On the face of it, 2014 looks like it was a pretty good year for libraries at the ballot box: some 148 libraries reporting for this tally won and 42 lost. About 78% of libraries passed funding, bonds, or authority measures in 2014. Over 1.7 million Americans voted yes for their libraries. Only 22% lost. While unfortunate, it doesn’t seem tragic or perilous. But at EveryLibrary, we’re worried about the 1.1 million Americans who voted no this year.
Nonetheless, we’d like to figure out why winners win and losers lose, in order to help ensure that there are more of the former and fewer of the latter in the future. At EveryLibrary, we hear stories from both winning and losing campaigns that try to make sense of an election, that try to put a frame around voter behavior. The winning campaigns must have played all their cards right; the losing campaigns must have missed something. What elusive but critical error did the losers make? It’s probably just a matter of tinkering with the campaign and running it again. They’ll get there eventually. In any given year, somewhere between 65% and 80% campaigns succeed.
No shorthand to success
To help get there, we’d like the 2014 election results to coalesce into a new version of conventional wisdom, something our industry can look to for best practices and shorthand planning. Unfortunately, the 2014 library election results yield no simple guide. There are no significant reportable differences in the win/loss rate or the margin of victory/defeat when considering the timing, type, demographics, or dollar amount of the library ballot measures.
“We won because…” often focuses on timing. The generally accepted belief is that it’s better to run a measure during a primary or special election instead of a general election, but this year’s numbers don’t bear that out. On general elections in 2014, we saw 79% win and 21% lose. On primary or special elections, 77% were winners and 23% were losers.
“We lost because…” sometimes focuses on the type of tax, questioning voter tolerance for a bond over an operating levy, or a lack of a “sunset” provision as the reason it failed. Some libraries even wonder if they won because they didn’t ask for enough money, or lost because they asked for too much. However, these individual narratives are contradictory and lack strong patterns.
It didn’t appear to matter whether the state flipped from blue to red or back. The outliers weren’t that far out: the smallest margin of victory was 12 votes; the smallest defeat was by 18. The largest point spread was 80% yes to 20% no; there is a loss that went the other way, too. Still, another ballot measure asked voters for the first increase to the levy since 1959. And another was a November rerun of a voided August election. The 2014 referendum landscape is littered with four-, five-, seven-, ten-, and 20-year levy renewals that won or lost for no reason we can discern in the data. Trim off the outliers, and the median looks like a median.
Urban, suburban, exurban, and rural libraries fared about the same. We can look up and down the list trying to tease out a system. For every measure in the loss column, there were two in the win column with similar characteristics. New libraries, reestablished libraries, big money, small money, advisory referenda, operating funds, bonds, sunsets, or perpetual levies, it didn’t seem to matter in 2014.
Razor thin margins
We at EveryLibrary are concerned about what we see as a softness in voter support, e.g., the close margins of victory and loss. While the numbers in the aggregate look good, with only 22% of referenda going down to defeat, it is curious that both large communities like Jacksonville/Duval County, FL (population 885,000), and small places like Hudson, MI (population 2,270), had razor-thin margins.
Of nearly 200 campaigns, 32 were won or lost by fewer than ten percentage points, with 17 of those having less than a five-point margin (e.g., 52% yes to 48% no is a four-point margin).
Beyond the numbers
Based on the data, there should be no conventional wisdom about library elections. The conversations we have with one another about library elections have been relying on rules of thumb that don’t actually exist. We need to look at what doesn’t appear in the results column, something specifically qualitative: the local political climate and the role that opposition to libraries and librarians played in some of the losing ballots.
EveryLibrary is the first organization to participate in the entire life cycle of multiple library referenda campaigns nationwide. We help library communities win funding in two ways: at the ballot box and through more effective budget negotiations with local government. As such, we are more concerned with the opposition than with those who already support libraries. Since we started work in fall 2012, we have been involved with about 35 library communities as they consider, plan, and move through to a vote. What we discovered is the missing ingredient in the 2014 campaign analysis.
The forces of “No”
Library leaders need to look deeper into the characteristics of the 1.1 million Americans who voted no this year and the as-yet-unknown number who will vote no in 2015. We must have a frank conversation about why we lose elections that look, from the data, to be strikingly similar to those that won. EveryLibrary is starting to see what happens when opposition to libraries and librarians hits. In 2014, active opposition killed a few library campaigns—even when organized and invested local advocates worked in support of those measures.
Opposition forces influence voters in two ways: through voter suppression and through Vote No activation. For example, negative direct mail can flood a community before an election either to bring out the preexisting No base or to make otherwise positive-leaning people who are soft Yes voters simply skip the question on the ballot. When the local political leadership is not aligned behind the library, leaders’ questions, comments, and publicly expressed concerns can deter voters from supporting the library. Organized antitax groups and negative-facing local pols are both powerful forces against library measures. Both work to sow confusion or otherwise weaken the Yes vote for libraries.
It’s true that images of the library as outmoded in an Internet age are present in the electorate, but in our experience the majority of antitax and local opponents don’t focus on the institution. The brand and the image of the library is still too good for political organizations and most politicians to go in that direction. Instead, they focus on the management of the director, the worth of the librarians, and the lack of good governance by trustees or commissioners. This works against libraries because librarians and trustees too often cannot answer these challenges in the court of public opinion.
A taxing problem
When a library goes out for a vote, the librarians stop being partners in education, skills building, personal enrichment, and community identity. We turn into the Tax Man. Even if for just one day, some voters and the public (even those who use library services) look at libraries as a cost center instead of a shared resource. On Election Day, libraries and the amazing, transformative work they do get reduced to being simply another tax—and library communities hate to talk about taxes.
There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the progressive tax policies that fund libraries and tax policies espoused by the Tea Party and similar organizations. The philosophical discussion plays out in town hall meetings, city council budget hearings, and at the ballot box. The strange occurrences in the November 2014 elections when states went red for statewide offices while still voting Yes on issues such as legalizing medical marijuana and increasing the minimum wage are a symptom of this tension between individual liberty and public policy around the role of taxes in civic life.
We saw glimpses of organized and unorganized antitax sentiments in other campaigns around the country as well in 2014. Two notable losses were in Pomona, CA, and Birmingham, MI. Pomona asked voters to reestablish a core parcel tax that had been defeated in 2012. After that loss, the library reorganized as a volunteer-led and donor-supported organization. The basic tax support, in addition to the staffing, collections, programs, and services that go along with it, is missing. By contrast, the Baldwin Public Library in Birmingham asked if the community wanted to replace an outdated part of the facility with a modern wing. The building plan went through years of work by the staff, trustees, and professional consultants. It was developed in response to community input, taking future demographic changes and use patterns into account.
Both Pomona and Birmingham engaged the public in a long process of voter education and outreach. (EveryLibrary was involved with Pomona from the start.) However, within a week to ten days before the vote, organized antitax groups from outside their immediate areas damaged each campaign. In Pomona, the California Association of Realtors spent at least $35,000 in negative direct mail to voters right before the election. Three separate mailings that were engineered to cast doubt on the measure, question the integrity of the process, and frame the library tax as putting a regressive burden on households arrived in the last few days before the election. It worked. In Birmingham, two different out-of-state Tea Party groups took aim at the building referendum. Those efforts were also successful.
Library leaders can work to neutralize antitax opposition like this. One standout this year was the Kent District Library in Michigan. Under the leadership of Director Lance Werner, the library actively engaged local antitax groups a full year before going out for the August 2014 ballot. Werner knew that the only way to neutralize the opposition was to engage radically and transparently with them about how the library spends public money. It isn’t always successful, but this type of engagement is our responsibility and our opportunity to redefine the library tax as different from “any tax.”
All politics is local
Librarians are in political jobs. As department heads, they sit next to every other town, city, or county official, and their revenue comes from the same general fund. As leaders of independent districts, they work in an ecosystem of other taxing bodies and units of government subjected to the same tax caps. Taxes mean money, and money is power. And in the local political ecosystem, the power of politics can also play a role against libraries.
We saw this most dramatically in campaigns we worked on in places as diverse as Jacksonville, FL; Monroeville, PA; Northvale, NJ; and on the eastern shore of Virginia. EveryLibrary got involved in these campaigns precisely because of the local friction between the political establishment and local library advocates. The friction came from both sides of the political spectrum. We only won one of them, but we’re noting them because the situations are not unique. Other stories of local politicians acting against the library are less visible to us, but we estimate that at least 10% of the 2014 losses were owing to recalcitrant local politicos.
A pernicious approach to local opposition revolves around the people in power deciding to sit out the election. They won’t say anything negative about the library, but they also won’t bring out their political organizations in support of a measure. When folks who should be our friends remain silent, it can be enough to chip away a winning margin at the polls. In 2014, 20 libraries won or lost by five-point margins. It doesn’t take much to swing a community.
Campaigns can work to neutralize local political opposition, too. In Corning, NY, the Southeast Steuben County Library reran and won an October 2014 referendum to reestablish the library as an independent taxing body. A similar measure had narrowly failed a year prior, partially due to resistance from state senators and assembly members. At that time, there was a concern that the library district would create a double-taxing situation and those members of the state legislature were publicly opposed to the library measure. Director Pauline Emery actively incorporated the concerns of constituents and restructured the measure. The win puts the library back on the tax rolls and ensures stable operating funds for years to come.
In 2014, not every election that answered the opposition won. Still, there is little doubt that every library community that had an answer built a stronger community of supporters.
Start early
What the presence of obstacles points to is the need to start campaigning earlier. As much as we need time to introduce our ideas to the voters, we need time to let the opposition surface. If we wait for the last few weeks before the election to see what might pop up, we’re running the risk of being too late to respond.
Library leadership needs to start campaigns early, even before having ballot language. Start engaging the opposition now, even before a site is selected or a tax rate is set. Start drawing in the other side now because it is the only way to quiet them and educate them. It is up to us to tell the opposition why the tax used for this project—this funding measure that supports the future of our mutual community—is different from any other tax; how it potentially supports a mutual goal. Then, be ready to tell your public that you have had that conversation, shown the budget, and met the competition. The public expects libraries and librarians to have the answers to tough questions: let’s show them they’re right.
TABLE 1: OPERATING REFERENDA 2014
LOCATION
NAME OF LIBRARY
RESULT
% YES
% NO
ARKANSAS
Fort Smith
Fort Smith Public Library
Fail
36%
64%
CALIFORNIA
Altadena
Altadena Library District
Pass
85%
15%
Georgetown
El Dorado Public Library – Georgetown Branch
Pass
77%
23%
Pomona
Pomona Public Library
Fail
49%
51%
Sacramento
Sacramento Public Library
Pass
73%
27%
San Anselmo
San Anselmo Library
Pass
72%
28%
San Jose
San Jose Public Library
Pass
81%
19%
San Rafael
Marin County Free Library
Pass
78%
22%
Sonoma County
Sonoma County Library
Fail
62%
38%
South Lake Tahoe
El Dorado County Library – South Lake Tahoe Branch
Pass
79%
21%
Woodland
Woodland Public Library
Pass
66%
34%
IDAHO
Bonners Ferry
Boundary County District Library
Fail
25%
75%
ILLINOIS
Loves Park
North Suburban Library District
Fail
47%
53%
McHenry
River East Public Library
Fail
30%
70%
Minier
H.A. Peine District Library
Pass
59%
41%
Park Ridge
Park Ridge Public Library
Pass
57%
43%
Sugar Grove
Sugar Grove Public Library District
Fail
29%
71%
LOUISIANA
Bossier City
Bossier Parish Library
Pass
51%
49%
Livingston
Livingston Parish Library
Pass
68%
32%
Marksville
Avoyelles Parish Library
Fail
46%
54%
Minden
Webster Parish Library
Pass
85%
15%
MASSACHUSETTS
Wareham
Wareham Free Library
Fail
32%
68%
MICHIGAN
Alma
Gratiot County Public Libraries
Pass
63%
37%
Bay City
Bay County Library System
Pass
71%
29%
Belleville
Belleville Area District Library
Fail
38%
62%
Birmingham
Baldwin Public Library
Pass
69%
31%
Bloomfield Hills
Bloomfield Township Public Library
Pass
63%
37%
Cadillac
Cadillac Wexford Public Library
Pass
68%
32%
Cass City
Rawson Memorial Library
Pass
80%
20%
Chase, Luther, Idlewild, Baldwin
Lake County Public Libraries
Pass
68%
32%
Chelsea
Chelsea District Library
Pass
59%
41%
Clarkston
Clarkston Independence District Library
Pass
68%
32%
Clinton Township
Clinton-Macomb Public Library
Pass
58%
42%
Comstock Park
Kent District Library
Pass
57%
43%
Detroit
Detroit Public Library
Pass
75%
25%
DeWitt
DeWitt District Library
Pass
59%
41%
Douglas
Saugatuck-Douglas District Library
Fail
41%
59%
Galesburg
Galesburg Charleston Memorial District Library
Pass
63%
37%
Gaylord
Otsego County Library
Pass
74%
26%
Hamburg
Hamburg Township Library
Pass
55%
45%
Harrison Township
Harrison Township Public Library
Pass
52%
48%
Hemlock
Rauchholz Memorial Library
Pass
61%
39%
Hesperia
Hesperia Community Library
Pass
74%
26%
Hudson
Hudson Carnegie District Library
Pass
51%
49%
Iron River
West Iron District Library
Pass
87%
13%
Kalamazoo
Kalamazoo Public Library District
Pass
76%
25%
Kalkaska
Kalkaska County Public Library
Pass
64%
36%
Lansing
Capital Area District Libraries
Pass
77%
23%
Leonard
Addison Township Public Library
Fail
48%
51%
Leonard
Addison Township Public Library
Pass
55%
45%
Lexington
Moore Public Library
Pass
75%
25%
Manchester
Manchester District Library
Pass
70%
30%
Marquette
Peter White Public Library
Fail
48%
52%
Marquette
Peter White Public Library
Pass
75%
25%
Millington
Millington Arbela District Library
Pass
72%
28%
Newberry
Tahquamenon Area Public Library
Pass
62%
38%
Northville
Northville District Library
Pass
76%
24%
Oxford
Oxford Public Library
Fail
48%
