The size of the defeat for the “education” sales tax referendum in
Tuesday’s election likely surprised many in Mecklenburg County Tuesday night. Whether you supported it or opposed it, it’s
doubtful too many thought the margin would be over 20 points. (38.8% For, 61.2% Against to be exact.)
As someone who longs for transparent and honest government, it was
very disappointing and hard to watch how this sales tax referendum unfolded from
beginning to end. There were several
troubling aspects which taken together make it feel like it was the right thing
that this did not pass.
Was this a process that had community buy-in from the start?
No. The Chamber of Commerce and
even the School Board were taken off guard when the County Commissioners
decided to put the tax on the ballot in a split 5-4 vote - mostly along party
lines.
Was a sales tax the best way to fund CMS salaries long-term? No. It
is too variable a revenue stream. What happens when the next economic
downturn hits? Would those raises turn into pay cuts when sales tax
revenue dips as it always does during a recession? Would the other organizations slated to
receive funds from this tax face cuts to keep CMS salaries from falling? Too many outstanding questions were left
unanswered.
Was the tax even a guaranteed source of revenue for education?
No. While supporters of the tax
claimed during the course of the debate that it would always be for education,
the truth is that a future Board could have redirected this money to anything.
This tax revenue would have been general revenue and not legally tied to
education spending. The reason the ballot question on Tuesday did not
mention education was that this was not an “education” tax. Those who supported the tax were anything but
clear on this fact.
This last point came up at the candidate forum at River Run in
Davidson. The candidates for NC House -
98 were asked whether or not they supported the tax increase. Republican John
Bradford said he did not - citing this lack of a guarantee as his reason why. Democrat Natasha Marcus who supported the tax
shot back that Bradford's stance was a "dodge". The truth is that
Bradford was right.
But maybe the hardest thing to watch was how public institutions targeted
to benefit from this tax, danced right up to the line on what was legal for
them to do in promoting its passage. On
more than one occasion they did things which were questionable and possibly
over the line while pushing for the tax.
In addition to a small body of case law, there are two general statutes in
North Carolina that govern what can and cannot be done by public institutions
regarding elections – including referendums.
One set of laws is about spending public money. The other is about “electioneering” around polling
places.
G.S.
160A-499.3 states “a municipality shall not use public funds to endorse or
oppose a referendum, election or a particular candidate for elective office.” G.S. §163-166.4(a) states “No person or group
of persons shall hinder access, harass others, distribute campaign literature,
place political advertising, solicit votes, or otherwise engage in
election-related activity in the voting place or in a buffer zone.”
At
some point both of these laws were bent well past their breaking point by our
public institutions and officials, but since nobody will likely challenge them
in court nothing will be done about it.
A cynic would say our public institutions know that they will not be
challenged in an expensive court case, so they have no fear of stepping out of
bounds when it suits their needs.
The
library system and CMS created fliers that indirectly promoted passing the
tax. They technically stayed within
bounds and did not explicitly encourage voting for the tax. However, both fliers certainly implied bad
things would happen if it did not pass.
The Library was challenged on the placement of its fliers inside facilities
that also served as early voting sites.
To avoid running afoul of the electioneering law these were removed – a sign
the library knew they were pushing the legal limits.
The
Arts and Science Council and the Town of Davidson went even further. They both explicitly encouraged voting for
the tax in materials they created. The
ASC had multiple posts on its website encouraging people to vote for the tax. Davidson Mayor John Woods was encouraging the
same in the town’s latest newsletter which came out late last week just prior
to election-day. It’s hard to see how
the ASC’s actions do not break rules governing non-profits. The same could be said about Davidson’s use
of a publicly funded newsletter to encourage passing the tax.
As
County officials go back to the drawing board on the question of funding
education, the size of this defeat as well as the actions of these institutions
need to be taken into account when deciding how to do it. Using questionable, strong-arm tactics to
raise revenue has proven not to work.
Maybe now it’s time for Commissioners to figure out how to live within
the County’s existing means.
Bonus Observation: Check out this interactive map for where the sales tax actually passed. It's telling that Davidson precinct 206 was one of the few precincts where it succeeded (just barely). Overall it, still failed for the two town precincts, but Davidson was closer as a municipality than any other in Mecklenburg County.
Having the Mayor use public funds to tell everyone to go vote for something likely made the difference.
