Election Reflection: Local Elections Matter

With an average voter turnout of 17.72% in north suburban races on April 9th, one wonders about the state of citizen engagement in local politics.

It could be argued that low voter turnout means non-voters are perfectly happy with the status quo and trust that whoever is elected will do right by them. It might also mean that they feel the opposite, that their vote makes no difference and whoever’s elected will be corrupt or do wrong by them. One might also argue, persuasively, that these residents are not taking personal responsibility for being informed about candidates, ballot issues, or even about how local government matters.

But having spent the last twenty years of my professional life focused on the political doings of our northern Cook and southern Lake County suburbs, I see the way in which local voters are affirmatively cut off from avenues that would allow them to access non-biased information about issues and candidates.

News media changes contribute to the diminution of the public forum. Popularly known as the “fourth branch of government” because the press provides additional checks-and-balances in our democracy, in-depth investigative local reporting has declined over the years. While residents receive free weekly newspapers (22nd Century Media) and can access on-line news through outlets such as this one, Patch.com, much of the news is posted by the very people with an interest in the story instead of by reporters. It used to be that when I sent out a press release, a reporter would call me for more detail and develop a story. Now, either my release is printed verbatim, or there’s no one to handle it. There’s virtually no difference between a letter to the editor and news.

Voters are also at a disadvantage without a robust League of Women Voters. According to Robert Putman, researcher of American civic engagement and author of Bowling Alone, membership in the LWV declined 42% between 1969 and 1995 alone. Advances for women in the professional workforce and an overall decline in mass membership groups contributed to the decline. But their diminution leaves a gaping hole in the local civic sphere. The LWV has always served an important function as a nonpartisan source of information about controversial issues, and a training ground for women interested in public service. It’s through the League that many of us registered to vote, first learned of “Robert’s Rules of Order” and processes for civil debate, heard from those running for office, and found out how our various branches of government function. I am a proud long-time member of the Wilmette LWV and I remember how League volunteers once proliferated as observers of boards and commissions. They were our trusted watchdogs. Today, local Leagues are hanging on, but with fewer members, less able to mind the political store.

The opposite of the kind of accountability and transparency the LWV has stood for since its founding in 1920 is exemplified by “citizens groups” such as the Winnetka Home Owners Association (WHOA) that thrive on e-mail communications. Nothing about WHOA’s structure, membership, or finances is in the public domain, but they claim to represent the majority of Winnetkans. There’s no entity in Winnetka that has been able to engage WHOA’s leaders in a public debate on their assertions, leaving voters hanging in the balance.

Finally, voter turnout is affected by the prevalence of contested races. “Caucus” politics, meant to encourage consensus and vet candidates, has become an outdated method for selecting political leaders. A 2007 Chicago Tribune story summarizes the controversy that surrounds “this suburban tradition for picking candidates”: “Some community members view the practice as undemocratic because a self-selected committee chooses the vast majority of eventual winners long before the election. Others say the process evens the playing field so qualified people can win seats, even if they don't have lots of money or a network of powerful friends.”

In reality, caucuses act as a one-party system of government that works best in small, homogeneous communities where most people are civically engaged. But where the community is large or its residents have a diversity of thought, income, and life experience, the caucus, a private organization, can be restrictive. With substantial coffers and few members, the caucus system can further alienate voters. Combine this with a lack of trusted mechanisms to foster consensus – an intelligent press, nonpartisan groups like the LWV, state oversight of campaign finance laws, a culture of educated voting – the caucus wields power equivalent to the elected officials who revolve in and out of it.

Since communities without a caucus system are more likely have contested races, individual candidates must run their own campaigns and voter turnout tends to be higher. In last week’s races, voter turnout in the non-caucus suburbs was 22.46% compared to 16.92% in the caucus suburbs (see chart). Indeed turnout is higher in all suburbs with contested races.

When a community – elected officials, nonpartisan observers, press – puts the voter first instead of last, the result is uplifting.

The most gratifying electoral experience I ever had as a voter was in April 1995 in Wilmette, a suburb that abolished the caucus in 1969. An incumbent trustee objected to a logo representing racial diversity as the vehicle sticker for the year, which angered residents enough that three decided to run for office. One of the incumbent’s allies successfully got the challengers’ petitions tossed, which led them to run as write-ins. The Wilmette League of Women Voters educated the community about the candidates and process for voting a write-in candidate. As the Chicago Tribune reported, 31% of Wilmette registered voters went to the polls and two of the write-in candidates won.

I disagree with Alexis de Tocqueville that “we get the government we deserve.” We’re getting government by default. The good news is that we have the power to reclaim our vote.

UPDATE, April 17: This Chicago Tribune story today on WHOA proves my point, that biased groups that purport to represent the community make assertions about controversial issues with neither reporters nor nonpartisan watchdog groups providing any dispassionate analysis for the benefit of the public.