The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
The city of Tucson and the state of Arizona have locked horns over the scheduling of elections. Most elections are held in even-numbered years, e.g., 2012, 2016, and 2020. Tucson has decided, with a majority of its people in support, to hold local elections as stand-alone events in odd-numbered years.
Tucson can do this because it is one of 19 charter cities in the state of Arizona. These cities have a charter, a sort of municipal constitution, that allows it to self govern with regards to issues and processes that are strictly local in nature. Charter cities are still subdivisions of the state of Arizona, but have the authority to manage their own affairs.
Allow me to address a pet peeve of mine. You may sometimes read that charter cities have the “right” to manage their affairs, but government entities do not have rights, they have jurisdictions and authorities; people have rights. It is an important distinction. Thanks for your indulgence.
The state of Arizona would prefer that Tucson’s city elections occur with the state and federal elections on even years. To make that happen, the state had to come up with a “compelling interest” that would make it a state issue as well as a local one. So, it claimed that the state had a compelling interest in increasing voter turnout, which it claimed would occur with consolidated elections. The reification of that theory came in the form of a state law, passed in 2018, that required the charter cities to move elections to even-numbered years if their odd-year turnout was more that 25 percentage points less than the even year turnout.
In theory, the 25 percentage points or greater difference would demonstrate a significant turnout disparity, and assuming the state did have an interest in turnout, the state could now compel the city to move all elections to even years.
The turnout for the city of Tucson election of 2018 was 67%, while the 2019 local election was 39.3% which exceeded the 25 percentage points difference. Tucson then flouted the state law and scheduled the next local election for 2021. The state of Arizona took the city of Tucson to court. It is now being argued at the Arizona Supreme Court level.
Now, it is true that 40% of those eligible to vote in a presidential election year do not vote, but why is that considered a problem? The most frequent reasons people give for not voting are that they are “not interested in the election” or “not involved in politics.” Will cajoling these disinterested people into voting yield better outcomes?
Assuming that these people could be cajoled into voting, could it be done in a broad, neutral way, or would it necessarily favor one demographic group over another? The answer is that it would always favor one group over another, or fail. If the message is broad enough to reach everyone, it will be insipid enough to inspire no one.
Since there is no way to produce a neutral voter turnout campaign, and the state government should not be favoring one group over another (the spirit of the “equal protection under the law” notion), the state of Arizona should stay out of the voter turnout business.
Tucson Mayor Regina Romero has stated, “Our city elections are a matter of local concern, which has been reaffirmed by Tucson voters on several occasions.” If you throw in the fact that the state of Arizona’s “compelling interest” argument is really wishful thinking, then I find myself (better sit down for this) agreeing with Mayor Romero...strange times.