52%
Oxford
Oxford Public Library
Fail
44%
56%
Pinckney
Pinckney Community Public Library
Pass
53%
47%
Plainwell
Charles A. Ransom District Library
Pass
59%
41%
Port Huron
St. Clair County Library System
Pass
68%
32%
Redford
Redford Township District Library
Pass
66%
34%
Reed City
Reed City Area District Library
Pass
51%
49%
Reese
Reese Unity District Library
Pass
76%
24%
Rogers City
Presque Isle District Library
Pass
70%
30%
Roscommon
Roscommon Area District Library
Pass
60%
40%
Rose City
Ogemaw District Library
Fail
39%
61%
Rose City
Ogemaw District Library
Pass
54%
46%
Rose City
Ogemaw District Library
Pass
64%
36%
Sebewaing
Sebewaing Township Library
Pass
66%
34%
Sebewaing
Sebewaing Township Library
Pass
80%
20%
South Lyon
Salem-South Lyon District Library
Pass
73%
27%
Spring lake
Spring Lake District Library
Pass
66%
34%
Tekonsha
Tekonsha Township Library
Fail
35%
65%
Temperance
Monroe County Library System – Bedford Branch
Fail
44%
56%
Thompsonville
Betsie Valley District Library
Pass
59%
41%
Vassar
Bullard Sanford Memorial Library
Pass
71%
29%
Wakefield
Wakefield Public Library
Pass
67%
33%
Walled Lake
Walled Lake City Library
Pass
75%
25%
Watervliet
Watervliet District Library
Pass
65%
35%
White Lake
White Lake Township Library
Pass
70%
30%
Zeeland
Howard Miller Public LIbrary
Pass
67%
33%
MISSOURI
Centralia
Centralia Public Library
Pass
65%
35%
St. James
James Memorial Public Library
Pass
53%
47%
St. James
James Memorial Public Library
VOID
50%
50%
Union
Scenic Regional Library
Pass
53%
47%
NORTH CAROLINA
Charlotte
Public Library of Charlotte Mecklenburg
Fail
39%
61%
NEW JERSEY
Northvale
Northvale Public Library
Pass
53%
47%
NEW MEXICO
statewide
New Mexico Go Bond
Pass
63%
37%
NEW YORK
Amenia
Amenia Free Library
Pass
60%
40%
Cattaraugus and Little Valley
Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Library System
Pass
65%
35%
Elmira
Chemung County Library District
Pass
63%
37%
Great Neck
Great Neck Library
Pass
73%
27%
Hillsdale
Roeliff Jansen Community Library
Fail
40%
60%
Kinderhook
Kinderhook Memorial Library
Pass
65%
35%
Kingston
Kingston Library
Pass
79%
21%
Poughkeepsie
Poughkeepsie Public Library District
Pass
62%
38%
Union
George F. Johnson Mem. Library and YHPL
Pass
63%
37%
OHIO
Bellevue
Bellevue Public Library
Pass
59%
41%
Bowling Green
Wood County District Public Library
Pass
71%
29%
Bryan
Williams County Public Library
Pass
73%
27%
Cleveland Heights
Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library
Pass
68%
32%
Coldwater
Coldwater Public Library
Pass
71%
29%
Elyria
Elyria Public Library System
Pass
60%
39%
Euclid
Euclid Public Library
Pass
68%
32%
Forest
Forest-Jackson Public Library
Pass
64%
36%
Garrettsville
Portage County District Library
Fail
43%
57%
Granville
Granville Public Library
Pass
73%
27%
Gratis
Marion Lawrence Memorial Library
Fail
43%
57%
McConnelsville
Kate Love Simpson-Morgan County Library
Pass
66%
34%
Mechanicsburg
Mechanicsburg Public Library
Pass
65%
35%
Morrow
Salem Township Public Library
Pass
60%
40%
Mt. Sterling
Mt. Sterling Public Library
Fail
49%
51%
Nelsonville
Athens County Public Libraries
Pass
65%
35%
New Philadelphia
Tuscarawas County Public Library
Pass
62%
38%
Newark
Licking County Library
Pass
61%
39%
Niles
McKinley Memorial Library
Pass
67%
33%
North Ridgeville
Lorain County Public Library System, North Ridgeville branch
Pass
