I was a member of the Charter Commission and do recall this area having discussion. If the mayor’s interpretation was correct, then the citizens would have no chance to push back and question the wisdom of the people they elected to represent and protect them.
In addition, the one polling place also hinders the rights of the voters. During any election, we have six polling places. The reason is to make it easy for people to vote in their own neighborhoods. The fact the city solicitor didn’t know about the requirement is another example of the former administration just railroading the public. So they have to request the benevolent governor to give permission for one polling place, which violates the voters’ rights. If they were wrong on voting place, why should we believe they are right on their interpretation of the charter?
I am asking Mayor Cahill to get a legal opinion outside of our city solicitor to avoid denying the voters he works for the right to overturn a former mayor and council opinion. No new mayor needs to start his new administration with one or more lawsuits, which was the hallmark legacy of the former mayor.