When 62% of Voters Say “No” — And City Hall Says “Too Bad”

Dear Editor,

In a representative democracy, there is a simple principle that sustains public trust: when the people vote, their decision matters.

In Kingman, that principle was violated on September 16, 2025. In the previous municipal election, 62% of Kingman voters approved what effectively became City Code Section 2-24, a measure designed to place clear limits on how Transaction Privilege Tax (TPT) revenue could be raised and used. Voters were explicit. Those funds were designated for neighborhood street repair and maintenance, not for discretionary projects or politically favored initiatives. If the City Council and Mayor, Ken Watkins, wanted to use those fund, they had to ask the voters at the Ballot Box.

Yet, less than a year later, the Mayor and City Council unanimously repealed Section 2-24 through City Ordinance 1983.

Even more troubling than the repeal itself was how it was done.

Rather than placing Ordinance 1983 on the Call to the Public or Action Agenda—where discussion, explanation, and public comment are expected—the Mayor placed it on the Consent Agenda. That decision ensured no discussion, no debate, and no opportunity for public input.

That is not transparency.

That is not accountability.

In many voter’s opinion, it is dishonesty, deception, and betrayal.

And it is certainly not respect for the voters.

Supporters of the repeal may argue that the Council acted within its legal authority. That may be true.

But legality is not the same as legitimacy. The question voters should ask is not “Could they do this?” but “Should they have done this?”

When elected officials quietly undo a voter-approved measure—especially one passed by such a decisive margin—it sends a clear message: your vote can be overridden if it becomes inconvenient for us.

This issue is bigger than taxes. It is bigger than budgets. It is about trust. When voters are told one thing during an election and then shown something very different afterward, confidence in local government erodes. People disengage. Cynicism grows. And that damages the very foundation of effective civic leadership.

If City Code Section 2-24 was flawed, the responsible approach would have been straightforward:
Explain the problem.

Present alternatives.

Invite public discussion.

And let the people be heard.

That did not happen.

Instead, a voter mandate was repealed quietly, efficiently, and without scrutiny. And once that precedent is set, no voter-approved measure is truly safe from similar treatment.

This is not about relitigating the past. It is about learning from it. The role of the Mayor and City Council is not to “work around” the will of the people, but to represent it faithfully—even when it limits their discretion. Especially then.

As Kingman approaches the 2026 election, voters face a fundamental question:

Do we accept a system where voter decisions are treated as temporary obstacles, or do we demand leadership that respects the consent of the governed?

I believe Kingman deserves leadership that understands a simple truth:

When 62% of voters say “No,” City Hall doesn’t get to say “Too Bad.”

Respectfully,
Mark “Doc” Berry
Candidate for Mayor
Kingman, Arizona