The Great Salisbury Election Date Scheme

June 16, 2009 by Cato  
Filed under Maryland, Salisbury Politics

Monday’s editorial in the Daily Times calls for a change of Salisbury’s municipal election dates back to November.  This seems to reflect the sentiment posed by former city council candidate Muir Boda in a recent letter to the editor.  This all works for me, but I would suggest that both Mr. Boda and the staff of the Daily Times do a little research before they dive headlong into this fray.

Contrary to the claims of the Daily Times, the real purpose behind moving the elections back to spring was not some half-hearted attempt to drive voter turnout.  Only imbeciles buy into an argument that a spring election, following a winter campaign, increases turnout.  Simply look at the turnout numbers from the last city election held in November to see.  Then research other areas that have done the same.  Spring elections depress turnout.  Former mayor Barrie Tilghman was masterful in her drive move the elections.  The city didn’t want to comply with federal and state deadlines.  They moved to non-partisan elections.  The Wicomico County Board of Elections had problems with the Tilghman-imposed scheme.  Therefore, Tilghman had ample excueses to move the elections to spring.  Depressed turnout worked in her favor, until her opponents learned how to target voters.

Mr. Boda calls for a city election to occur at the same time as the federal and state cycle.  The Daily Times implies much the same.  There are advantages to such a move.  However there are myriad problems with such a move, not the least of which is cost.

Beginning in 2010, we will be going back to optical scan ballots.  Since many precincts in Salisbury encompass not only Salisbury but unincorporated portions of the county, and because Salisbury holds non-partisan elections, three sets of ballots would have to be printed for each split prencict for the primary and two sets for the general election.  There is also the high probability of confusion and possibility of fraud in precincts where county residents are not entitled to vote in city elections or if city voters are not permitted to vote in the Salisbury races.

Another problem will occur if Maryland chooses to hold an early primary again in 2012.  In addition, city deadlines will have to be in sync with the state and federal filing deadlines.  A simple phone call by either the Daily Times or Boda to the Wicomico County Board of Elections would have shown the problems with this scheme.

The Daily Times argues that the most pressing reason for having November elections is because of the Salisbury budget process.  Such a move would eliminate the possibility of an outgoing mayor using the budget as a tool for political retribution as we saw Tilghman do this year.  This is a very strong argument, in and of itself.  Coupled with the other benefits of a November election, Mayor Jim Ireton and the Salisbury council should definitely consider such a move.

However, such a move should be to November of odd numbered years.  This would eliminate the problems mentioned above.  In addition, they should also consider allowing District 1 voters to vote at Harvest Baptist Church, along with the west side polling place (assuming Harvest remains a polling place).  Given that a majority of east side District 1 voters are literally a stone’s throw from Harvest Baptist, District 1 turnout could grow immensely.

To accomplish this, both branches of city government would have to agree on extending the terms of the mayor and all council members by approximately seven months.  While my views on the current council majority are well known, I believe that this is a small price to pay to eliminate the possibility of another budget fiasco (despite my belief that a Mayor Ireton would never engage in such behavior) and possibly increase voter turnout in the city.