By Elliott Brack
Editor and Publisher, GwinnettForum
MAY 24, 2024 | See if you find something out-of-whack in this situation in Georgia for elections.
The Supreme Court landmark decision in Reynolds v. Smith (1964), determined that state legislature districts must be roughly equal in population. This decision by the Warren Court became known as the “one man, one vote” principle.
With that in mind, let’s turn to another question.
Should incumbents be given preferential treatment on an election ballot? Is this fair to challengers?
You saw it in the Georgia Primary ballot this week, when those who had been immediately previously elected to an office, were listed as “incumbent” on the ballot.
Is this “fair to all?”
Going further, does that simple word of office (”incumbent”) say to all those voting that this particular candidate has held this office before and so could be better qualified to hold the office for another term than a challenger?
Again, is this fair for any challenger? Should challengers be looked upon in another light than the current office holder? In effect, does it put challengers at a distinct disadvantage?
It is obviously difficult enough to gain elected office. Should additional hurdles be placed against challengers, just because they have not held office?
The web site Ballotpedia says that “…the incumbent position may be seen as advantageous depending on the current sentiment of the associated constituents. If the constituents feel current circumstances are acceptable, there may be a higher inclination to vote for the incumbent. If the constituents disapprove of the situation resulting from the incumbent’s policies or actions, they may be less inclined to vote for them.”
It further states: “The advantages that an incumbent candidate has include being a known quantity. Their name is known, their personality, their beliefs, and their opinions, the knowledge of running a successful campaign, an air of success, established donors, the risk aversion of voters, and control over certain areas of the government.” They also raise more money, especially from lobbyists.
One outcome is for sure: incumbents tend to win more elections than the challengers. One source says in 2023 that 94 percent of incumbents won their elections. In fact, the incumbent win rate was at 90 percent or above in all states except for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
This would indicate that the ballot noting the incumbent therefore gives the office holder an advantage. That seems to violate the spirit of fairness that you would want to have when government performs its actions.
In the primary on Tuesday in Gwinnett County, every incumbent won re-nomination as their party’s choice to run in the General Election. That should come as no surprise.
Election challengers by definition face an uphill struggle to win office. Having to face an opponent who on the ballot has “incumbent” before his name makes winning by a challenger doubly doubtful.
It’s just downright not fair.
The problem: to get this situation changed would require legislation from….guess who? Mainly incumbents. And most don’t want to give away that distinction on the ballot.
Welcome Mulberrians to cityhood. Some 57 percent of your neighbors voted to create the 17th city in Gwinnett on Tuesday. From the success we’ve witnessed in Peachtree Corners, this looks positive for you.
Now seek good candidates to run for office in the fall to lead your city
- Have a comment? Click here to send an email.
Follow Us