Albuquerque is heading into a high-stakes December mayoral runoff after neither incumbent Tim Keller nor challenger Darren White secured the 50% majority required under the city charter. Keller led the first round with 36%, while White received 31%—meaning 64% of voters cast ballots against the incumbent, a clear sign of dissatisfaction despite his plurality lead. The 2013 charter amendment mandates a majority winner, forcing a runoff that now places both campaigns—and taxpayers—under new financial pressures.

The runoff is expected to cost the city nearly $2 million, and that figure does not include the additional public financing Keller qualified for under Albuquerque’s campaign rules. Keller has used public funding successfully in all three of his mayoral bids, including the upcoming runoff. When combined with the runoff’s operational costs, the total price tag for this election cycle approaches $3 million. White, who did not qualify for public funding, faces a significant financial disadvantage—one that Eddy argues could effectively determine the outcome before a single additional vote is cast.

This local contest also highlights broader problems in New Mexico’s election landscape. Due to constitutional changes in the early 2000s and the 2018 Local Election Act, municipalities can design their own systems, resulting in a fragmented “patchwork.” Some cities use plurality (Roswell), others use runoffs (Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Gallup), and others use ranked-choice voting (RCV) (Santa Fe, Las Cruces). Rules around voter ID and campaign financing vary as well.

Although Eddy is not usually a supporter of RCV, he argues it would have produced a clearer reflection of voter sentiment in this election. Because 64% voted against Keller, an RCV system may have delivered a majority winner on election night, possibly Darren White. Supporters believe RCV ensures majority legitimacy and minimizes the impact of spoiler candidates, though critics cite its complexity and unpredictability.