What moving local elections to even years will do for local politics
The first early voting numbers are in, and it is clear: New Yorkers are turning out in historic numbers to cast their votes in the mayoral election. In the first three days of the 2025 general election voting period, 223,268 checked in — almost five times as many as the 45,009 who showed up in the first three days of the 2021 general election early voting period.
But even if the high turnout rate persists, the most bullish predictions anticipate just 30-40% of registered voters will cast a vote this fall. That means fewer than one in four New Yorkers will have inked in the oval next to the next mayor’s name. As the victor inevitably claims a mandate to follow through on his agenda, those who disagree will be able to ask: Does he really have one?
It need not be this way. Municipal election turnout in New York City has remained stubbornly low for decades, but this fall we will vote on a proposal that could double turnout rates in our city elections. Proposal 6 would move New York City elections to the same year as presidential elections once state law allows it — a change that would dramatically increase voter turnout in city elections.
As a scholar of New York City elections, I’ve watched the turnout rates in our city remain stubbornly stagnant despite the valiant efforts of advocacy groups, like Go Vote NYC, on whose board I serve. Legislation enacting early voting and no-excuse absentee voting was passed in the hopes they would improve the numbers, but turnout hasn’t budged. Ranked choice voting was meant to decrease the appeal of negative campaigning and increase voter turnout, but its effects are limited and it is only used in closed partisan city primary elections.
The people who show up to vote are the ones elected officials pay the most attention to. In the 2025 primary election, people under the age of 35 voted in historic numbers, outperforming voters over the age of 65 by a wide margin. But that was unusual; voters in off-year races tend to be older and whiter, making our local government less reflective of the city.
Voters feel more connected to government officials whose names they have read on ballots, and those elected can govern with greater confidence when they have achieved “buy in” from a majority of residents. The more people who vote in city elections, the broader a mandate elected leaders can claim, and the more power they have to enact their agenda. Conversely, low turnout erodes trust. When only a sliver of voters participate, politicians are more likely to cater to that narrow group, instead of the whole city. That’s not democracy — it’s inside baseball.
In the 2020 presidential election, 3 million New York City voters showed up. One year later, just 1.1 million voters showed up at the polls. These years are not outliers — presidential contests routinely draw nearly triple the number of participants as our municipal elections. That’s especially remarkable given that it’s hardly ever in doubt which way New York State’s electoral college votes will go, whereas mayoral elections can be genuinely competitive.
Many cities across the country struggle with voter turnout for the same reason New York does. Elections held soon after another depress turnout everywhere. But the comparison also provides hope. Other cities have solved this problem by moving local elections to even-numbered years. In other major cities that have made this change, turnout has skyrocketed: Phoenix went from an average of 23% to as high as 77%, Baltimore turnout shot up from 13% to 60% and in Los Angeles, voter turnout doubled. The gains endure.
Critics argue that the issues that matter in municipal races will get lost in the public conversation amidst the noise of presidential years. But the evidence says otherwise. Voters are motivated to pay more attention to down-ballot races when they share the stage with big contests, evidenced by the fact that Assembly races in even years in New York City draw higher turnout than City Council races in odd years. Holding our city elections when New Yorkers are already engaged in election-related conversations encourages voters to learn more about candidates at the city level, rather than trying to bring them back into a conversation when the rest of the country has moved on.
Others argue that adding municipal races to presidential ballots will make them too long and confusing for voters. Down ballot “roll off” is a challenge, but the turnout gains would more than offset inevitable roll off. Moreover, utilizing smart ballot design — like listing local offices first — would guard against voter fatigue and increase voter participation in local contests when they appear on presidential ballots.
Opponents of Proposal 6 who contend that city races will get swept up in the national partisan politics which dominate presidential years, reflecting the partisan makeup of the electorate rather than those of voters who are truly engaged in local issues, should ask what they think democracy is really supposed to be about. The unavoidable implication of their argument is that our city should only want to hear from certain voters, those who are suitably informed, weighing in on the issues at stake in local elections. That logic once justified literacy tests and disenfranchisement.
Nothing is ever easy or simple in New York City; passing Proposal 6 won’t move our municipal elections immediately. It will require a state constitutional amendment — which hinges on two legislative approvals and a statewide referendum. But a strong “Yes” vote this year would send a message Albany won’t be able to ignore: New Yorkers want to move our municipal elections to presidential years.
Do we want more people to have a say in who becomes our mayor, or fewer? New Yorkers are known for their loud and feisty voices, motivated by national politics but shaped deeply by local issues. By moving municipal elections to presidential years, we will ensure that more of those voices are heard.