Delaying City Elections is Direct, Unambiguous Corruption
9.12.2025 / Op-Ed / munciepostdemocrat.com
Three weeks ago here in town, a barely public meeting focused on a potential statewide change allowing all municipal elections to take place one year late, in line with all future presidential elections from this point on. The Post-Democrat tells you that this was a barely public meeting because so little word was given prior and very little listening to opposition was shown by those running the event.
On several instances, public comments were interrupted after the organizers called them unrelated before pulling the mic. This included Linda Hanson, from our county’s local chapter of the League of Women Voters. She spoke against the measure, telling the crowd she would at least like for the straight ticket option to be eliminated, and at which point the microphone was pulled away from her because it was “not considered relevant”. For anyone in the room who followed her statement, it’s hard to dismiss it as irrelevant. While one of the organizers told yours truly that details are yet to be ironed out, the state GOP is set to make it a done deal.
It’s obvious to most of our readers that a fifth year of the Ridenour administration would be the fifth circle of hell, but beyond that there are even more partisan benefits to Indiana’s GOP than one might expect. When I first heard of the change I quickly remembered how this had happened before in Indiana back in 1933. Indiana had previously passed a similar “skip election” law that took effect from 1933 and until 1941, when elections were pushed once again back into an off-year. The decision pushed 102 municipal elections taking place in 1933 to the following year, putting it in line with Indiana’s midterm elections. According to historian George Blake, the decision gave then-Governor Paul V. McNutt additional power over patronage and was intended to give all city mayors (60% of which shared his same party) an additional year in office.1
The skip election law similar to this recent event also cited finances as a reason for changing years, suggesting there would be roughly a quarter million dollars saved by the measure. The whole ordeal gave two of our own mayor’s in Muncie the benefit of serving additional years, one of which I am personally a descendant of, and yet I still can say freely that it was a corrupt decision on the part of the General Assembly. In this case it was the Democratic party, right at the cusp of the New Deal-Era, fighting to secure power.
And so it comes as no surprise that a party that’s already propagated their way into securing gubernatorial and congressional candidates in the Hoosier state (gerrymandering long before it came up this year) is now considering this. The meeting itself was hardly promoted until two days in advance, and those in charge were hardly interested in hearing the opposition. Luckily the opposition seemed to drown out the Republican officials in the audience who defended it. Local resident Chip Taylor, who heads the Muncie Ethics Commission, said the following at that the same meeting:
Chip Taylor: “In the atmosphere of a presidential or gubernatorial election, the focus on these very local issues that are important in a municipal election get lost. It will be more difficult for voters to get the information they need to make a meaningful choice in the local election, it will more difficult for municipal candidates to communicate their vision for the city. Not only will they compete with the state and federal candidates for attention in the political sphere, they’ll be competing for campaign contributions and campaign volunteers as well.
*See a longer statement from Taylor attached below the article*
Chip Taylor: “In the atmosphere of a presidential or gubernatorial election, the focus on these very local issues that are important in a municipal election get lost. It will be more difficult for voters to get the information they need to make a meaningful choice in the local election, it will more difficult for municipal candidates to communicate their vision for the city. Not only will they compete with the state and federal candidates for attention in the political sphere, they’ll be competing for campaign contributions and campaign volunteers as well.
*See a longer statement from Taylor attached below the article*
In Muncie’s local elections, we’ve had a unique record in the last few decades: A surprising amount of the electorate are not voting straight ticket, and instead usually voting for a Republican mayor and a Democrat-majority council. For a solid 20 years between 1991 and 2011, our officials put in office reflected this pattern. Two elections then went blue for both mayor and council (both 2011 and 2015), went fully red after a corruption scandal under Mayor Dennis Tyler, and reverted back to red-mayor blue-council in 2023 (only now returning red after two members both switched parties over the summer). As a leftist writer it’s infuriating to see that repetition, but that’s the electorate we’re trying to persuade.
I say all of this to show that the voting base we have in municipal elections happen to follow what’s happening very closely. Different from the mindless culture war noise we’ll be hearing in 2028, there are two things that have impacted our elections the most: 1. we are still a labor town, and 2. we pay attention to corruption. Neither one of those will be meaningful factors if our city election takes place in 2028, where a Hunter Biden scandal can override how the roads will be paved. The straight ticket voters coming into the fold, who are worried only about a single candidate at the top of their ballots, will not be paying attention to what’s happening locally.
