To the editor:
I’ve been listening to the arguments for and against Proposition 3 in the Village of Pelham Manor. For anyone voting there who might appreciate a summary, here are the pros and cons of moving the election from March to November that I’ve heard.
On timing, the pro argument is that combining local and national elections into the same November day adds nine early voting days, makes voting easier and increases turnout. The con argument is that it’s not significantly easier or more convenient to vote once, with the option of nine early voting days, than having an additional single election day in March, and that data showing higher turnout in November is wrong.
Regarding focus, the pro argument is that people can thoughtfully consider local and national issues at the same time in November, as they are doing with the very issue of Prop 3. The con argument is that people cannot thoughtfully consider local and national issues at the same time in November, but they can focus on local issues in March, because they aren’t distracted by national issues then.
Financially, the pro argument for consolidating elections is that a November date saves taxpayers money because the county would run the election at no additional cost. The con argument is that moving the election only saves a few thousand dollars, which is such a small percentage of the village budget that it doesn’t matter.
Legally, the pro argument is that moving the election to November means different, preferable state laws apply to voting. For example, in November no individual can deliver more than five absentee ballots for others, rather than the unlimited number (well over 100, in a recent March Manor election) allowed under village law. The con case is that March election laws, such as the rule allowing unlimited absentee ballots delivered by one person, work well.
On oversight, the pro argument is that moving the election to November puts the county in charge of Pelham Manor elections, ending the practice of local candidates indirectly overseeing their own elections. The con argument is that candidates do not oversee their own elections; they only control the hiring, salary and benefits of the people overseeing elections, which never influences anything.
On primaries, the pro argument is that a November election means a primary rather than a caucus. Primaries make it easier for anyone to run for office, not just whomever is chosen by a group able to attend a single in-person meeting. The con argument is that it’s more efficient for candidates to be chosen by a group present at a single in-person meeting.
In terms of similar communities, the pro argument is shifting village elections to November has succeeded in multiple Westchester County villages with similar income, education and issues as the Manor. Only 13% of Westchester villages run their own March elections. The con argument is that 77% of villages in New York State have March elections, and significant disparities between those municipalities and the education levels, income and issues in the Manor are irrelevant.
Partisanship has been much discussed. The pro-Prop-3 supporters say this issue is nonpartisan, and the claim that a November election benefits one party is the same as insisting a March election benefits another. Neither is true nor a reason for when to hold an election; consolidating dates benefits all voters. The opposition says the proposition is a move by Democrats to win elections, and the people who support them don’t understand the Manor. They are trying to take over and change the local neighborhood character we love.
Marin Zielinski
60 First St.