Proposition 437: How One Word Could Change Yuma's Candidate Signature Requirements

Running for public office in Yuma requires more than putting your name on a ballot. First, you have to collect enough valid signatures from city voters to qualify.

For the 2026 election, that meant at least 998 signatures. The maximum was 1,664. Those numbers came from a formula written into the City Charter, and on November 3, voters will decide whether to change how that formula works.

Proposition 437 would replace one word in the Charter: "general" with "primary."

The percentage requirement would stay exactly where it is, between 3% and 5%. What would change is the election used to calculate how many signatures a candidate needs.

It sounds like a minor adjustment. Depending on voter turnout, it could make a considerable difference to someone trying to get on the ballot.

Where the signature numbers come from

Under Article IV, Section 6 of the City Charter, candidates seeking a place on the municipal primary ballot must submit nomination petitions signed by qualified City of Yuma voters.

The number of signatures must fall between 3% and 5% of the valid ballots cast in the preceding general municipal election.

That last part matters.

The calculation isn't based on Yuma's population, the number of registered voters or how many votes a particular candidate received. It uses the total number of valid ballots cast in a specific election.

For the 2026 candidate cycle, the preceding general municipal election was held in November 2024. Using that election's ballot total, the City established a minimum of 998 and a maximum of 1,664 valid signatures.

Those figures appear in the City's 2026 candidate announcement.

A candidate who collects enough valid signatures and satisfies the other applicable requirements can qualify for the primary ballot. The petition process determines ballot access, not whether that candidate will win.

What Proposition 437 would change

The proposed amendment is straightforward.

Instead of calculating the 3% to 5% requirement using ballots cast in the preceding general municipal election, the City would use ballots cast in the preceding primary municipal election.

The Council record for Ordinance O2026-018 and the proposed Charter amendment show the change.

Everything else in that section remains intact. Candidates would still need signatures from qualified City electors. Petitions would still have to be submitted according to state law, and the City Clerk would still have to certify that the signature requirement had been met.

The City isn't proposing to eliminate nomination petitions or automatically place more candidates on the ballot.

It wants to change which election supplies the numbers.

Why that could make a difference

Consider a simple example.

Suppose a general municipal election draws 30,000 valid ballots, while the primary draws 10,000.

Under the current formula, 3% to 5% of 30,000 produces a signature range of 900 to 1,500.

Using the primary election instead, that same percentage produces a range of 300 to 500.

Ballots cast3% minimum5% maximum

General: 30,000

900

1,500

Primary: 10,000

300

500

Those are hypothetical numbers, not actual Yuma turnout figures or official future signature requirements. They illustrate what happens when the calculation uses a smaller ballot total.

The percentages haven't moved. The number of signatures has.

There's an important qualification, though. Proposition 437 doesn't guarantee that every future candidate will face a lower requirement. That depends on the actual number of valid ballots cast in the preceding primary compared with the general election that would otherwise have been used.

If the two elections produce the same ballot totals, the signature calculations would be identical.

And the City's published 998-to-1,664 requirement for 2026 should not be mistaken for a prediction of what candidates would need under the proposed amendment.

Why the City wants to change the rule

The proposal grew out of changes to Yuma's election calendar.

According to the City's Council report, voters approved a Charter amendment in 2020 moving municipal elections to even-numbered years. Since 2022, those elections have coincided with presidential and gubernatorial election cycles.

That brought a complication for candidates.

Higher general-election turnout meant larger ballot totals. Because nomination signatures were calculated as a percentage of those totals, the number of signatures candidates needed also increased.

The City says some Council and judicial candidates fell short of the required number.

There was another problem with the calendar.

According to the same report, changes in state legislation moved primary elections earlier, which also pushed nomination-petition deadlines forward. Those deadlines began falling before the Yuma County Fair, an event candidates had previously used to meet voters and gather signatures.

In other words, the City describes a situation where some candidates needed more signatures while losing a familiar opportunity to collect them.

Proposition 437 is the City's proposed solution.

The Council report presents the amendment as a way to reduce the signature burden. The formula itself supports a more specific conclusion: using primary turnout would produce fewer required signatures whenever the relevant primary ballot total is lower than the general-election total.

Whether that would encourage more people to run, or help more candidates qualify, is a separate question.

The City's explanation describes the problem it wants to address. It doesn't establish why any individual candidate failed to qualify.

What a yes or no vote means

On November 3, Yuma voters will make a decision about the calculation used for future nomination petitions.

A YES vote would amend the City Charter so the required number of signatures is calculated using valid ballots cast in the preceding primary municipal election.

A NO vote would reject that amendment, leaving the current general-municipal-election calculation in place.

Neither vote changes the 3% to 5% range or eliminates the requirement for valid signatures.

The City's June 23 announcement describes the proposal in those terms, and the final 2026 publicity pamphlet includes the amendment and its ballot language.

Proposition 437 also has nothing to do with the City's proposed $30 million expenditure-base adjustment under Proposition 436. Both questions appear on the same November ballot, but they address entirely different parts of city government.

Proposition 436 concerns spending authority. Proposition 437 concerns access to the candidate ballot.

Would it make Yuma elections more competitive?

That's the question the ballot language can't answer.

A lower signature requirement could make it easier for some candidates to qualify, particularly those without large campaigns or established networks of supporters. Fewer required signatures would mean fewer valid signatures to gather before the filing deadline.

But qualifying for the ballot is only one obstacle to running for office. A candidate still needs to organize a campaign, reach voters and convince enough of them to offer their support.

The official records don't tell us how many additional candidates might run if Proposition 437 passes, whether more would successfully qualify or how competitive future elections might become.

Those outcomes can't be calculated from a Charter amendment.

What voters can establish is the rule itself.

The City wants to keep the same nomination-petition percentages while changing the election used to calculate them. It expects that change to ease the burden on candidates.

Voters have to decide whether that is a change worth making.

For a broader look at both measures on the November ballot, see What Are Yuma Propositions 436 and 437? What Your Vote Actually Changes.