TO: Sara El-Amine, Executive Director, Organizing for Action

PROBLEM MEMORANDUM

TO: Sara El-Amine, Executive Director, Organizing for Action

FROM: Erin Tolman

RE: Low Voter Turnout in Local Elections

DATE: 17 September 2015

"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups… It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything." President Barack Obama, 19th March 2015.

It is Constitution Day in America. As we sing the praises of our storied past, and celebrate our citizenship, one can’t help but wonder -- with the pomp and circumstance with which we collectively celebrate our rights as Americans, and the reverence with which we speak of our founding document, why then, come election day, do so many not participate in the electoral process? If representation in government was so valuable that our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor to pursue it, why do barely half of eligible Americans even bother turning up to the polls for national elections?

Voting – the physical act of democracy – is concurrently one of the most important and most complicated aspects of a democratic system. In Australia, and 26 other countries, it is compulsory. In the United States, we struggle with some of the lowest participation rates in the developed world – only 37% of eligible voters voted in the 2014 midterm elections. Across the political spectrum, low voter participation is derided as a problem. The problem of low voter turnout in many communities dovetails with the sister problems of poverty, minority populations, and felony rates.

Turnout is even more dismal for midterm elections, and worse still for off-cycle local and municipal elections, where it is unsurprising to have turnout in the single digits. While it is can seem philosophically appalling to not vote for President, some data suggests that, were turnout 100%, the outcomes of national elections would not likely be changed significantly. But where a presidential race is a complicated game of counting to 270, school board elections can be decided by single votes. Therefore, shouldn’t turnout matter more in local races?

The decline in voter participation in the general elections has been in a general decline for decades - but, interestingly, has never been as high as participation in mayoral elections in large cities. In 1954, 92% of New Yorkers showed up to vote for mayor Robert F. Wagner, Jr. In 2013, only was a quarter of the voting population showed up for Bill De Blasio’s victory. The political machines that could operate to mobilize populations in the mid-century are now defunct, and the current low rates of participation have resulted. And as our urban centers become even more diverse, it is even more important to have turnout keep pace.

Low voter participation is not equal across different demographics. Consider, for example, that Latinos accounted for 2% of Utah’s voting population in 2008, yet were 12% of the electorate. Were they to vote in more representative numbers, it would have had no impact on Utah’s electoral college votes, but it could have been an extraordinary shift in the political dialogue at the local level. Issues such as traffic stops to check immigration status would be a different debate were the Salt Lake County Sheriff considering the previously unaccounted for 10% Latino vote.

In an era where political participation is low and apathy is high, it would seem counterintuitive to make it harder for people to register and cast a ballot. Historically, in off-cycle elections, the demographic that tends to vote most is whiter, wealthier, and older than the average citizen. While this is still a powerful voting demographic in general elections, it holds more than its fair sway over local races. Having local elections in off-years is a holdover from the Progressive era of the early 20th century that has outlived its usefulness -- ostensibly keeping the politicians from having to compete for the stage with state and national elections. But less idealistically, it was also a way to keep immigrant, minority, and poor populations from participating, much like much like the voting restrictions of recent years.

Voter ID laws, restricting polling station hours of operation, absentee ballot restrictions – these target the young, the old, the poor. Furthermore, felony – or in some states, misdemeanor – voting restrictions, coupled with mandatory minimums for drug laws and a judicial system where the odds are never in their favor, have succeeded in disenfranchising nearly six million people, disproportionately African-American or Hispanic. And in these communities, disenfranchisement creates a ripple effect of low participation, even among eligible voters. Consider that, among the 40 largest major metropolitan areas in the country, half have a white population below 60%. There is considerable electoral advantage to be gained by limiting the voting access of minority populations – a trend that has been called the New Jim Crow. Holding municipal elections off-cycle was, in part, the old Jim Crow.

OFA has been the machine that organized electoral victory for Obama, beginning at the local level. It shifted to the national stage when he did. Perhaps it is time to now turn back, and again take a look and the impact that can be had by increasing turnout of disenfranchised demographics in local elections.

Ms. El-Amine, thank you very much for taking the time to read about this important issue. I look forward to working towards change with you.

Works Cited

“Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections:1828 - 2012”. The American Presidency Project.

“Where does America’s low voter turnout matter the most?”.Hajnal, Zoltan. The Washington Post. March 24, 2015.

“Voter Turnout Plummeting in Local Elections”. Maciag Mike. October 2014.

“Low Latino voting in Utah may leave them politically vulnerable”. Davidson, Lee. Deseret News. Aug. 26 2010.

“The Elections No One Cares About”. Greenblatt, Alan. August 11, 2015.