In the days before this year’s school budget vote, reporters
all over the state kept asking, “What impact did the tax cap have on this
year’s budget proposals?” After
the vote was over and 96.5% of the budgets in the state had passed, including
99% of the budgets that were at or below their permissible levy limit,
reporters then asked, “Did the tax cap affect this year’s vote?”
Now that the data is in, it is possible that one of the ways
the cap affected the vote was quite different from what state leaders
anticipated. Looking at Monroe
County, it appears that the introduction of the cap resulted in many people
deciding not to vote.
Slightly over 3,000 fewer people voted here this year
compared to last. But it isn’t
just that fewer people voted; it is notable which voters chose not to. Many fewer “no” voters went to the
polls. There were 2,130 fewer “no” votes compared with last year; 70.1% of the
votes cast were affirmative votes.
Is this a coincidence or something else?
In 2003 over 50,500 people voted on our member districts’
budgets, very much in contrast to this year’s 29,169 voters. A review of that decade’s statistics
reveals a steady reduction in voter turnout even though the plurality of “yes”
votes has remained relatively constant.
Over the ten years the plurality of “yes” votes has fallen below 60%
(58% in 2010) only once and climbed into the 70% range twice (75.6% in 2009,
70.1% in 2012). In the remaining seven years “yes” votes averaged 64% of the
votes cast. There have been only 4
defeated school budgets over this time period out of 180 separate district
budget votes.
What is the relationship between strong support for
education yet eroding voter turnout?
One explanation is that discontent is more motivating than satisfaction.
In our region “no” voters have to be aware that, given the infrequency of
failed budgets, they are mainly voting to make a statement. If they are not compelled to make a
statement and so don’t vote, turnout will be affected and that certainly seems
to have happened in Monroe County this year.
One can surmise that many “no” voters stayed home this year
because they believe the state’s cap on school tax levy increases addressed
their oft-articulated concerns.
But with the cap just in its first year, what explains the previous
years of falling voter turnout?
Perhaps the trend can be explained by looking at what voters were voting
on.
In the first four years of this time period, when voter
turnouts still averaged over 48,000 people, proposed levy increases averaged
over 4.5% per year. Voter turnout
was falling during this period but only slightly.
Then in 2007 the proposed levy increase dropped to 2.75% and
voter turnout dropped 28%! In the
years since then both the number of voters and the size of the levy increase
have closely correlated, with voter turnouts dropping almost every year the
levy increase was small.
The one exception to this trend was in 2010, the year state
aid was deeply cut after being frozen the year before. Schools were forced to make major
budget cuts and countywide the proposed levy increases averaged only .09%. Voter turnout jumped by 32% that year,
probably to make a statement to Albany.
But that year was atypical in many ways. Voter turnout fell again the next year, dropping by
21%.
Of course, at the district level there are exceptions to
these generalizations. Strongly contested school board races bring out more
voters, as was the case in the only two local districts that had more voters
this year than last. Hot local
issues can also increase turnout.
