Manassas Park Elections
- Moving from May to November -
On June 13, 2006, the Governing Body of the City of Manassas Park initiated a change to move the election of local officials from May to November on election years. This change will take several months to complete and will be effective with the 2008 local elections. The citizens of Manassas Park will have the opportunity to provide input on this proposed change during a public hearing in July 2006. There are several compelling reasons to make this change, however the primary objective is to increase voter participation in the local election process.
The Charter of the City of Manassas Park requires that elections for the Mayor and City Council are held on the first Tuesday of May, in even numbered years. While interest in local elections is high, experience indicates that the turnout of voters at the polls is low. These results are consistent regardless of the importance of the issues and intensity of the campaign, and despite advertising and other efforts to increase voter participation. The statistics below demonstrate that a relatively low percentage of registered voters cast ballots during the last four local elections, which were held in
May.
Year (May) |
Registered Voters |
Number of Votes Cast |
Percentage of Voters who Voted |
2006 |
5,333 |
587 |
11% |
2004 |
5,119 |
570 |
11% |
2002 |
4,962 |
375 |
7% |
2000 |
4,073 |
488 |
12% |
The change that is underway is to move local elections from May to November in order to coincide with state and national elections. While local election turnout is traditionally low, state and national elections tend to bring a higher percentage of voters to the polls. By moving local elections to November, we expect to capitalize on this higher voter turnout and realize greater participation in the local election process. The statistics below demonstrate the stronger voter turnout for November elections of state and local officials.
Year (Nov) |
Registered Voters |
Number of Votes Cast |
Percentage of Voters who Voted |
2006 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
2004 |
5,391 |
3,331 |
62% |
2002 |
5,022 |
1,337 |
27% |
2000 |
4,489 |
2,622 |
58% |
Local elections represent the opportunity for citizens to have the most direct impact on government. The proposed change has been implemented in other jurisdictions around the state with positive results. As an example, the City of Richmond held their last May election for City Council in May 2000. During that election, 16,445 voters turned out and 16,025 voters cast votes for City Council. In November 2002 (their first combined election), 39,055 voters turned out and 36,173 voters cast votes for City Council. The increase in the raw number of voters casting ballots for local elections is significant and illustrates the intended effect of the proposed change.
Considerations
As with all important decisions, the Governing Body has reviewed and considered several pros and cons in reaching the decision to move forward with this change. On the positive side, the proposed change is expected to:
· Achieve a higher turnout at the polls. The higher turnout is expected to result in more votes in the local election process and, ultimately, a greater representation of the intent of voters.
· Reduce costs associated with executing the election process. The cost of the May 2006 election was approximately $4,425. By eliminating the requirement for a separate May election, a cost savings will be realized.
· Reduce contention for the facilities that are used as polling places. Currently voting occurs at school facilities and at recreation facilities. By eliminating May elections, we reduce the contention for physical space in these facilities and reduce scheduling complexity associated with having elections while trying to avoid disruption to routine school and recreation operations.
· Reduce the period(s) of time when campaign signs are prevalent throughout the City in common areas and roadbeds.
· Increase the representation of voters in accordance with the City population. By increasing voter turnout, we will realize voting preferences that are more reflective of the City’s diverse population.
· Reduce the number of days required for Officers of Elections. The registered voters who fill these important positions will have fewer requirements to take time off of work and away from family and other personal commitments.
The Governing Body also considered several cons in reaching the decision to change the election date. On the negative side, the proposed change could:
· Reduce local election intensity. There is the potential that local candidates could be “lost” among federal and state candidates. With attention and focus on state and national election issues, local issues may not resonate as loudly with voters. A similar argument could be made that state elections could be minimized in contrast to national elections. This has not proven to be the case.
· Result in “under votes” for local candidates. There is potential that, even though a higher percentage of registered voters turns out at the polls, many of those that vote on national and state election issues and candidates may choose not to vote on local issues and candidates. While this is a possibility, the point is that more voters participate in the election process and the expectation is that the local election participation will still be higher than it is in May.
Impacts of the Change
Implementation of the proposed change has impacts that have been considered by the Governing Body. Specifically, the proposed change will:
· Require the Registrar and City Attorney to initiate and implement the change. The City Attorney will submit the proposed change to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance and the Registrar will notify the State Board of Elections. The City Attorney will prepare the change to the City Charter. Both the Registrar and City Attorney will participate in the public hearing process.
· Require sponsorship by a member of the Virginia Legislature to obtain approval of the change to the City Charter. The Governing Body will work with our state representatives to obtain support for the change during the next Virginia General Assembly session.
· Affect the duration of the terms for each Governing Body member for one term. Specifically, the terms of each member of the current Governing Body will extend by 6 months in order to align elections on the new November boundary.
· Increase the concentration of election activities in November. The impact of moving elections from May to November is to move the election activities from May to November. Specifically, the workload for the Registrar’s office will increase in November because they have more votes to count for more offices in a single election. Additionally, expect the concentration of political road signage to increase in November. Local election signage will be added to the November political campaign effects.
· Increase the number of filings that local candidates must perform in order to comply with election campaign law. While a campaign that concludes with a May election requires three filings, a campaign for a November election requires seven filings. This is a slight increase to the workload of candidates.
Next Steps
While the Governing Body has voted to move forward with the proposed change, there are several activities that must be completed before the change is implemented. The next steps in the process are identified below. The name in parentheses identifies the individual or body that will take the action. The steps are:
· Conduct a Public Hearing in July 2006 to receive citizen input (Governing Body)
· Review and approve an ordinance to change the date of elections, subject to approval by the General Assembly of amendments to the City Charter (Governing Body)
· Submit a request for Voting Rights Act pre-clearance from the Department of Justice (City Attorney)
· Notify the State Board of Elections (Registrar)
· Prepare the proposed text for a Charter Amendment (City Attorney)
· Obtain sponsorship by our state representative(s) for the proposed change at the 2007 Virginia General Assembly (State Delegate/Senator)
· Receive a favorable vote by the Virginia General Assembly (State Delegate/Senator and VA General Assembly)
Upon successful and favorable completion of these activities, the change will be implemented and effective for the 2008 local election.
| 
