The Lafayette Daily Advertiser editorializes in support of the local school board which has taken a stand against 4 of Nancy Landry’s bills and one from Vincent Pierre. The local paper steps through the arguments presented in favor of each and efficiently demolishes them. They are worth a citizen’s review if only in order to remind one how editorials are supposed to be written. I was particularly fond of the following riff concerning “improving voter participation” by moving the school board elections to coincide with the Governor’s race:
Opponents of the say school board candidates, who historically don’t have well-financed campaigns, stand a good chance of getting lost on a long ballot.
That’s what Teten refers to as “an election effect called ‘ballot drop-off….'”
“More or less people stop voting or tire of voting after a certain point,” Tetan said. “Or they don’t know the names.”
A possible 10 percent increase in voter participation, coupled with the possibility that the advantage could easily be canceled out by the negative effects of being in a bigger election does not make a convincing argument for moving the election.
We vote to keep things as they are.
The final argument the Advertiser makes agains these bill gets at the most powerful reason for opposing them all:
At the very least these bills represent state intrusion into local matters, a recurring theme of late, it seems.