When I ran across Jason Spencer’s story in today’s Spartanburg Herald-Journal floating the idea of changing the municipal and school board elections to fall on the standard, even-numbered years, I couldn’t help but crack a smile. After all, the Spark has been loudly promoting this discussion — more or less alone — for months now. It was in our early election Big Idea story about forming the local election debate, and it was in our campaign interviews with City Council District 4 candidates Thomas Belenchia and Cate Brandt Ryba. If it’s a part of the local political discussion, I think it’s safe to say that the Spark is at least a part of the reason.
And I think it’s wonderful that someone like Spencer has taken the topic on, and actually investigated who would support the idea, who wouldn’t, and what would need to happen to make it work. It’s a rare ideas piece from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal — something they almost never do — and Spencer handles it fairly well. Of course, he doesn’t mention the humble local blog/media outlet that’s been pushing hard for the subject to become part of the discussion, but I’m sure the last thing that chain-owned news outlet wants to do is give a nod to another media outlet. (When we riff on the SH-J‘s content, like this very column, we at least have the courtesy to mention the source.)
And while the story itself is quite good in many ways, I actually have a rare criticism of Spencer here. He doesn’t address race, which is the big elephant in the room. Spartanburg is a majority black city, yet the city government has a long history of discouraging participation by the black community on the local level. In fact, this is the reason that we have district elections in Spartanburg, thanks to an NAACP lawsuit that forced the City to end its at-large (and white dominated) elections for City Council seats. And since the city of Spartanburg was very much in the Democrat camp during the 2008 election — and probably has been for almost every election in recent history, given the strong track record of black voters supporting Democratic candiates — it’s hard not to wonder if there’s a connection. After all, the local political dynamic would completely change if black voters — again, the majority population in the city of Spartanburg — turned out in the same numbers for municipal elections as they do for national and state ones.
Yet Spencer doesn’t even mention this. He also doesn’t mention the related issue of economic control, since poor voters (many of which are black) tend not to turn our on off-year elections (work being one major reason), effectively giving the vote to more economically advantaged groups. Sure, anyone can vote, and will if they care enough, but taking advantage of the times when the highest numbers of voters are available simply hasn’t been a priority for the local government. Why is that?
Oddly, Spencer doesn’t address that. The closest he gets to even addressing the overall issue is this …
The S.C. Election Commission has gotten the question before: Why are off-year elections held?
“We’ve found that many say it is the candidates or issues on the ballot — as well as the election — being on its own, by itself, so the candidates don’t get lost in the bigger elections,” Public Relations Director Gary Baum said.
“What we get is a conditioning of the voter … to turn out in November. Many voters enjoy the November of the odd-year election because the candidate issues are more … discussed, and the message is not lost. The candidates are more accessible. And there are few, if any, lines for voters to stand in.”
Even to the untrained eye, this is a rubbish explanation. The real reason has nothing to do with “conditioning,” but rather tradition. It’s been this way for a long time — much longer than the idea of voter conditioning has been — and the idea that the candidates are more accessible is plain bunk, since there’s no reason a local candidate would be any less available on an even-numbered year than an off-numbered one. And Spencer — very out of character — just lets this slide.
That said, ignoring that one glaring flaw, it’s an informative enough story. I’m genuinely excited to see the Spartanburg Herald-Journal taking on this idea — never mind where they got the idea in the first place — and the shift in tone to more proactive approach to local government coverage is very welcome indeed. Here’s hoping that they keep it up, and that their coverage only gets better.
Steve Shanafelt
I should also note that the Herald-Journal really dropped the ball on when they ran this article. Had it been prior to the election — you know, when people could actually vote for candidates who supported the idea of changing the local election schedule — it would have been useful. We covered it, and we put it right in the center of our election coverage, but the SH-J is mentioning when it’s too late to actually do anything about it. That’s a big missed opportunity.
I like having an election every year. I agree with Mr Baum that it helps make a habit. I like short lines and having oftentimes the candidates right there to talk with at the polling station. Local elections are so important I think that it’s good to focus away from the shadow of national party politics.
