With the stakes of the presidential and congressional elections constantly blaring from sensationalized headlines, legions of podcasters, and TV ads paralleling “in a world”-style dystopian thriller trailers, it can be hard to remember to look further down on the ballot come voting day. However, it is crucial not to let the flashing lights and bright colors at the top distract you from voting for smaller candidates, nonpartisan candidates, and local and statewide proposals. They are the bedrock of American government and the consequences of these elections results hit closest to home. Literally.
As the following four proposed Ann Arbor City Charter Amendments demonstrate, the local programs you or the adults in your life are voting on this year will have meaningful impacts in your life, community, and city.
Proposal A: Creation of a Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU)
What It Means: This amendment would allow people to switch to a new local power grid based on 100% renewable energy. The energy would come from solar panels installed in participants’ homes and local geothermal power stations. Funding would come from installation prices, not general taxes.
Why to Vote For: Dispersion of energy sources throughout the community guarantees members will have access to electricity constantly, even when the traditional power grid fails. The SEU is an optional utility costing those who opt out nothing, and is a supplement—not replacement—for the DTE grid. Additionally, the localization allows energy to be controlled and distributed by Ann Arbor citizens, not Detroiters, as well as provided at a cheaper rate than so-called “dirty” energy. Most importantly, the SEU would get Ann Arbor closer to its goal of 100% renewable energy by 2030.
Why to Vote Against: Though the cost of renewable energy is substantially cheaper than the current option, the installation and maintenance costs necessary to participate make the utility an unavailable option for less affluent residents.
Why You Should Care: This utility would give you an easy and relatively inexpensive way to reduce your carbon footprint and slow climate change. If you vote yes and choose to opt in, it will be an investment not only in lower energy bills, but the health of the planet.
For more information:
https://www.a2gov.org/departments/sustainability/Carbon-Neutrality/Pages/default.aspx
Prop B: Authorizing Tax for Park Maintenance and Capital Improvements
What It Means: Don’t worry that this amendment would drastically increase your taxes. It is simply a renewal of a tax that you or your family already pay. As the name implies, this tax provides for maintenance and safety inspections of local playgrounds, nature areas, and other public park space. This is a 1.10 mill tax, which means that you will pay $1.10 per $1000 of taxable property.
For: This is a standard public service and ensures the quality and safety of public places. If you do not want the quality of parks to worsen, this tax is a necessity.
Against: This is a tax that affects your personal wealth. If you don’t believe the services provided are worth the price, do not vote for them.
Why You Should Care: If this is the city you plan on living in for the rest of your life, the quality of its public services will be with you the entire time. This tax guarantees access to good playgrounds and woods.
For more information:
Prop C: Non-Partisan Elections
What It Means: This amendment eliminates the city’s August primary election and removes references to party affiliation on the ballot. In fact, it entirely removes parties from nomination petitions, forms used to officially declare candidacy.
For: The first part of the amendment gives more power to college students by canceling the summer primary, when many are out of town and unable to vote. The later provisions are based on the idea that removing party affiliation allows people to focus more on the ideas expressed by candidates than their parties. This would also allow smaller, less politically central figures to have a chance at election. Lacking a party nomination, they would otherwise be overlooked.
Against: Many voters simply will not vote in elections for which they know nothing about the candidates. Party affiliations give these people general insights into the policies of a candidate, making it more likely for them to voice their opinion on the ballot. This provides for a more representative democracy. Additionally, parties are incentivized to choose candidates that have broad appeal and more centrist politics to get the most votes. Without parties on the ballot, far fewer people will know the various candidates’ politics and will choose not to vote. This will magnify the votes for so-called “fringe” candidates whose voters are educated on their specific ideals, increasing the likelihood of less representative candidates being elected to office.
Why You Should Care: More than any other local amendment on the ballot, this one would reshape how local politics function. It would create a candidate-centric, not party-centric, election process that would give smaller, and possibly less representative, candidates a chance at office.
For more information:
https://www.a2nonpartisan.com/chart-amendment
Prop D: Fair Elections Fund
What It Means: A fund would be created to provide money to candidates for mayor or city council which would only be available to them if they agreed to limit individual campaign contributions, receive contributions only from people (not corporations), and document small-dollar donations alongside larger ones. If a candidate opted in, they would receive from the city 900% matching funds to what they raised, to a maximum of $40,000 for city council and $90,000 for mayor.
For: The benefits of this amendment are twofold. First, it would allow smaller candidates to have the necessary funds to stand a chance against larger party- and corporation-backed candidates. Second, it would incentivize less “dark money” (money donated to a campaign through untraceable sources) from private interest grounds such as unions and corporations.
Against: The amendment won’t actually change the results of elections or dark money involved in them. Candidates who are likely to win often have the support of large corporations and enough wealthy individuals that it makes more financial sense to opt out of the nine to one matching policy, and instead turn to larger, less traceable, private donations. Therefore, the financial responsibility of people elected to office will not change, and public money would be spent en masse on losing candidates. Additionally, this fund takes taxpayer money and donates it to candidates uniformly. The purpose of personal campaign donations is to voice your opinion on policy. It would be more fair if people got to choose to whose campaign their money went to.
Why You Should Care: As in Prop C, this amendment has the potential to reshape the election process. It could hold politicians accountable for their finances, or waste your money on candidates whose policies you don’t agree with.
For more information: