Move West Orange municipal elections? Voters deserve a vote on when they vote for their leaders

[An edited version of this post appeared in this week's edition of The West Orange Chronicle. Please note that I'm doing further research into the possibility of a May referendum, which may not be legally allowed.] 

What’s the big rush to move municipal elections, and why don’t we let the voters decide?

Introduced at the November 12 council meeting, Mayor Parisi’s proposed ordinance would move municipal elections from May – where they’ve been for decades – to the November general election. This would happen in 2014, giving the mayor and the five-member council – the only people deciding -- an extra six months in office and locking voters into November elections for the next decade. The council approved the proposed ordinance on first reading 4-1, with me voting no. The legislation is up for second and final reading at the December 3 meeting.

This proposal would fundamentally change the nature of elections and voting in our town, and it’s a step many believe should only be taken after careful consideration of the pros and cons -- with all voters given the chance to help determine a decision.

West Orange has a Faulkner Act municipal charter that allows separate non-partisan elections for its officials. In early 2010, a change in state election law permitted non-partisan municipalities to move elections to coincide with the November general election.

A similar law allowing Boards of Education to move their annual elections to November was enacted around the same time. While that change has been widely embraced statewide (including in our district in 2012), many of the 85 non-partisan municipalities have been more deliberate in moving their elections, which only occur every two to four years. Public response to proposed changes has been more divided – and in some cases more contentious.

I believe moving from May to November introduces significant and fundamental changes:

- It reduces and diffuses voter focus on local issues. The higher-profile lead candidates on the ballot naturally draw away attention due to their national or statewide interest, requiring local candidates to spend more on their campaigns in an effort to “cut through the clutter.” And that cost issue could dissuade qualified candidates from even attempting a run.

- Partisanship can easily seep into the races, as voters perceive local candidates are aligned with county, state or federal candidates of different parties.

- On a non-partisan line -- separate from all other candidates on the ballot -- municipal candidates are often missed by a significant number of voters. A 2012 report from the League of Women Voters of the Montclair Area Issues Committee recommending against moving Montclair elections to November stated, "Evidence suggests that as the voter moves down a ballot from federal to state to local candidates, fewer votes are cast. Even if voter turnout is greater in November, it does not mean significantly more voters will actually cast votes for local candidates.”

- One town-wide election a year could preclude voters from electing a replacement for a vacant council or mayoral seat for up to a year (currently it’s not more than six months), instead having a council-appointed member filling the seat in the interim.

My response to the mayor’s three arguments in favor of the proposed ordinance:

- Increased turnout. General elections usually have higher turnout than in May, but as stated earlier in the Montclair LWV report, “under-voting” – potential votes that were never cast -- also increases substantially. Recent evidence exists here in West Orange. In November 2010, I won a special municipal election in a three-way race to fill the current mayor’s vacated council seat. While turnout overall for the general election was eight percentage points higher than the May 2010 mayoral election, there were 2,650 under-votes in my race -- bringing the vote totals down to a three-vote difference from those cast for mayor six months earlier. Also, this month’s Board of Education election featured more than 12,000 under-votes versus 10,777 total votes cast.

- Improved public safety. Many polling locations are in schools where children are potentially at risk from open access to the public. Changes in locations, increased security and scheduling teacher in-service days are all relatively simple fixes that have been employed or are actively being pursued today.

- Lower costs. The mayor argues that the town “budgets” $80,000 for local elections. While that’s true, the actual costs were $65,705 in 2012, $71,104 in 2010, and $67,028 in 2008. That averages out to just under $34,000 per year for the six budget years covered by the biennial elections. I’m certainly not one for wasting taxpayer money. But this cost has justifiably significant benefits, similar to the cost of hiring a police officer. We could easily find offsetting costs elsewhere in our $72 million budget.

Other municipalities have had widely varying experiences with the issue of moving elections. Some took up the issue shortly after the state law change, while others waited to see how it’s working elsewhere. None has proposed to enact a change so close to a regularly scheduled election as the mayor has.

In Essex County, only Montclair has taken any action on the question, spending more than a year on government and public discourse before accepting in March 2012 the recommendation of an appointed commission to keep the elections in May.

Elsewhere in the state, some municipalities, primarily in South Jersey, have changed dates through ordinance. But in nearly every township with significant public opposition or support to let the public decide, the council approved holding a non-binding referendum. This includes Robbinsville and Manchester in central Jersey in 2011, as well as Hoboken in 2012, and most recently, Clifton. Now, Garfield’s council is debating the move. When two proposed ordinances were voted down at its November 12 meeting, a councilman proposed a referendum to let voters decide.

So let’s learn from other municipalities. In West Orange, six residents spoke at the November 12 council meeting either in opposition of the move or in favor of a referendum. We, as a community, should spend more than three short weeks considering the issue – and council should allow a vote on it at the already scheduled May 2014 election. [Please note that I'm doing further research into the possibility of a May referendum, which may not be legally allowed.] I’m for giving everyone in West Orange a voice on how they want to elect their local representatives.  Speak out at the December 3 council meeting, e-mail mayor@westorange.org and council@westorange.org, or call 973.325.4155 to leave us a message.

I’m a West Orange Township councilman since 2010, reachable at jkrakoviak@westorange.org. I'm a business communications consultant in my spare time.