As the media continues its seemingly endless stream of discussing the results of the 2020 Presidential Election, it is important more now than ever to remember that the ballot had more than one page for a reason. Beyond the Presidential Election, a ballot is not issued solely in election years and also contains elections about city-level issues, statewide concerns, and even other non-Presidential federal elections. There were several state-level measures that even made national headlines such as Alaska’s and Massachusetts’ efforts to implement ranked-choice voting and Florida’s Amendment 2 that would raise the minimum wage in the state. The jurisdictional differences between these levels of government matter and should influence how voters take the time to inform themselves. City and municipal governments are responsible for concerns, such as police department budgeting, education reform, lower-level courts, and local infrastructure. Although the federal government can attempt to address issues in these fields, much of its actions will lack oversight and come in the form of funding with no policy prescriptions.
A 2018 Johns Hopkins University study demonstrated that many Americans lack civic knowledge as it pertains to jurisdictional issues with about 25% of study participants not knowing whether federal or state governments were in charge of law enforcement and about 30% not knowing which government creates and enforces zoning laws. One of the study’s researchers, John Hopkins University political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg, cited insufficient media coverage as a potential cause for this reported ignorance. Consequently, voters whose top priorities involve improving the communities around them should, in addition to learning more about federal elections, bolster their participation in local politics.
Unfortunately, in recent years, apathy has driven the discourse surrounding local elections. In the 2017 New York City mayoral election, only 21.7% of registered voters voted. This is a significant drop from the over 90% voter participation that the 1953 New York City mayoral election boasted. This trend is not unique to New York City but can be seen in many other major American cities, such as Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles. An academic study examined 340 mayoral elections across 144 populous U.S. cities found that a lack of campaign spending, low voter mobilization, and the consequent decrease in media coverage all contribute to the low turnout rates that have become a trend around the country. In fact, in Chicago, low mayoral turnout was attributed to voters who felt that they had been left behind by their local leaders. Democracy is at its best when the people’s voices are heard and status quo attitudes towards local elections reflect an area for improvement. People should pay more attention to local elections and take the time to learn about the stances of local candidates and propositions.
One particularly key issue that city elections can determine is the funding and maintenance of critical infrastructure. A 2012 report on infrastructure conducted by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli identifies roads, bridges, and water and sewer systems as infrastructure areas that local officials can improve. For citizens wishing to express their grievances with outdated infrastructure, the federal election may not be the correct outlet to do so. The main barriers to infrastructure updates that were outlined by DiNapoli were a lack of money and the infrequent rate at which infrastructure gets updated. The report concludes that these issues are not insurmountable, but, rather, can be resolved through strategic budget planning and a willingness to update infrastructure.
Electing candidates who embrace these two strategies can result in a significant improvement in the quality of life of those in a given local community. Local government officials can vastly improve living conditions via infrastructure updates. For example, In New Jersey, local officials issued a lawsuit against companies that contaminated drinking water. Campaign stances could be the earliest sign of a candidate’s willingness to take concrete action in cases such as the one in New Jersey. The maintenance of water system infrastructure could be the difference between residents having clean drinking water and those same residents facing a whole host of health issues from unsanitary tap water. For example, Flint, Michigan has lacked clean drinking water and increased attention towards local politics could be the beginning of ameliorating that situation. Local government officials in Flint have exacerbated this issue due to their refusal to renovate pipes that have contaminated the water sources. Therefore, any solution must involve innovation from local government officials since they have jurisdiction over the drinking water, and the potential for increased attention on local elections could spur candidates to propose new solutions.
The stakes of local elections might not be as widely reflected in the media as they are about the Presidential Election, but local elections have real consequences. Whether it is the guarantee of having healthy drinking water or the benefits of maintained streets and bridges, infrastructure is a concern that should remain on the forefront of voters’ minds as they consider the candidates of a city-level election.
Apathy and low turnout should not continue to define local elections. Although the media and general civics education play a large role in fueling this lack of democratic participation, the causes are not as important as the steps that individuals can take to have their voice heard. Individuals can research candidates and their stances on issues, and then proceed to vote based on the information that they have learned. There are ways to stay civically engaged in local politics even beyond voting. If someone feels particularly passionate about a candidate, they can even reach out and see if there are any volunteering opportunities available. Additionally, a person could start attending community meetings or begin to voice their opinions to their city council members.
There is no trade-off between learning about federal elections and local elections, and, as such, people should take the time to become informed about their local elections. Local elections have important consequences and voters should not dismiss them. The aforementioned issues only scratch the surface of what local governments can address and voters should do their part to ensure that these concerns can be resolved.
Image Credit: Melba City Hall by Fred Leaders is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
