RALEIGH – Expect the electoral turnout this fall to be scant across most of North Carolina – but don’t read it as a lack of public interest in politics.
For one thing, odd-year turnout is usually paltry, often in the single-digits. If we really wanted large numbers of North Carolinians to participate in local elections for mayor, municipal councils, and school boards, we’d hold the elections on even-numbered years along with state and national contests. Defenders of the current local-election system are explicit: they don’t mind the lower turnout if it means that purely local concerns dominate the campaign season.
As for me, I’ve never been of the opinion that maximizing turnout is the proper goal for elections policy. I’d rather citizens stay home from the polls if they haven’t been paying close attention. Still, that’s no excuse for taking affirmative steps – such as stripping party labels off public offices and holding odd-year elections – to reduce public information and participation.
My larger point, though, isn’t about election reform. It’s that we shouldn’t read 2009 turnout numbers as indicators of public interest in politics. The past few months have featured robust political debate on such issues as economic stimulus, climate change, the war in Afghanistan, and of course health care reform. Voters appear to be paying close attention to most of these matters.
Here in North Carolina, the state budget debate and resulting tax increases have garnered significant attention, as have continuing ethics controversies surrounding former Gov. Mike Easley, state Sen. R.C. Soles, former Rep. Ty Harrell, and other public officials.
The two major parties are right in the middle of organizing for the pivotal 2010 legislative elections. Republicans think they have a chance to gain lots of seats in the House and Senate. Democrats worry that the GOP may be right, and about the implications for redrawing legislative and congressional districts in 2011 – a process over which Gov. Beverly Perdue has no constitutional authority.
So both parties are already out around the state recruiting candidates, lining up donors, and developing messages. Few of the targeted races will be surprising, given that a combination of demographics and past redistricting efforts yielded House and Senate maps with only about 30 competitive districts. If you examine the Civitas Institute’s handy North Carolina Partisan Index, you can readily spot them:
• In the Senate, you can bet on competitive races in District 8 (incumbent R.C. Soles), District 9 (Julia Boseman), District 24 (Tony Foriest), District 43 (David Hoyle), District 45 (Steve Goss), District 47 (Joe Sam Queen), and District 50 (John Snow). These are all Republican-leaning districts with Democratic incumbents. Others to watch are District 5 (freshman Don Davis), District 10 (Charlie Albertson), and the coastal District 1 if Senate leader Marc Basnight chooses to retire.
• In the House, there are 11 Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning districts and 8 seats where the Democratic or Republican lean is only two points or less. These districts, sprinkled through mainly rural and suburban areas, will be the main battlegrounds.
I’m not saying there won’t be compelling stories to tell about the 2009 local elections. There may be, particularly from the Charlotte city elections, Wake County school-board races, and a few other places. But in North Carolina politics right now, the energy seems to be flowing to preparations for 2010. It’ll be a doozey.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation