Traditionally, in off-year elections (those that don’t include the presidential race), voter turnout is low.
Also just as traditionally, I admonish the voting public about said turnout.
In recent years, I have seen elections held in this area that have such low voter participation that it measures in single digits. This year, one county in particular managed just more than 1 percent voter turnout.
In a day and age when there is such political division, and such inability on all sides of an issue to ignore debate and compromise, you would think that there would be a stampede toward the polls for people to get their voices heard.
Apparently, that’s not the case, so there must be some other reason (maybe a candidate that is so thoroughly despised that the vitriol forces voters to turn up and turn out). But without a large swath of voter involvement at every level, things can get passed (or voted down) that affect a large swath of a given population.
I give you Exhibit A.
In one election area, a measure to create a municipal utility district and elect a board of managers was passed by a grand total of two votes. That’s two, meaning one more than just one. Total. For emphasis, that’s two votes.
(The definition of a MUD is a special governmental entity that provides utilities like water, sewer, and drainage services in areas where city utilities are not yet available.)
To further illustrate what I mean by that, it wasn’t just that it was two votes, but those were the only votes cast for the five parts of that measure. Two votes, and both were cast early (which doesn’t mean anything, but still).
As well as approving the district, and electing the board, the other measures allowed the district to issue millions in bonds for road and infrastructure needs — $258,875,000 in bonds — as well as levy $1 per $100 in valuation in additional taxes to pay for the bonds.
While the two people who approved these measures had their voices heard, it has the added effect of committing every landowner of the area to paying for these bonds, without the benefit of having their own voices heard. So, in this case, some extra voices really needed to be heard about committing residents to a huge tax burden.
In an election in a different county, a member of a city council was re-elected to his position by — yet again, notwithstanding — two votes, the final canvassed number.
As in the other example, two votes decided the matter, but in this race, there were more than just two.
Right or wrong, two votes made the difference in not only a taxing authority, but the representation of a city district. It’s the best example of what voting can do for a city, county, state and country, and the best example of why voting in every election is important, regardless of how “seemingly” insignificant the election is.
Tony Farkas is editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
