November Elections for Vienna
While Vienna incumbents tout 23% as a high voter turnout, they really know that number is terrible. Low turnout in May elections is a problem across Virginia and a solution is available.
BY BRIAN KIRWIN PUBLISHED JULY 31, 2006 - THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT, OPINION COLUMNIs local government closest to the people? Or maybe the question should be, “Is local government close to enough people?” That’s the core of the discussion as cities consider holding local elections in November instead of May. Virginia Beach recently joined several localities in moving City Council and School Board elections to November. Held in even-number years, they’ll join races for president, the U.S. House and Senate.
When government derives its power from the consent of the people, having as many of the people involved is vital to good government. May elections, perhaps by design, have minimized that involvement to pathetically low levels.Dismal voter participation in May stretches across South Hampton Roads and is remarkably uniform. This year, for example, the turnout was: Norfolk, 18 percent; Chesapeake, 17 percent; Portsmouth, 20 percent; Suffolk, 23 percent; Virginia Beach, 17 percent.
Compare that with the last evenyear November elections, the presidential voting in 2004, according to the State Board of Elections: Norfolk, 65 percent; Chesapeake, 73 percent; Portsmouth, 67 percent; Suffolk, 70 percent; and Virginia Beach, 67 percent.
This is a regional issue. Despite several outreach efforts, increased advertising and candidate spending, May turnout is low. It’s important for the region, from civic leagues to business groups, political parties to friends and neighbors, to discuss moving local elections to November.
Several interest groups have argued that May elections are better for candidates, but electoral change should be focused on what’s better for citizens. Politicians’ comfort is low on my list of priorities, and citizens gain several real benefits by this simple change of the election schedule:
• Real budget accountability. There’s something seriously wrong when candidates campaign on real estate taxes and budget issues and make those decisions after Election Day in May. Not only do those promises fade quickly afterward, but residents actually have tax and budget decisions made by council members just voted out of office.
A November election makes taxes and budgets more accountable. When city councils vote on those budgets in May, they’ll stand before the voters to defend their actions in the fall. Promises are replaced by results .
• Real campaigning. Low turnout for May elections is no secret and candidates know it. If 80 percent of registered voters are staying home, candidates will not spend time or money trying to reach them. Campaign activities, advertising and communications are focused on likely voters.A November election is just the opposite. An overwhelming majority of voters are likely voters in November. No citizen can be ignored. Campaigns focused on a special interest fringe will be challenged to appeal to a broader constituency.
• Real representation. When elected officials know that 80 percent of voters will not show up for an election, they work hard to represent at least half of those who will. What kind of representation can you expect from someone whom 90 percent of registered voters didn’t choose? Can a city council honestly represent a city with the support of so few?
Those who enjoy small May elections may continue to use the failed arguments heard in Virginia Beach, like calling voters “uninformed” and saying that voting for president and city council at the same time is “confusing.” They fear that a presidential campaign across the entire nation will knock a City Council race right into oblivion. They shudder that politicians and political parties will get involved in elections, as if the numerous endorsements in this May’s elections didn’t really happen.
One thing is clear. It’s time for the conversation to begin. It’s time to look at how well city councils represent citizens, and whether increased accountability, outreach and representation makes for better government.
In the end, it is your government, and isn’t a government listening to 70 percent of you better than one that listens to only 17 percent?
Comments
§ 24.2-222. Election and terms of mayor and council for cities and towns.
The qualified voters of each city and town shall elect a mayor, if so provided by charter, and a council for the terms provided by charter. Except as provided in § 24.2-222.1, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special: (i) any election of mayor or councilmen of a city or town whose charter provides for such elections at two-year or four-year intervals shall take place at the May general election of an even-numbered year and (ii) any election of mayor or councilmen of a city or town whose charter provides for such elections at one-year or three-year intervals shall take place at the general election in May of the years designated by charter. The persons so elected shall enter upon the duties of their offices on July 1 succeeding their election and remain in office until their successors have qualified.
(Code 1950, §§ 24-160, 24-168; 1970, c. 462, § 24.1-90; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 119; 1972, c. 747; 1993, c. 641; 2000, c. 1045.)
§ 24.2-222.1. Alternative election of mayor and council at November general election in cities and towns.
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 24.2-222, the council of a city or town may provide by ordinance that the mayor, if an elected mayor is provided for by charter, and council shall be elected at the November general election date of any cycle as designated in the ordinance, for terms to commence January 1. No such ordinance shall be adopted between January 1 and the May general election date of the year in which city or town elections regularly are scheduled to be held therein.
B. Alternatively, the registered voters of a city or town may file a petition with the circuit court of the city or of the county within which the town is located asking that a referendum be held on the question of whether the city or town should elect the mayor, if an elected mayor is provided for by charter, and council members at the November general election date of any cycle as designated in the petition. The petition shall be signed by registered voters equal in number to at least ten percent of the number registered in the city or town on the January 1 preceding the filing.
The court, pursuant to § 24.2-684, shall order the election officials on a day fixed in the order to conduct a referendum on the question, provided that no such referendum shall be scheduled between January 1 and the May general election date of the year in which city or town elections regularly are scheduled to be held therein. The clerk of the court shall publish notice of the referendum once a week for the three consecutive weeks prior to the referendum in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, and shall post a copy of the notice at the door of the courthouse of the city or county within which the town is located. The question on the ballot shall be:
"Shall the (city or town) change the election date of the mayor (if so provided by charter) and members of council from the May general election to the November general election (in even-numbered or odd-numbered years or as otherwise designated in the petition)?"
If members of the school board in the city or town are elected by the voters, the ballot question also shall state that the change in election date applies to the election of school board members.
The referendum shall be held and the results certified as provided in § 24.2-684. If a majority of the voters voting in the referendum vote in favor of the change, the mayor and council thereafter shall be elected at the November general election date for terms to commence January 1.
C. Except as provided in subsection D, no term of a mayor or member of council shall be shortened in implementing the change to the November election date. Mayors and members of council who were elected at a May general election and whose terms are to expire as of June 30 shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.
D. In any city or town that elects its council biennially or quadrennially and that changes to the November general election date in odd-numbered years from the May general election date in even-numbered years, mayors and members of council who were elected at a May general election shall have their term of office shortened by six months but shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.
(2000, c. 1045; 2002, c. 30.)
Posted by: Historic Vienna | May 10, 2007 01:51 PM
Git-r-done!
(need i say more?)
Posted by: The Mayor (not of Vienna, of Course) | May 11, 2007 08:03 AM