The Messenger has left no doubt in our readers’ minds that we’re vehemently opposed to the even-year elections law that was passed in New York State during the Christmas season in 2023.
Allow us to beat this topic to death even further.
The law, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul (D), realigns odd-year elections, which typically include elections for local offices, with even-year elections, which always feature the presidential and midterm elections on a rotating basis. Local elections have traditionally been held in the off-years to allow for local candidates to not only receive some oxygen in the room, but to separate kitchen-table issues from hot-button, nationalized politics.
The crux of this argument, at least with us, lies with the fact that the issues most affecting your life are likely to be handled by your local elected official. Municipal jurisdictions will invariably make a more noticeable difference when it comes to the daily minutiae, property taxes, and quality-of-life issues in any given community.
That’s not to say that federal and State representation don’t matter, but they operate in different spheres.
Conflation of Issues.
Firstly, our biggest problem with the law is that voters on both sides are likely to be susceptible to messaging that dominates the top of the ticket and then transcends down the ballot. There’s a reason Democrats and Republicans can win locally in areas considered unthinkable at the state and/or federal levels. It’s because their constituent service, attention to detail, and ear-to-the-rail politics – or lack thereof – can speak louder than partisan politics.
This isn’t to say that voters aren’t smart enough to see the forest for the trees, but in today’s divisive and increasingly partisan era, it’s inevitable that some will allow the top of their ticket – be it a presidential or gubernatorial vote – to guide the rest of their ballot. Split-ticket voting is also at historic lows in most of the country.
Additionally, we wouldn’t put it past local candidates to run on those national issues to whip up votes downstream. A local election is about parks, roads, and sewers, not immigration, foreign policy, and most social issues.
Furthermore, we can’t see how there’s enough oxygen in the room for local candidates to compete with national candidates for attention. Who wants to hear about sewer infrastructure when there’s a political coliseum waiting to be filled?
Now that the law has been upheld on appeal, we think we’ll see tremendous ballot drop-off. In other words, voters will be likely to only tick the box for president or governor and leave the rest of the options blank.
Inundation and “Voter Fatigue”
A common defense from Democrats, who supported and passed this bill, is that it will alleviate “voter fatigue” by giving voters a year off in between even-year cycles.
We think this is a disingenuous appeal to altruism. Voters shouldn’t have a year off; there’s a reason why we hear, “every year is an election year.” Requiring voters to show up once per year – which is not a hard lift at all – only begets a more informed electorate. Who can balk at that?
Furthermore, why is giving voters a year off an attractive concept as it relates to the issues? The newscycle is already hard enough to keep up with, and given that many people don’t pay attention to election cycles until late August-early September, what will that gap of an entire year do to the information pool? Memories are short enough already.
Increasing Turnout
This is perhaps the biggest discrepancy we can find. Democrats opine that the law will encourage more voters to hit the polls.
This is a classic prediction-explanation fallacy. Of course, merging odd-year and even-year elections will result in a higher turnout because more candidates are on the ballot and the even years generate more turnout by nature of the contests held.
But if turnout increase is the goal, then why doesn’t the law apply to New York City?
Yes, they remain in their own, exclusive bubble with off-year elections, while the rest of the state is on the hook for this experiment. Moreover, Democrats are attempting to increase turnout among minority communities – a legitimately worthy goal – but if NYC has the biggest basket of minority voters, then why wouldn’t this law extend to the Big Apple?
Moreover, increased turnout doesn’t mean anything if local elections don’t see congruent, or at least proportional, levels of voter participation. There’s nothing stopping the aforementioned ballot drop-off.
Technical Difficulties
Democrats also argue that this will allay costs associated with running elections every year.
That doesn’t take into account that the ballots will triple in size in western Suffolk and will likely balloon to dozens of candidates on the East End, where there are more positions up for grabs. Should there be confusion among voters, difficulties with voting machines accepting the ballots, or other tabulation problems, we could see delayed results or even more election workers on the payroll.
But this point ignores a glaring problem with the theory: some positions are still mandated to be elected in the off-years. The District Attorney, the Sheriff, and various judicial, school, and library board elections are still to be held in the off-years, meaning voters are still going to the polls, machines are still running, and poll workers are still clocking in.
So, we’re saving money, but at the same time, not really. Why then make the change?
In its original reversal, plaintiffs won on the grounds that the law violated charter counties’ home rule, with Judge Gerard Neri saying that local elections are an “inherently local concern.”
The Court of Appeals’ ruling that validates the law says that counties’ charters do not grant them exclusive rights of administering elections, and that the law is a valid “general law.”
We find it counterintuitive that Albany is fine with punching down, yet it’s like pulling teeth for Suffolk to get Environmental Bond Act monies and federally earmarked infrastructure dollars that were meant for municipalities. While not an entirely congruent comparison, we find it hypocritical and downright bully-ish that Albany wants everything to be streamlined to their demands, but won’t play nicely in the sandbox – even when such actions would likely be more of a boost for the dominant party at the ballot box.
Partisan Damage Control
It all comes down to this.
Governor Hochul is using this law to drown out suburban votes to conceal the fact that New York is seemingly evolving into a battleground state. She’s already locked into a tough, uphill climb for re-election next year, and if the GOP can win a statewide election in New York, it would send shockwaves throughout the country. We continue to believe that New York’s 2026 gubernatorial election will be the marquee race of next year’s midterms.
However, New York does remain obdurately blue at the top of the ticket, meaning down-ballot votes are likely to coalesce around Democratic candidates, and even if New York becomes a fully-fledged swing state, the fundamentals will stay play at least slightly to the favor of the Democratic Party.
We’d be fine if those Democrats were the blue dogs of yesteryear, but they’re so few and far between nowadays. Even so, local elections should be afforded the mint-on-the-pillow attention municipalities deserve, regardless of which party will see the net benefit.
It just so happens one party is in favor of this and they stand to reap the benefits if this law is upheld on appeal.
So, cherish this odd-year election as a dying breed – the last of its kind.
Because it seems that that will be the law of the land for the foreseeable future.