4.99%. If anyone was hoping for a big post-primary bump in participatory democracy or that some kind of momentum (of either the Obama or Meeker variety) would lead to a high turnout in Saturday’s council Place 4 run-off election between Cid Galindo and the finally victorious Laura Morrison, think again.
Even the first-round turnout was pretty disappointing. “Nine percent voting? Listen, I know it’s not been that long that we used to have 40%, 50% turnout,” said Carole Keeton Strayhorn, former mayor of Austin (and mother to Scott McClellan – see “Who Did He Serve?” End of shameless plug). She remembers being outraged that there was only an 11% turnout when she ran for the AISD board of trustees in 1972 and working to improve it for the next election. “Everyone I talked to, I told them, I wanted 15% turnout, and we did it,” she recalled.
Run-offs make things worse, as two-time run-off loser Margot Clarke can testify. “I’ve now become convinced that run-offs are a way to subvert the will of the voter, because pretty much anything can happen. I proved that pretty convincingly three years ago,” she said. When she lost the 2003 Place 5 run-off to Brewster McCracken, 38,687 of an electorate of 401,873 (9.7%) turned out. When she came back in 2005 to go two rounds with Jennifer Kim in Place 3, the run-off got 36,483 of 408,768 total registered voters (8.96%) to the ballot box. Since then, voter rolls in Austin have expanded to 433,807, but in total numbers and percentage terms, turnout has plummeted.
Part of the problem with run-offs is that they are so expensive, costing the city about $400,000. That was ACC trustee candidate Harrison Keller‘s stated rationale for pulling the plug on his campaign, a move that’s not without precedent: Betty Dunkerley only won her race for council without a run-off in 2002 because incumbent Beverly Griffith bowed out. Ditto in 1997, when Ronney Reynolds stepped aside to let Kirk Watson become mayor to save himself from the agony of going negative and from the additional campaign costs. Some say that is just candidates accepting the inevitable will of the people, but considering that in 2005 Kim went from trailing Clarke by 13 points in the first round to a 7-point run-off victory, that’s a hard case to make.
Structural changes for how to run an election are (always) under consideration: second preference voting, instant run-offs, or just getting rid of the 50%-plus-one victory target (hey, if first past the post is good enough to make Rick “39%” Perry governor for a second full term, it’s good enough for council). Some campaign pros argue that single-member districts, or a hybrid single-member/at-large system like AISD uses, would increase community involvement. It could ensure some real council voice for underrepresented areas like North Austin and break the perceived lock on power of the central ballot boxes.
“There always are those ideas floating around, and I think they’re definitely worth looking at,” said Council Member Lee Leffingwell. “Turnout in city elections has been low for a long time, and the turning point, when participation turned down, was when the caps on contributions were imposed.” Austin is now bigger than most U.S. congressional districts and three times the size of a state rep’s district – but campaign contributions are capped at $300, compared to $2,300 for federal office holders and no limits for county commissioners and state officials. “People in the past haven’t been able to raise the kind of money to have a large media presence,” said Leffingwell, “so perhaps it’s time we re-examine campaign caps.”
Wells Dunbar returns to “BTP” next week, and he’s welcome to it. In the meantime, see his “(Further) Beside the Point.”
This article appears in June 20 • 2008.
