It’s one of the more durable patterns in American democracy: The closer an election is to our front doors, the less likely we are to vote. From coast to coast, turnout drops as the decisions move from the White House to the school board, from Congress to City Council. While that may seem backward (after all, local elections often have the most direct impact on our day-to-day lives) it’s a dynamic that plays out every year across the country, including here in Nebraska.
This spring, Omaha and Lincoln held municipal primaries to determine their cities’ future leadership. As in years past, most eligible voters stayed home.
In Omaha, 75,676 voters cast ballots in the city’s April 1 primary for mayor and city council. Out of 294,537 registered voters, that amounts to just 25.69 percent turnout. That means nearly three out of every four registered Omaha voters sat out one of the most consequential local decisions they’ll be asked to make for the next four years.
Lincoln saw a similar pattern. In its April 8 municipal primary, voter turnout was 45,428, or 24.22 percent of the city’s 185,740 registered voters. This is close to 2021’s municipal primary participation and significantly higher than in 2013 (14 percent) and 2017 (18 percent). That’s progress worth noting: More voters are paying attention to city elections. And while there are some signs that this is connected to increased campaign activity and spending, 76 percent of registered voters in Lincoln still did not participate.
Nebraska isn’t alone in this. We just happen to have two big, recent examples from earlier this month. Still, the question of why strikes at the heart of how we define civic responsibility and democratic participation.
Don’t believe the hype
It doesn’t take a doctorate in political science to understand why presidential elections bring out the big, whopping numbers. They dominate the news for months, even years. There are high-profile debates, rallies, ads, endorsements, and breathless round-the-clock analysis on TV, radio, and online. Presidential campaigns command enormous resources, and voting for president feels like taking part in history.
Municipal primaries are relatively quiet affairs. They rarely receive much media coverage outside the local newspaper and a few minutes on local TV. Candidates often struggle to reach new voters. Local elections don’t necessarily trend on social media or draw the attention of big-time social media influencers. In Nebraska, our two largest cities – Omaha and Lincoln – hold primaries in early April of odd-numbered years, well outside the rhythm of presidential or midterm elections. It’s no wonder many Nebraskans don’t even realize they’re happening.
It’s more than a scheduling issue, though. It’s about visibility and narrative. For decades, we’ve told ourselves that national politics is where the real power lies and that what happens in Washington matters most. That belief distorts our understanding of government and minimizes the critical role local leaders play in our everyday lives.
Live local, shop local, vote local
City councils and mayors decide how streets are maintained, how public safety is handled, how affordable housing gets built (or doesn’t), and how local tax dollars are distributed. They also shape development, infrastructure, neighborhood services, and the health of public spaces. In Nebraska, a small fraction of voters often elect those decision-makers.
What’s more, in local elections, every vote carries greater weight. With lower turnout, outcomes are determined by narrower margins, so a smaller, more organized group of voters can shift the direction of an entire city. This can create a feedback loop in which elected leaders disproportionately represent those who vote most reliably, not the broader community.
That’s why it’s so important to build a civic culture where local participation is an expectation.
Changing the narrative?
One way is to rethink how we discuss local elections. Civic groups, educators, local news outlets, and trusted community leaders can work together to elevate the importance of city contests. Voting for mayor, city council, and school board should feel just as urgent and consequential as voting for president (in many ways, it does).
We also have to make local voting easier and more intuitive. That includes improving access to information about candidates and issues, streamlining the voting process, and ensuring voters know when elections are happening and why they matter. Schools, houses of worship, workplaces, and social circles can all play a role in making this kind of civic engagement normal and expected.
It also helps to connect the dots. When people understand how local government affects their rent, commute, child’s school, or neighborhood park, voting becomes less abstract and more personal.
Finally, we need to call out the real cost of staying home. When turnout is low, power consolidates. Decisions are made without full public input, and special interests have more influence. The people most affected by a policy are often the least represented in the process. Not voting in a local election is a conscious decision to let others decide your future.
The needle is moving (slowly)
As we mentioned earlier, there is some good news: Primary turnout percentages are slowly rising. More voters are paying attention to city elections than a decade ago. That’s something to build on, but the bar is still too low, and we can’t afford to settle.
Next month, both cities will hold general elections to determine who will lead them for the next four years. These races will finalize City Council representation in both towns and, in Omaha, will decide the city’s mayor. These elections are where some of the most authentic business of U.S. democracy takes place.
Let’s treat them that way, shall we? Let’s bring the same energy, commitment, and civic pride we show in presidential years to our neighborhoods and communities. Let’s normalize caring about what happens at city hall, and let’s vote like it matters. Because it does.
