Incumbency no guarantee of success in Nov. 3 school board elections
November 6, 2015
Incumbents experienced decreased success in Tuesday's school board elections among America's largest school districts by enrollment, even though the overall number of candidates per seat was lower than the 2014 average. Results are still pending for 30 seats, but returns so far indicate that the incumbency success rate in these elections was more than 5 percent lower than last year. That disparity jumps to over 18 percent when considering only incumbents who faced challengers at the polls.
Overall, 1,289 candidates officially filed for the 774 seats up for election in 217 districts spread across the following 17 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.
Of the candidates seeking election on Tuesday, 253 (28.89 percent) were unopposed. In 2014, 32.60 percent of school board candidates in America's largest school districts by enrollment elections were unopposed. Over 40 percent of the candidates (529) this week were incumbents seeking re-election.
Winners for some of these seats could not be determined as of Friday morning. Due to Washington's vote-by-mail system, complete results are delayed there as ballots continue to arrive for processing. As of November 6, 2015, Ballotpedia had determined winners in 74 of the 102 seats up for election in the state's 34 largest school districts.
Some incumbents lose despite low candidacy rates, others win in spite of controversies
Defeated incumbents cannot blame their losses on crowded fields; an average of just 1.76 candidates filed for each seat up for election on Tuesday, down from the 1.89 candidates per seat in 2014 elections. They also cannot lay the blame entirely on negative media attention or local controversies.
All three incumbents who sought re-election in Columbus City Schools, Ohio, won re-election even though two of them were on the board when the district paid a tutoring company over $800,000 for unperformed services. Their success did not come from lack of options for voters at the polls, either. Seven candidates challenged them in a primary in May, and one of the four challengers that advanced to the general had been pivotal to launching the investigations against the district. The re-elected incumbents will serve another four-years, even after the investigations from the FBI and a state audit over the matter.
Public outcry against incumbents did lead to at least one radical board change. In Jeffco Public Schools, Colo., the combined votes of a recall and general election replaced the entire board after over a year of disagreement between the majority voting block.
Few winners in "chronically underachieving" Lawrence, Mass.
Some districts' results remained unresolved for peculiar reasons. Only two of the six seats up for election in Lawrence Public Schools, Mass., saw any official candidates file for them. It was expected that the other four seats would be filled by write-in candidates, but only two write-in candidates received enough votes to be elected. State law dictates a 50-vote minimum to serve on the school committee. Kamal Bozkurt received 70 votes and Emmanuel Castaneda received 62 votes in District A. Bozkurt serves as the acting director of the city library and would need to resign from the library if he accepts the committee seat due to restrictions on holding two public positions at one time. Castaneda would be eligible to assume the seat if Bozkurt decides against serving on the committee.
The board needs at least four sitting members to conduct business, and either Bozkurt or Castaneda would need to accept a committee spot to meet that threshold.[1] If the seats are not filled, the Lawrence City Council could appoint new members or board members who did not file for re-election could serve until vacancies are filled.[2]
The lack of competition for committee seats stems from a 2012 takeover of the district by state officials. The takeover occurred after the district was deemed "chronically underachieving" and placed in the hands of a receiver through at least 2018.[3] The Lawrence School Committee lacks authority to make substantive decisions and provides non-binding recommendations to the state receiver.[2]
Ties lead to recounts, possible runoffs
Two other states had races still undetermined as of Friday morning due to tied races. Two newcomers tied for the Place 1 seat in the College Station Independent School District in Texas, and the Trustee Area 1 incumbent in the Salinas Union High School District in California tied with his challenger.
According to the Texas Election Code, if a tie occurs then a second election is scheduled. Within five days of the election, a recount of the votes must occur, and if the outcome remains the same, the second election must be held between 20 and 30 days after the recount.[4] The California race is waiting on absentee votes to be counted, which could break that tie.
| Incumbent and challenger success | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | % challenger wins | % incumbent wins | % contested incumbent wins | ||||
| 2014 (Year) | November 3, 2015 | 2014 (Year) | November 3, 2015 | 2014 (Year) | November 3, 2015 | ||
| California | 37.75% | 34.31% | 79.31% | 82.28% | 71.05% | 58.23% | |
| Colorado | N/A | 55.38% | N/A | 82.86% | N/A | 45.71% | |
| Connecticut | 33.33% | 61.90% | 100.00% | 80.00% | 100.00% | 65.00% | |
| Massachusetts | N/A | 33.33% | N/A | 85.71% | N/A | 57.14% | |
| Minnesota | 39.39% | 33.33% | 86.96% | 95.65% | 83.33% | 78.26% | |
| Mississippi | 40.00% | 0.00% | 75.00% | 1.00% | 75.00% | N/A | |
| Missouri | 43.86% | 100.00% | 86.49% | N/A | 82.76% | N/A | |
| New Hampshire | N/A | 31.58% | N/A | 92.86% | N/A | 53.85% | |
| New Jersey | 41.38% | 50.98% | 79.07% | 49.02% | 75.68% | 39.22% | |
| New York | 40.43% | 50.00% | 82.35% | 80.00% | 76.92% | 80.00% | |
| North Carolina | 50.79% | 37.50% | 69.23% | 83.33% | 61.11% | 75.00% | |
| Ohio | N/A | 34.78% | N/A | 78.38% | N/A | 45.95% | |
| Pennsylvania | N/A | 46.15% | N/A | 94.23% | N/A | 51.92% | |
| South Carolina | 34.74% | 33.33% | 79.73% | 66.67% | 58.33% | 66.67% | |
| Texas | 38.05% | 35.29% | 81.76% | 88.00% | 67.02% | 40.00% | |
| Virginia | 50.00% | 40.78% | 66.67% | 85.29% | 57.89% | 30.88% | |
| Washington | N/A | 17.65% | N/A | 71.79% | N/A | 5.13% | |
| Averages* | 38.09% | 40.96% | 81.43% | 76.07% | 71.04% | 52.86% | |
| *The 2014 numbers for each state are based on all elections held among America's largest school districts by enrollment in each state during the entire year. The 2014 averages in the bottom row are for all of the districts among the top 1,000 that held elections that year. Due to the vote-by-mail delay, the statistics for November 3, 2015, will be updated as the complete results for Washington are reported. Similarly, updates will be made upon the resolution of tied races in California and Texas. | |||||||
Partisan options range across three states
Three of the states with elections among America's largest school districts by enrollment used partisan systems: Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania. The role of the parties in selecting and campaigning for candidates is regulated differently across each state. For example, candidates in all three states could appear on the ballot with more than one party designation. In New York and Pennsylvania, candidates could choose these multiple party designations for themselves through cross-filing. Alternatively, Connecticut school board candidates are selected through a party convention nomination system.
