Bill to move many local elections to even-numbered years sparks debate on turnout and local control

Senate File 634, a bill to shift many local and school board elections into even-numbered years, was presented to the State Elections Committee and drew extended debate on turnout, local control and compatibility with ranked-choice voting. The committee laid the bill over for further consideration and the sponsor said he will work with stakeholders on outstanding issues.

Sponsor Senator Mark Barr said the bill’s intent is to "move as many elections as we can over to the even-numbered years" so they will coincide with higher-turnout general elections. He pointed to examples of low participation in off-year contests — including a school board election that drew "10 or 11 people" in one instance — and cited statewide turnout figures of about 76% in a recent general election and 61% in the midterm referenced in committee discussion.

Representatives of school boards and cities testified in opposition. Greg Abbott, representing the Minnesota School Boards Association and the Association of Metropolitan School Districts, told the committee the measure "is an unnecessary mandate that erodes local control of school districts." Abbott said a long-running local option exists and that only a small number of districts (25 of 331, he said) remain on odd‑year cycles by local choice; he argued the change would break a prior understanding that left the choice to local districts.

The League of Minnesota Cities also opposed the bill. Pierre Ouellette of the League said about 30 cities currently hold elections in odd-numbered years and that cities value the local ability to schedule elections and, in some cases, to use alternative methods such as ranked-choice voting. The League argued the bill would remove local authority and could prevent some cities from using election methods currently allowed under their charters.

Committee members raised additional questions. Senator Marty asked whether a jurisdiction must maintain at least one long-term absentee voting site and about existing notice deadlines; legal counsel and secretary‑of‑state staff referenced the statutory provisions for 46‑day absentee locations. Committee members also asked whether ranked‑choice voting can appear on a statewide ballot; Nicole Freeman of the secretary of state’s office said state law does not currently provide for handling ranked‑choice tabulation in a statewide election and that statutory changes would be needed for RCV to appear in conjunction with statewide elections.

Several senators said they supported the bill’s objective of increased participation but wanted to address concerns about townships and ranked‑choice voting. Senator Bach asked to work on an amendment to exempt townships and cities of the first class; the sponsor agreed to work with staff on preservation of annual March township meetings and other technical fixes. Senator Swadzinski and other supporters emphasized the cost of off‑year elections and the goal of broader participation: "For a medium sized school district to run an off year election is basically a one year's teacher salary," he said, noting the fiscal impact on small jurisdictions.

After discussion and testimony the committee laid Senate File 634 over for further work. The sponsor said he will consult with school boards, townships and rank‑choice voting advocates as the bill is revised.

Votes at a glance: Senate File 634 — laid over for future consideration.