LETTER: Heed Alexandria ‘Election Fiasco’ Warning
January 9, 2010
To the Editors of the Falls Church Times:
I would like to bring to the community’s attention a letter to the editor printed last month in the Washington Post from Katy Cannady, President of the Alexandria League of Women Voters.
Ms. Canady’s letter reacted to a recent Post article about the Falls Church City Council’s proposed ordinance rescheduling local elections from May to November. The caption for Cannady’s letter read “An election fiasco in the making.” It presents a cautionary tale for those on the Falls Church City Council who are rushing helter-skelter to pass this ordinance despite unanswered questions and widespread opposition from within the city, and a clear preference for the citizens to decide the issue in a referendum election.
Echoing similar concerns to those raised before the Council by citizens and Council Member Nader Baroukh in December, Ms. Cannady described the “shocking” process undertaken by the Alexandria City Council to make a similar change. She noted the estimate of the Alexandria voter registrar that if he had to conduct a local election concurrent with national elections using the same resources as he had in 2008, “the lines of waiting voters would be four to six hours long.” Cannady also reported the estimate by the head of the Alexandria electoral board that it would cost $200,000 for additional voting machines, polling places, and election workers to conduct a combined election. The Alexandria electoral board reported that even with those additional resources, it was not clear whether they could get voter waiting time down to 2 hours.
I realize that Alexandria is a larger jurisdiction than Falls Church. However, there are parallels that make it reasonable to assume Falls Church could experience similar effects, scaled for the size of the Falls Church voter population – traditionally high voter turnout, for example. I also realize that Alexandria has coupled local elections with national elections, whereas the Falls Church City Council has thus far backed away from even years to odd years, thus coupling local elections with state elections. If, as the Gardner voting bloc contends, the change to November will increase voter participation, then surely there will be increased demands on the voting machinery and process.
Which brings me to the point made by Baroukh and Council Member Lawrence Webb, and ignored by the 3-member Council majority that moved ahead with their ill-conceived ordinance. There is much we don’t know about the potential costs and effects of moving city elections to November. There are other ways of increasing voter turnout and saving costs that the Gardner bloc has stubbornly refused to consider, in the fear, perhaps, that the alternatives might prove viable and preferably to a schedule change. The matter ought to receive thorough study by a non-partisan organization like the League of Women Voters, as Webb proposed, and the pros and cons should be debated publicly. Thereafter, the decision should be made by the voters of Falls Church, not by the City Council. The continued refusal of the Gardner voting bloc to recognize the wisdom of such an approach defies logic and the demands of democratic government.
Linda Neighborgall
Falls Church City
Letters to the Editor should be submitted to contact@fallschurchtimes.com. They may be on any subject relevant to our City. Writers should include their full name and city of residence. All submissions are subject to editing.
By (see byline)
January 9, 2010
Linda, I agree with you that this move needs study and I urge the Council to not vote a date change until this is done. I also support a referendum of the voters – let the voters choose when they wish to vote. I would support such a referendum to be done in November so that those who have chosen not to vote in May would have their voice. I personally favor keeping elections in May so that we can focus on local issues only. I strongly disagree with those who suggest that May elections are disenfranchising voters – everyone has the right to vote, whenever it occurs. Lastly, I am tired of hearing officials needing to have their ego validated by a larger turnout – Jim Scott certainly didn’t feel less empowered as a legislator by his one vote victory many years ago.
As far as the cautionary tale from Alexandria, I would disagree with its applicability to Falls Church. Already capable of handling a 60+% turnout in any given election, I can’t see how there would be long lines at our polls with local elections paired with the general election. I really doubt there are people in FC who vote on local issues but do not turn out in November for the general election.
Gordon, thanks for your comment. My point was precisely that the Alexandria experience and concerns, while necessarily different in scope and scale, present a cautionary tale. That is, we should proceed with caution — to fully and publically explore, among many other unanswered questions, whether or not the FC election machinery can handle a combined election, without further cost, or with manageable cost, and with what effect on waiting time for voters. I have not seen any effort by the Mayor, Council, Registrar, City Manager, or others in a position to do so, to provide this information. (That is just as well as, given the way the Gardner bloc has handled this issue thus far, the pros and cons of an election date change should be performed by a neutral, unbiased entity like the League of Women Voters, as Mr. Webb proposed.) Such data would be an additional piece of pertinent information for the voters to consider as they analyze the pros and cons of a change in election dates. The Council’s refusal to authorize further study, encourage public debate, and put the election change issue to the voters in the form of a referendum is a failure of democratic governance.
In any case, the Council ought to recognize that it has bigger fish to fry, now that our city’s budgetary deficit has passed the $9 million mark as a result of the court’s latest decision in the “water wars” and Fairfax County’s claim for damages looms menacingly ahead.
For all these reasons, the matter of the election date change should be tabled for now, until it is clear whether the City of Falls Church can survive our precarious fiscal condition, and until a public process can determine the need for an election date change.