08/08/13: Special elections that aren’t so special

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

WHAT IF THEY held an election and nobody came to vote? Tuesday’s special election in the 14th Senate District came pretty close to that, as did a couple of others in the past year. I believe it is time for Virginia to rethink its special election process.

Last September, a special election was held in the 5th Senate District. Just one name appeared on the ballot, and the winner received all but 55 of the nearly 3,700 votes cast. The district had over 121,000 registered voters. The win, though, created a vacancy in the House of Delegates.

In December, a special election was held to fill the vacancy in the House. There, the independent received 68 votes, and there were 10 write-in votes. The remainder of the 1,201 votes cast went to the winner. More than 48,000 registered voters live in the district.

Tuesday’s election saw fewer than 2,500 votes cast. A late withdrawal left the candidate’s name on the ballot, and he garnered 228 votes, with the remaining votes going to the winner. There are more than 137,000 registered voters in the district.

Special elections require the same setups as regular elections, although fewer voting machines and personnel are required, since the turnout is expected to be less.

Still, there are significant costs involved. At a time when the state is essentially forcing localities to move their elections to November by requiring the localities, instead of the state, to pay for May elections, it seems ludicrous for the state to not minimize the number of special elections.

The timing of special elections is all about politics, not about doing the people’s business. Set by the governor, the dates are chosen to maximize partisan advantage. That shouldn’t be the case.

Special elections should be held only at the next regularly scheduled election date, typically in November, unless special circumstances warrant it.

The argument for the timing of special elections is that voters should not be left without representation. But that happens regardless of when a special election is held, and the argument simply doesn’t hold up.

Our legislature serves part time, on a schedule set long ago to protect planting seasons. While the members serve on committees that may meet outside of session, those committee assignments are generally not made until the legislature meets.

For example, Kenny Alexander, elected to represent the 5th Senate District last September, did not receive his committee assignments until Jan. 24, more than two weeks after the session started. A November election, rather than a September special election, would not have changed that one iota.

The current situation in the 84th House District is further proof that being left without representation is not the real reason for the timing of these special elections. There, the incumbent announced in April that he would not run for reelection. He was appointed to a judgeship May 31, which effectively ended his term. In this case, there is no special election; the voters will choose a new delegate in November.

I can see holding a special election if a vacancy occurs shortly before or during the legislative session. Had the 5th Senate District election been held last November, a special election to fill the vacant House seat would have still been necessary — and likely would have still been held, as it was, in December.

This cascading of special elections is created because those running for higher office don’t resign from their current offices first. I’m not sure this should be a requirement, especially when a win is not guaranteed. But it certainly should be encouraged, particularly when there is no challenger in the race.

A change to the special election process would require our legislators to put the people ahead of their own interests and save taxpayer money, to boot. Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening. Perhaps an election where nobody shows up to vote will convince them.