English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
Schedule 30 Mayors and PCCs: supplementary vote system
Section 63 Elections for mayors of combined authorities 12 Schedule 5B to LDEDCA 2009 (mayors for combined authorities: further provision) is amended as follows. 13 In paragraph 4— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “which may be given for a candidate to be the mayor” substitute “(a “mayoral vote”)”; (b) in sub-paragraph (2), after “system” insert “unless there are three or more candidates”; (c) after sub-paragraph (2) insert— (3) If there are three or more candidates to be the mayor— (a) the elected mayor is to be returned under the supplementary vote system in accordance with paragraph 5, and (b) a voter’s mayoral vote is accordingly a vote capable of being given to indicate the voter’s first and second preference from among the candidates. 14 After paragraph 4 insert— 5 (1) This paragraph applies where there are three or more candidates to be a mayor. (2) In this Schedule— “first preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s first preference from among the candidates to be the mayor; “second preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s second preference from among the candidates to be the mayor. (3) If one of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election that candidate is to be returned as the mayor. (4) If none of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election, the following provisions of this paragraph apply. (5) The two candidates who received the greatest number of first preference votes given in the election remain in the contest. (6) If, by reason of an equality of first preference votes, three or more candidates are qualified to remain in the contest by virtue of sub-paragraph (5), all of them remain in the contest. (7) The other candidates are eliminated from the contest. (8) The number of second preference votes given in the election for each of the candidates remaining in the contest by voters who did not give their first preference vote to any of those candidates must be ascertained. (9) The person who must be returned as the mayor is that one of the candidates remaining in the contest who has the greatest total number of preference votes. (10) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the returning officer is to decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the mayor. (11) In this paragraph “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph). 15 In paragraph 6— (a) in sub-paragraph (2), after “one” insert “mayoral”; (b) in sub-paragraph (3), after the definition of “local government elector” insert— “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph). Elections for mayors of combined county authorities 16 Schedule 2 to LURA 2023 (mayors for combined county authority areas: further provisions about elections) is amended as follows. 17 In paragraph 4— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “which may be given for a candidate to be the mayor” substitute “(a “mayoral vote”)”; (b) in sub-paragraph (2), after “system” insert “, unless there are three or more candidates”; (c) after sub-paragraph (2) insert— (3) If there are three or more candidates to be the mayor— (a) the mayor is to be returned under the supplementary vote system in accordance with paragraph 4A, and (b) a voter’s mayoral vote is accordingly a vote capable of being given to indicate the voter’s first and second preference from among the candidates. 18 After paragraph 4 insert— 4A (1) This paragraph applies where there are three or more candidates to be a mayor. (2) In this Schedule— “first preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s first preference from among the candidates to be the mayor; “second preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s second preference from among the candidates to be the mayor. (3) If one of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election that candidate is to be returned as the mayor. (4) If none of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election, the following provisions of this paragraph apply. (5) The two candidates who received the greatest number of first preference votes given in the election remain in the contest. (6) If, by reason of an equality of first preference votes, three or more candidates are qualified to remain in the contest by virtue of sub-paragraph (5), all of them remain in the contest. (7) The other candidates are eliminated from the contest. (8) The number of second preference votes given in the election for each of the candidates remaining in the contest by voters who did not give their first preference vote to any of those candidates must be ascertained. (9) The person who must be returned as the mayor is that one of the candidates remaining in the contest who has the greatest total number of preference votes. (10) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the returning officer is to decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the mayor. (11) In this paragraph “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph). 19 In paragraph 5— (a) in sub-paragraph (2), after “one” insert “mayoral”; (b) in sub-paragraph (3), after the definition of “local government elector” insert— “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph).
Schedule 30 Mayors and PCCs: supplementary vote system
Section 63 Elections for mayors of combined authorities 12 Schedule 5B to LDEDCA 2009 (mayors for combined authorities: further provision) is amended as follows. 13 In paragraph 4— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “which may be given for a candidate to be the mayor” substitute “(a “mayoral vote”)”; (b) in sub-paragraph (2), after “system” insert “unless there are three or more candidates”; (c) after sub-paragraph (2) insert— (3) If there are three or more candidates to be the mayor— (a) the elected mayor is to be returned under the supplementary vote system in accordance with paragraph 5, and (b) a voter’s mayoral vote is accordingly a vote capable of being given to indicate the voter’s first and second preference from among the candidates. 14 After paragraph 4 insert— 5 (1) This paragraph applies where there are three or more candidates to be a mayor. (2) In this Schedule— “first preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s first preference from among the candidates to be the mayor; “second preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s second preference from among the candidates to be the mayor. (3) If one of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election that candidate is to be returned as the mayor. (4) If none of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election, the following provisions of this paragraph apply. (5) The two candidates who received the greatest number of first preference votes given in the election remain in the contest. (6) If, by reason of an equality of first preference votes, three or more candidates are qualified to remain in the contest by virtue of sub-paragraph (5), all of them remain in the contest. (7) The other candidates are eliminated from the contest. (8) The number of second preference votes given in the election for each of the candidates remaining in the contest by voters who did not give their first preference vote to any of those candidates must be ascertained. (9) The person who must be returned as the mayor is that one of the candidates remaining in the contest who has the greatest total number of preference votes. (10) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the returning officer is to decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the mayor. (11) In this paragraph “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph). 15 In paragraph 6— (a) in sub-paragraph (2), after “one” insert “mayoral”; (b) in sub-paragraph (3), after the definition of “local government elector” insert— “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph). Elections for mayors of combined county authorities 16 Schedule 2 to LURA 2023 (mayors for combined county authority areas: further provisions about elections) is amended as follows. 17 In paragraph 4— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “which may be given for a candidate to be the mayor” substitute “(a “mayoral vote”)”; (b) in sub-paragraph (2), after “system” insert “, unless there are three or more candidates”; (c) after sub-paragraph (2) insert— (3) If there are three or more candidates to be the mayor— (a) the mayor is to be returned under the supplementary vote system in accordance with paragraph 4A, and (b) a voter’s mayoral vote is accordingly a vote capable of being given to indicate the voter’s first and second preference from among the candidates. 18 After paragraph 4 insert— 4A (1) This paragraph applies where there are three or more candidates to be a mayor. (2) In this Schedule— “first preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s first preference from among the candidates to be the mayor; “second preference vote” means a mayoral vote to the extent that it is given so as to indicate a voter’s second preference from among the candidates to be the mayor. (3) If one of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election that candidate is to be returned as the mayor. (4) If none of the candidates to be the mayor receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the election, the following provisions of this paragraph apply. (5) The two candidates who received the greatest number of first preference votes given in the election remain in the contest. (6) If, by reason of an equality of first preference votes, three or more candidates are qualified to remain in the contest by virtue of sub-paragraph (5), all of them remain in the contest. (7) The other candidates are eliminated from the contest. (8) The number of second preference votes given in the election for each of the candidates remaining in the contest by voters who did not give their first preference vote to any of those candidates must be ascertained. (9) The person who must be returned as the mayor is that one of the candidates remaining in the contest who has the greatest total number of preference votes. (10) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the returning officer is to decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the mayor. (11) In this paragraph “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph). 19 In paragraph 5— (a) in sub-paragraph (2), after “one” insert “mayoral”; (b) in sub-paragraph (3), after the definition of “local government elector” insert— “mayoral vote” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(1) (as read with sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph).
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.