RALEIGH – With the 2006 primaries beginning on Tuesday morning, I thought it appropriate to make a few observations before I could possibly know the outcome of the balloting.
Not that I’m about to issue predictions. I don’t mind predicting when there are some data to back it up – polling, campaign reports, candidate statements, public debates, etc. – but in the case of the 2006 election cycle, these are mostly lacking.
Now to the observations. First of all, the last time we had an election season in which no presidential, gubernatorial, or senatorial contests were at stake was in 1994. It was a banner year for Republicans in North Carolina, who took a large majority of congressional seats for the first time, took the NC House for the first time since the 1890s, almost took the NC Senate, and took control of several major county commissions.
Before that, it was 1982. In North Carolina, that year was good for the Democrats. In the NC Senate, Democrats gained four seats, yielding a commanding majority of 44 to 6. In the NC House, Democrats arrested a modest upward Republican trend in 1982 by increasing their numbers to 102 seats, up from 96, and winning 75 percent of all the votes for House statewide, up from 67 percent in 1980.
All one can say for sure is that these so-called “Blue Moon” elections in North Carolina generate low voter turnout – 29 percent of the voting-age population in 1994 and 30 percent in 1982, vs. an average of 37 percent in non-presidential years with Senate races and 48 percent in presidential years. My point is that you can’t assume a low turnout will necessarily benefit one or the other party, at least based on history. What you can properly assume is that a low turnout magnifies the significance of the most activist core of each major party.
As far as primary elections go, previous ones in this situation have barely exceeded 10 percent in turnout. The 2006 cycle could go well below that in many parts of the state. Thus a few thousand, or even a few hundred, voters may help determine the course of public policy in North Carolina for years to come.
Another point I’d make about the 2006 cycle is that our much-ballyhooed “reforms” of judicial elections have fallen flat. Most voters, understandably, don’t check off the box on their taxes directing money to judicial candidates. Now that party labels have been stripped entirely off the ballot – which was done by Democrats because they thought Republicans were winning too often, don’t be misled – voters have even less information than they used to. I am sympathetic to the notion that North Carolina should have some form of appointed judiciary, rather than elections. But until that happens, via constitutional amendment, we have elections. These need to be real elections, with real communication campaigns funded by real money and real party affiliations so voters have at least an inkling of which candidates are likely to reflect their preference on judicial or legal issues.
Finally, a word about the media coverage. I think it has been inadequate. It may not be obvious to readers in, say, Greensboro or Hickory why competitive primaries in Raleigh or Greenville or Southern Pines should interest them. But it can be done, at least by thematic pieces that bundle together disparate local contests. Perhaps such coverage will be more evident in the fall. I hope so.
Happy voting!
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.