The real reason why the Indiana GOP all of a sudden wants to do this has nothing to do with saving money, or even voter turnout. The decision would only increase voter turnout insofar as it would share the same electoral landscape as the presidential election. The reality is, preventing their opposing party from winning locally will also decrease any home rule efforts in city governments throughout Indiana. By taking away those chances at home rule, they can more likely have cities that blindly agree to their party. One more meeting is planned to be held Sept. 19 in Jeffersonville, and we can only hope a vocal crowd can mean anything.
Notes:
1. Blake, George. “Paul V. McNutt: Portrait of a Hoosier Statesman.” 1966. *George Dale initially opposed the measure and wanted Muncie to be exempt, however he ultimately took the extra twelve-months.
Longer statement from Chip Taylor: “I want to urge that we consider leaving municipal elections in the off-year as they are now. I get the concern about turnout and cost efficiency, that’s admirable, […] I think in fact that this is important too. In the case of election, I’d argue that effective means meaningful. Voters should be offered meaningful choices between candidates, and candidates should run campaigns based on issues that are meaningful to members of the electorate. That’s the case in Muncie city elections now. The elections are competitive, we had contested races for mayor, city clerk, and all council seats in the last election. The candidates ran campaigns focused on issues particular to the challenges and opportunities faced in Muncie. I fear we’d lose this effectiveness if the municipal elections are consolidated with the general election, especially the presidential election year. Campaigns for federal and statewide offices focus on issues of widespread efforts in the country and state, as they should. Even when we elect state legislators and members of congress to represent us locally, they still work with dozens or hundreds of other similar legislators focusing on issues of national and statewide efforts. The Muncie city election, we elect ten people, the mayor and nine council members to specifically focus on issues in Muncie. […] In the atmosphere of a presidential or gubernatorial election, the focus on these very local issues that are important in a municipal election get lost. It will be more difficult for voters to get the information they need to make a meaningful choice in the local election, it will more difficult for municipal candidates to communicate their vision for the city. Not only will they compete with the state and federal candidates for attention in the political sphere, they’ll be competing for campaign contributions and campaign volunteers as well. As they noted earlier, there’s roll off as voters move down the ballot. Some voters, they only show up for the presidential election because that’s all they care about. As they get down to the ballot, people drop off and quit voting because they feel less informed. For a city like Muncie that’s gonna mean adding a dozen races to what’s already a pretty long ballot. That’s not only going to contribute to the ballot roll off, but the people who do vote the entire ballot they’re going to be in the voting booth longer and it’s gonna slow down […] It’s going to reduce these important races to an after thought. We deserve better than that.
Longer statement from Chip Taylor: “I want to urge that we consider leaving municipal elections in the off-year as they are now. I get the concern about turnout and cost efficiency, that’s admirable, […] I think in fact that this is important too. In the case of election, I’d argue that effective means meaningful. Voters should be offered meaningful choices between candidates, and candidates should run campaigns based on issues that are meaningful to members of the electorate. That’s the case in Muncie city elections now. The elections are competitive, we had contested races for mayor, city clerk, and all council seats in the last election. The candidates ran campaigns focused on issues particular to the challenges and opportunities faced in Muncie. I fear we’d lose this effectiveness if the municipal elections are consolidated with the general election, especially the presidential election year. Campaigns for federal and statewide offices focus on issues of widespread efforts in the country and state, as they should. Even when we elect state legislators and members of congress to represent us locally, they still work with dozens or hundreds of other similar legislators focusing on issues of national and statewide efforts. The Muncie city election, we elect ten people, the mayor and nine council members to specifically focus on issues in Muncie. […] In the atmosphere of a presidential or gubernatorial election, the focus on these very local issues that are important in a municipal election get lost. It will be more difficult for voters to get the information they need to make a meaningful choice in the local election, it will more difficult for municipal candidates to communicate their vision for the city. Not only will they compete with the state and federal candidates for attention in the political sphere, they’ll be competing for campaign contributions and campaign volunteers as well. As they noted earlier, there’s roll off as voters move down the ballot. Some voters, they only show up for the presidential election because that’s all they care about. As they get down to the ballot, people drop off and quit voting because they feel less informed. For a city like Muncie that’s gonna mean adding a dozen races to what’s already a pretty long ballot. That’s not only going to contribute to the ballot roll off, but the people who do vote the entire ballot they’re going to be in the voting booth longer and it’s gonna slow down […] It’s going to reduce these important races to an after thought. We deserve better than that.