The big takeaway from our recent mayoral election is this: engagement matters.
Across the country, local elections, such as mayoral and city council races, see voter turnout of right around 19% to 22%, with runoffs lucky to breach 12% turnout. In our last election, with the runoff completed in early December, initial turnout was about 25%. The runoff, however, is what made the whole thing interesting: 38% voter turnout.
Citizens engaged at a much higher rate than one usually sees for a local runoff election because they saw—in stark terms—that this race matters.
What struck me most, however, was the discourse surrounding the race. It was less about a letter behind a name, and more about some of the most salient (and intertwined) issues facing our city: growth, housing costs and development. While things got a bit nasty toward the end, I was pleased to see so much talk about issues, as well as the role that elected and appointed officials play in our governance.
In fact, this election showed that many people in our area don’t understand how our government functions (including legislative vs. executive duties at the local level) and aren’t aware of the applicable statutes. Many of those participating in discourse—online and offline—learned about impact fees, variances and what the Planning Division and Planning Commission do. These are topics that many folks weren’t aware of until about three months ago.
And, frankly, I’d like to see more of this at all levels of government. While voter turnout is higher in state races, such as legislative and gubernatorial contests, the discourse is much less issue-focused. Unfortunately, for many of us, we let a team mentality take over and assume that once we see a letter behind a name, the thinking is done.
However, to see the changes we keep asking for, we need to take a hard look at the policies our candidates propose. And we definitely need to look at the way incumbents vote when they head to Boise to supposedly represent us.
Representative Wendy Horman provides an interesting case study. The soon-to-resign legislator defied constituents openly in meetings, expressing frustration that they just didn’t “get” her school voucher scheme. Now that it’s been passed (over the objections of tens of thousands of Idahoans who asked legislators to vote no and the governor to veto), we see that it has no accountability mechanism and no meaningful cost controls. As many of us predicted, while calls are made to cut public education spending in the wake of a budget shortfall, the voucher boondoggle won’t face any restrictions.
This budget shortfall—which also threatens to gut mental health services—was orchestrated by the very same representatives who passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, reducing revenue by $4 billion since 2021.
My challenge to you in the new year is this: look beyond the letter behind a name. Spend one hour per week reviewing the bills our legislators propose and how they vote. Chances are, you’ll find they’re behind most of the problems we face.
Miranda Marquit, Master of Business Administration, is a nationally recognized financial expert, writer, editor, podcaster and speaker. She is the vice chair of the Bonneville County Democratic Central Committee.