68%
32%
Oak Harbor
Oak Harbor Public Library
Pass
67%
33%
Painesville
Morley Library
Pass
64%
36%
Paulding
Paulding County Carnegie Library
Fail
41%
59%
Paulding
Paulding County Carnegie Library
Pass
50%
50%
Pemberville
Pemberville Public Library
Pass
60%
40%
Portsmouth
Portsmouth Public Library
Pass
70%
30%
Rock Creek
Rock Creek Library
Pass
63%
37%
Rockford
Rockford Carnegie Library
Pass
76%
24%
Sunbury
Community Library
Pass
65%
35%
Sycamore
Mohawk Community Library
Pass
69%
31%
Wayne
Wayne Public Library
Pass
42%
58%
West Jefferson
Hurt-Batelle Memorial Library
Pass
72%
28%
West Milton
Milton Union Public Library
Pass
70%
30%
Willowick
Wiloughby-Eastlake Public Library
Pass
69%
31%
Xenia
Greene County Public Library
Pass
59%
41%
Youngstown
Public Library of Youngstown and Mahoning County
Pass
59%
41%
Zanesville
Muskingum County Library System
Pass
67%
33%
OREGON
Grants Pass
Josephine County Library System
Fail
46%
54%
Medford
Jackson County Library Services
Pass
54%
46%
Newport
Lincoln County Library District
Pass
70%
30%
PENNSYLVANIA
Houston
Chartiers-Houston Community Library
Fail
33%
67%
Monroeville
Monroeville Public Library
Fail
16%
84%
WASHINGTON
Castle Rock
Castle Rock Public Library
Pass
66%
34%
Loon Lake
Stevens County Rural Library District
Fail
8%
52%
Ocean Shores
Ocean Shores Public Library
Pass
55%
45%
WEST VIRGINIA
Charleston
Kanawha County Public Library
Pass
66%
34%
Chester, Weirton, New Cumberland
Hancock County Public Libraries
Pass
66%
34%
Romney
Hampshire County Public Library
Pass
66%
34%
SOURCE: LJ PUBLIC LIBRARY REFERENDA 2015
TABLE 3: TEN-YEAR TRENDS
YEAR
#
PERCENTAGE
#
PERCENTAGE
Pass
Fail
Pass
Fail
2014
33
73%
27%
147
81%
19%
2013
30
63%
37%
146
88%
12%
2011
18
44%
56%
96
88%
12%
2010
29
55%
45%
220
87%
13%
2009
28
54%
46%
123
84%
16%
2008
27
67%
33%
42
74%
26%
2007
46
74%
26%
29
69%
31%
2006
36
64%
36%
69
74%
26%
2005
48
52%
48%
57
60%
40%
2004
49
69%
31%
66
69%
31%
AVERAGE
34
62%
39%
100
77%
23%
SOURCE: LJ PUBLIC LIBRARY REFERENDA
TABLE 4: LIBRARY GOVERNANCE REFERENDA 2014
LOCATION
LIBRARY
RESULT
% YES
% NO
FLORIDA
Jacksonville
Jacksonville Public Library
Fail
49%
51%
ILLINOIS
Flanagan
Flanagan Public Library
Pass
63
37
Elgin
Gail Borden Library District
Fail
68
26
MAINE
Rockport
Rockport Public Library
Fail
47
53
MICHIGAN
Freedom Township
Manchester District
Fail
39
61
NEW YORK
Fulton
Fulton Public Library
Pass
Newfane
Newfane Free Library
Pass
57
43
WASHINGTON
Spokane
Spokane County Library District
Pass
59
41
Stanwood
Stanwood Library
Pass
79
21
Tumwater
Timberland Regional Library
Pass
82
18
SOURCE: LJ PUBLIC LIBRARY REFERENDA 2015; Library Governance includes referenda to create independent library districts, join or expand existing library districts, or become a part of a school district.
TABLE 5: BUILDING REFERENDA 2014
LOCATION
NAME OF LIBRARY
RESULT
% YES
% NO
ARKANSAS
Sherwood
Amy Sanders Library – Central Arkansas Library System
Pass
55%
45%
CALIFORNIA
Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay Library
Fail
48%
52%
Hayward
Hayward Public Library
Pass
68%
32%
IDAHO
Bonners Ferry
Boundary County District Library
Fail
24%
76%
Victor
Valley of the Tetons District Library
Pass
55%
45%
ILLINOIS
Lemont
Lemont Public Library District
Pass
56%
44%
KANSAS
Winfield
Winfield Public Library
Pass
81%
19%
MASSACHUSETTS
Boxford
<td align="left" valign="middle"