05/22/14: Limited resources for local candidates

This op-ed appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on the date shown.

Second of three parts

THE MARGIN in two school board elections held this month is so narrow that the non-winners have requested a recount. As is typical in local elections, the raw numbers separating the winners and non-winners is quite small: In Newport News, the difference is 40 votes; in Chesapeake, it’s 32.

The most important people in the election are the voters — and increasing the number who cast ballots is desirable. Moving elections to November may increase the number of voters, but will they be as well informed about local issues?

We already know that increasing the number of voters doesn’t translate into larger winning margins. Within the past six months, we have witnessed a statewide general election contest and a special election for the Senate so close they both fell within the margin for a recount. Moving local elections to November, then, won’t change that dynamic.

There is another group central to the success of a candidate: The people who work on campaigns. These are the people who walk neighborhoods with and on behalf of the candidate. They knock on doors and distribute literature. They make calls to voters. They help identify those who support the candidate and try to get them to the polls.

For local campaigns, with limited resources, they’re mostly volunteers. Of course, given the opportunity, many of these volunteers would rather work on a more prestigious, better-funded campaign. Moving elections to November gives them that chance, which will deprive local candidates of a critical component of getting out their message.

That leads to a sharing of resources among campaigns, something that typically happens only when political parties get involved. With the exception of a few municipalities — none in Hampton Roads — local elections are nonpartisan affairs in Virginia. Sure, the parties can — and often do — play a role. But is there really a difference between the Republican and Democratic (and Libertarian and Green) positions on water or real estate tax rates?

Shared volunteers, as I have seen in November elections for the General Assembly and local constitutional offices, means local candidates get tied to up-ticket issues and candidates, whether or not they agree with them. Often, shared volunteers mean the down-ticket candidates get the occasional literature drop and that’s about it.

Last fall’s election was typical: A campaign worker knocked on my door and wanted to talk only about the gubernatorial candidate, never mentioning the candidates for lieutenant governor or attorney general. I even asked — they had nothing to say.

One source of volunteers for local candidates is another legacy of the Byrd Machine.

The organization’s base was its “courthouse clique,” the network of constitutional officers across the commonwealth. Of the five, the sheriffs continue to play a significant role in helping elect candidates, providing deputies to “volunteer” on campaigns.

In a May election, these volunteers may be just enough to tip the election . It is not a coincidence that Norfolk councilwoman-elect Mamie Johnson, who won by 39 votes, thanked the sheriff and his deputies at her victory party on election night.

Think of the effect of these volunteers in November elections, when campaign workers for local elections are scarce.

Without campaign workers, voters are left to choose candidates based on other criteria. Or make no choice at all — just look at the drop-off in votes cast for top-of-the-ticket candidates versus those farther down the ballot.

In an ideal world, voters would be as informed as possible when casting their ballots. Moving local elections to November makes that less likely.

Next week: Time