Cross-filers clear the field in primaries, win big in Pennsylvania generals
In Tuesday's election, all of the Pennsylvania candidates filed as Democratic, Republican, both Democratic and Republican, or independents. Dual-party identified candidates had the most success: 54 cross-filed candidates won across the state, compared to 23 Democrats and 14 Republicans. Cross-filed candidates were more likely to succeed in the general because to obtain both party identifications, they had to win in both parties' primaries in May, thereby reducing the overall field of candidates in their respective races.
Dems and their affiliated minor parties take New York
Cross-filing between the major parties is not allowed in Connecticut or New York. All of the successful New York candidates were filed either solely as Democrats or as Democrats cross-filed with a minor party. No Republicans filed for those races. There were candidates filed with both the Working Families Party and the Green Party, but only Working Families candidates who cross-filed as Democrats found success in New York.
Minor-party requirement shapes one Connecticut board
The Connecticut races had the greatest variety in party participation and wins. Candidates from both major parties, the Working Families Party, and the Connecticut Independent Party (CIP)—along with independent petitioners—ran across the state's largest districts. Democrats secured the most of the 42 seats up for election in those districts; 20 seats were won by Democrats and another four by candidates nominated by both the Democratic and Working Families parties. Republicans won 13 seats by single-party candidates and another three seats by candidates cross-nominated with the CIP. Two seats were won by candidates solely nominated by the CIP.
Connecticut law requires a third of the seats on at-large school boards to be held by a minority party following each election. This means that being the highest vote recipient is not always a key to election success. Republican candidates in Danbury Public Schools felt the impact of the minority requirement this year. As the board has a strong Republican majority, the three Democratic candidates were guaranteed wins, despite each receiving fewer votes than the lowest-ranked Republican candidate.
De facto partisanship
Party politics can take effect even in the technically nonpartisan districts. For example, observers have noted that partisanship still has a strong influence in some Virginia districts, despite all boards being nonpartisan by law. Fairfax County Public Schools is one example of such a school district.[5][6] Prior to Tuesday's election, Fairfax had an identifiable 10-2 Democratic majority. The party's strength waned slightly, with one seat going to a Republican-backed candidate in the election.
| Candidacy rates and unopposed races | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Candidates per seat | % of seats that were unopposed | |||||
| 2014 (Year) | November 3, 2015 | 2014 (Year) | November 3, 2015015 | ||||
| California | 1.89 | 1.94 | 25.25% | 22.55% | |||
| Colorado | N/A | 1.78 | N/A | 30.77% | |||
| Connecticut | 2 | 1.60 | 0.00% | 16.67% | |||
| Massachusetts | N/A | 1.47 | N/A | 25.49% | |||
| Minnesota | 2 | 1.70 | 21.21% | 18.18% | |||
| Mississippi | 1.8 | 1.00 | 20.00% | 100.00% | |||
| Missouri | 1.86 | 2.00 | 15.79% | 0.00% | |||
| New Hampshire | N/A | 2.74 | N/A | 42.11% | |||
| New Jersey | 2 | 2.02 | 15.52% | 11.76% | |||
| New York | 2.02 | 1.63 | 23.40% | 0.00% | |||
| North Carolina | 2.17 | 2.56 | 22.22% | 6.25% | |||
| Ohio | N/A | 1.76 | N/A | 30.43% | |||
| Pennsylvania | N/A | 1.37 | N/A | 34.07% | |||
| South Carolina | 1.67 | 1.44 | 44.21% | 11.11% | |||
| Texas | 1.86 | 1.88 | 37.61% | 35.29% | |||
| Virginia | 2.16 | 1.61 | 15.63% | 43.69% | |||
| Washington | N/A | 1.37 | N/A | 62.75% | |||
| Averages | 1.89 | 1.76 | 32.60% | 28.89% | |||
| *The 2014 numbers for each state are based on all elections held among America's largest school districts by enrollment in each state during the entire year. The 2014 averages in the bottom row are for all of the districts among the top 1,000 that held elections that year. | |||||||
See also
| School board elections portal | News and analysis | |
|---|---|---|
 |
 | |
Footnotes
- ↑ Eagle-Tribune, " Write-ins carry the day for Lawrence School Committee," November 5, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Eagle-Tribune, "Lawrence School Committee may dwindle to three in January," September 22, 2015
- ↑ WBUR, "Lawrence Schools Under State Control For At Least 3 More Years," June 8, 2015
- ↑ College Station Independent School District, "November 3, 2015 Election Results", accessed November 5, 2015
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Fairfax County School Board election uniquely partisan," September 7, 2011
- ↑ American School Board Journal, "Politics and School Board Races," March 2012
| |||||
