05/15/14: The pitfalls of November elections

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

First of three parts.

AFTER EACH MAY election, calls come to move them to November. Typically, those supporting the shift point to low voter turnout and the cost to localities . Such a move, though, can do more harm than good to our ability to elect quality representatives.

There is no doubt that May elections — and the off-year state elections — are a holdover from a much earlier time. The 1902 Virginia constitution imposed a poll tax, which reduced votes cast in the 1905 elections to half of what they had been four years earlier.

The Byrd Machine, the political organization of Harry F. Byrd, used this and another quirk of the 1902 constitution — the requirement for each county to elect five constitutional offices — to further restrict voting. The goal was to keep voter participation at less than 15 percent.

Combined, they were quite successful: Only 10 percent of Virginians over the age of 21 were voting in 1940. By 1961, just 17 percent of voting-age Virginians cast ballots.

The machine only began to falter when the poll tax was abolished. The Byrd family’s grip on Virginia politics may be gone, but its legacy remains. It is why we elect just five statewide offices. It is why we have elections every year — federal in even years, state in odd years. It is why Virginia remains committed to low taxes and a business-friendly environment.

And it is why we have May elections.

If increasing voter turnout is the only goal, a move to November makes sense. So, too, would the move of state elections to even years; after all, voter turnout is higher when federal elections are on the ballot. But almost no one is arguing for that — and with good reason.

There are three things that no candidate can win without: money, people and time. Although they’re all connected, let’s look at money.

Putting state elections for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and the legislature on the ballot with federal elections would make the election all about the latter. Virginia issues would be lost in the conversation.

I can see it now: a candidate for the House of Delegates being asked at a town hall about his position on Benghazi or the Internal Revenue Service, rather than about his position on the legislature’s funding of education or use of public-private partnerships.

Top-of-the-ticket campaigns already get the most news coverage. How many articles have we already read about this year’s Senate campaigns compared to those written about this year’s House contests? Putting state elections on the same ballot would push those contests and their issues further out of the public’s view.

To be heard, the candidates would have to spend more money. The $60 million spent in last year’s gubernatorial race — an increase of almost $20 million over 2009 — probably wouldn’t be nearly enough.

The effect at the local level would be magnified. Not only would local issues be virtually ignored — quick, name one local issue that was discussed during the 2012 local contests — but the candidate pool would be reduced. Gone would be anyone who lacked money or access to money.

Just look at what has happened in Portsmouth, where council members are elected at large. In 2010, the last May election held, there were eight candidates vying for three positions. The three winning candidates spent an average of less than $19,000.

In 2012, the first November election, there were five candidates vying for three seats. In that contest, which had the presidential election at the top of the ballot, the winning candidates spent an average of $61,522.

We have already seen Congress become a millionaire’s club. Is that what we want at the local level?

Next week: People