Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, January 27, 2013

Editorial: Election shift

Any benefits from shifting local elections to a November schedule aren’t worth the trade-offs.

January 27, 2013

Advertisement

Saving money and increasing participation in local city and school elections certainly are desirable goals, but the problems that would come from moving city elections from April to November far outweigh the advantages.

The Kansas House Elections Committee discussed the idea of consolidation last week, and Secretary of State Kris Kobach voiced support for the idea of consolidating local elections, now held in the spring, with partisan national and state elections held in November.

“I think it can be done and I think it should be done,” he told the committee. “It will definitely increase participation.”

But Kobach said such a shift would only work if Kansas voters accepted significant changes to the way they elect local city councils and commissions and school boards. First, he said, cities and districts that elect local officials by geographic districts would have to drop that practice because the number of different ballots that would be necessary to accommodate such a system would be too confusing for poll workers and increase the possibility of election errors. Cities that currently choose to use districts to ensure geographic representation on their boards and commissions would have to go to an at-large election system.

Lawrence already uses an at-large system to elect its city commissioners and school board members, but moving local elections to November would require another major change, Kobach said: introducing party primaries to the system. Does anyone think that turning Lawrence City Commission and school board elections into partisan, Republican-vs.-Democrat races would be an improvement? Such a move would only politicize a body that should remain dedicated to the good of the community as a whole.

It’s true that November general elections draw considerably more voters than local elections, particularly in a presidential election year. There’s some question, however, about whether local elections would get lost among state and federal races on the November ballot and whether voters in those elections would be sufficiently focused on the local races and issues that have such a significant impact on their daily lives and taxes.

Eliminating April elections probably would save some money, and it might well increase the number of voters in local races, but the trade-offs are just too high.

Comments

Richard Heckler 1 year, 6 months ago

We can handle it let's do it. More voters turn out for November elections.More I would say are in town during November elections.

Lawrence could do it's own primary however eliminating primaries could save a ton of money for candidates .....maybe. We make sure we get the surviving candidates on the ballots. Confuse poll workers how?

Enjoy the early spring.

0

Catalano 1 year, 6 months ago

Do you really think partisan politics officially belong at City Hall?

0

Lynn Grant 1 year, 6 months ago

Excellent editorial and right on target!

0

Keith 1 year, 6 months ago

I don't see why Kobach thinks moving the votes to November would require partisan politics. If there needs to be a primary election for city commissioners before the general election, just provide both Republican and Democratic primary voters with the same ballot for city commissioners. The winners would be listed in the general election on the one ballot both parties use.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.