It’s an interesting theory, and it’s certainly not too much to ask for citizens to spend a few moments each year participating in the democratic process. But embarrassingly low voter turnout is evidence that it doesn’t work, at least from the perspective of getting a representative sample of the population to show up to vote.
I absolutely agree with you that local elections need to get out of the shadow of national party politics. The local level is the only place where a handful of citizens without significant financial support can make real change in their communities. It’s more important in many ways than anything at the national level.
I’m just not sure that off-year elections are the best way — or even a very good way — of bringing people into that process.
The most important thing is to get people informed and involved. A vote isn’t a representative sample of the population, it’s those that care enough to show up. What’s more troublesome to me is the number of offices that run unopposed.
Me too. We’d surely see higher turnout if there were actual contests rather than a bunch of foregone conclusions. As I noted in a post shortly after the election, it was a little deflating to put in a so much effort for the election coverage only to be able to vote for a single office in my district. I didn’t even have school board candidates to vote on.
It’s hard to get motivated to vote when your vote itself appears to mean nothing because there’s only one person on the ballot. That’s another argument for changing the local election years, as there will be hotly contested state and national elections, even if the local ones are non-contests that year.
The other factor is making the public aware of just what’s at stake in these local elections, and that their voices really do matter. That’s a large part of what we’re trying to do here on the Spark, and it’s obviously something that’s on Jason Spencer’s radar. There’s been an encouraging trend of local political discussion happening — the local Drinking Liberally chapter comes to mind as one grassroots effort — but there’s clearly a lot of work to be done.
There was little to no encouragement to go vote in this latest election. Like Steve I only had one position to vote. Sadly I forgot about the day until later in the morning and work prevented me from getting to the polls before they closed.
From my limited perspective the only news outlet that was really giving the election any coverage was the Spark and we have Steve and Chris to thank for that. I saw more about all the candidates for all positions here then anywhere else. It was true last year as I used the data Steve had so thoughtfully dug up for me to decide on state positions. I was really having a hard time finding a good source to do comparisons elsewhere, plus information about any local or state referendums of which there was one.
Personally I would prefer voting for more then one thing on election day. If done right, people can get all they need on local issues as well as state and national. I thing The Spark did an excellent job this year.
I am not quite sure how staffing and rental issues are paid for holding actual elections and who’s budget they come out of, but it sure seems a waste to hold elections so people can maybe vote for one small thing and the turn out be so lousy cause no one really new any info. Way to make good use of one’s budgeted tax dollars.
I know this is well after the fact of the article…..but I would say that I don’t see anything wrong with Jason Spencer’s decision not to mention race (or to focus on political party) in his article.
Steve suggests that higher black voter turnout would “change the dynamic” in local politics and government. But the fact is that — in fact, BECAUSE of the single-member district Steve pointed to — representation from black and white neighborhoods is pretty much locked in. Jerome Rice, for example, ran unopposed in a majority-black, single-member district; higher turnout wouldn’t have made a difference. There were two African-American District 7 school board members up for re-election….they, too, ran unopposed in majority-black districts.
In majority-white districts, meanwhile, the issue of black voter turnout matters very little. Would Thomas Belenchia have defeated Cate Ryba if more African-Americans voted? I very seriously doubt it. (And regarding “political dynamics,” In fact, Belenchia positioned himself as the more “conservative” candidate — and still lost.)
Where race might really matter would be if there were NOT single-member districts and the vote was still at-large. Higher black turnout could make a difference in a City-wide election (which raises the obvious question: if African-Americans are in the majority in the City, would they have been better off — by 2009, anyway — if the NAACP had not pushed for single-member districts?). Of course, in the Mayor’s race this year, the notion has been presented that the black community rallied around Junie White and begged him to run. Not sure if that’s totally correct, though several black leaders clearly did ask him to run…..but the point is that the will of the black community was, according to popular perception, served in that City-wide race.
Anyway, it may be that pushing municipal elections to regular election cycles makes sense. And it also may be that such a move would lead to larger voter turnout on the part of African-Americans. But I don’t think it would change the political dynamic much at all, since single-member districts have things pretty well locked in as it is (for better or worse). So I don’t find fault in this regard with Spencer’s article.