and how much would it cost?

According to deHarte, one option being discussed would add a sixth seat to the City Council, with the additional member serving as mayor.

The existing five council districts would remain unchanged.

DeHarte said that maintaining the city's majority-minority district is especially important to him and that the conversation is not about eliminating district-based representation.

The change, however, could come with additional costs for taxpayers.

DeHarte said the mayor currently earns approximately $49,000 annually. Under the proposal he described, the city would take on the cost of another elected position, including compensation and equipment.

He estimated the annual cost of a laptop and iPad at approximately $1,500, in addition to the salary and other expenses associated with another council member.

"There are costs that are associated with adding representative government, but that's a very small cost when the big picture of the size of Palm Springs and what Palm Springs has going for it and the type of leadership we need moving the city forward," deHarte said.

Those figures are deHarte's estimates, not a complete independent assessment of the proposal's potential financial impact.

When asked whether a citywide mayoral election could favor candidates with greater financial resources, deHarte said he believes community support would help candidates raise the money needed to campaign.

He also said he has no plans to run for the position himself.

"I'm not running for mayor. I'm running for city council member," deHarte said. "I want you to have a vote for who your mayor is."

Residents weigh in on consistency and leadership

Some residents who spoke with News Channel 3 expressed support for having one directly elected mayor serve a longer term.

Palm Springs resident Michael Johnson said he believes a consistent mayor would provide a recognizable face for the city, particularly when interacting with visitors, businesses and other communities.

"I actually like a single mayor because they were the face of the city," Johnson said. "And I think when you have this rotating all this time, it's confusing for the outside world, for the people that are coming in, the tourists, celebrities, whatever."

Johnson said he would support a proposal returning the city to a directly elected mayor.

Palm Springs resident Mary Hayes expressed similar sentiments, saying she believes the current rotation can make it more difficult to maintain a consistent approach to city leadership.

"I think it would be more stable. And the decisions would be more consistent, rather than everybody rotating and coming in and having a different approach to everything," Hayes said.

She also believes voters should have the opportunity to choose a different mayor if they become dissatisfied with the person serving in the position.

Concerns about representation and whose voices are heard

Not everyone is convinced changing the system would improve representation.

Thomi Clinton, founder and CEO of the Transgender Health and Wellness Centers, questions what residents would actually gain from the proposal.

Clinton expressed concern that a citywide mayoral election could favor residents with greater financial resources and political influence while leaving working-class and marginalized communities with less representation.

"We need to hear from the people that would be impacted the most by this, which are going to be the lower income or middle income marginalized communities," Clinton said.

They also questioned whether city leaders are providing enough information to help residents understand the potential consequences of changing the system.

"I think the rotation gives everyone an opportunity to represent, and it allows what's called dissemination of ideas," Clinton said.

Clinton believes the city should also be focusing on issues such as housing affordability and the financial challenges facing working-class residents.

"I think that the city council should be focusing on reasonable rent or rent control and other things, and I feel that these elections, they distract from what the people need," Clinton said.

They also raised concerns about whether community meetings alone would be sufficient to reach residents who work multiple jobs or cannot attend in person.

Clinton believes the question should ultimately be placed before voters rather than being decided solely by the City Council.

"You need to give it to the people to decide, and you need to allow them to speak," Clinton said. "And if you want this, you need to be 100% honest with why you want it and what you get from it, so that the people can make their own decision."

While Clinton and deHarte disagree over the potential benefits of changing the system, both emphasized the importance of residents having a voice in the process.

Could the issue appear on a March ballot?

The city is currently gathering public feedback through community meetings and an online survey before determining its next steps.

DeHarte said the City Council could decide to move forward with a ballot measure, while a separate citizen-led initiative could also pursue placing the question before voters.

He said a March 2027 election is among the possibilities being discussed, although no ballot measure has been finalized.

DeHarte said he believes residents have already expressed significant interest in electing their mayor directly, but acknowledged that public feedback could change the outcome.

"If what we learn in the feedback that we get from the citizens is we want to stay where we're at, of course, I will stand in line and support that," deHarte said.

The councilmember also encouraged residents to attend the upcoming community meetings, listen to different perspectives and learn more about the proposal before deciding where they stand.

How Palm Springs residents can have their voices heard

The City of Palm Springs has scheduled two additional community meetings this month to gather feedback on the future of the mayoral position.

Thursday, October 15: District 3 Community Meeting

• Time: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Location: Agua Caliente Cultural Museum
• Address: 140 N. Indian Canyon Drive, Palm Springs

Monday, October 19: District 4 Community Meeting

• Time: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Location: Palm Springs High School
• Address: 2401 E. Baristo Road, Palm Springs

Residents are welcome to attend either meeting, regardless of which council district they live in.

The meetings provide opportunities to ask questions, hear different perspectives and share opinions directly with city leaders.

The city is also encouraging residents to participate in its Mayoral Position Community Survey, available in English and Spanish.

Click here to participate in the city's online survey and learn more about the community meetings.

Residents needing translation services or other accommodations for the meetings are encouraged to contact the Palm Springs City Clerk's Office at (760) 323-8204 at least 48 hours in advance.

For now, Palm Springs will continue selecting its mayor through the annual council rotation.

Whether residents eventually get the opportunity to elect their mayor directly will depend on what happens after the city finishes gathering feedback and whether a proposal moves forward to the ballot.

News Channel 3 will continue following the discussion and the City Council's next steps.