CHAUTAUQUA–Did you read the page-one story about local elections in last weekend’s edition of this newspaper?

If you didn’t, pull it out of your pile of recyclables, because it’s well done.

The bottom line today is that this episode in state government was a missed opportunity to engage in honest, thoughtful debate about an issue that was worthy of honest, thoughtful debate.

What stood in the way of honest, thoughtful debate?

Yes, you guessed it: Partisan politics.

≤≤≤

If you follow local politics, you know that many county- and local-government elections are always in odd years.

For some, 2025 is the last year in which they’ll be in odd years. According to the page-one story, they include elections for:

≤ County executive.

≤ County legislature, and

≤ Town offices.

Exempt from moving to even years regardless of whether they’re already in even years are elections for:

≤ Sheriff.

≤ County clerk.

≤ District attorney.

≤ Family-court judge.

≤ County-court judge.

≤ Surrogate-court judge.

≤ City-government offices, and

≤ Village-government offices.

≤≤≤

A good longtime local officeholder and a good Democrat said state-government Democrats pushed this odd-to-even switch through the state Legislature, because–in odd years–Democrats tend to vote in lower numbers than Republicans.

So Democrats tend to be for this, because it tends to help them?

“Yes,” the officeholder said.

And Republicans tend to be against this, because it tends to hurt them.

“Yes,” the officeholder said.

So whatever other good reasons that good people from both major parties articulate for their positions, at base this is about partisan politics?

“Yes,” the officeholder said.

≤≤≤

While this partisan politics aren’t surprising, they’re unfortunate.

Were there solid, persuasive arguments on both sides of the issue? If so, what were they? This could have been a good debate. And it could have been an interesting one, or at least a somewhat interesting one.

If government officials had been able to put partisan politics aside–yes, that’s a big if for many, though not all, government officials–one would have thought that however many Republicans would have been convinced to support it, and that however many Democrats would have been convinced to oppose it.

Doesn’t that make sense? Sure it does.

Yet that didn’t happen, because many–not all, but many–just looked at the issue through their red or blue lenses.

≤≤≤

Here’s an argument that opponents might have raised.

From another context, it’s already familiar to you, faithful reader of this column: The law is underinclusive. Yes, that’s one word.

What does underinclusive mean?

A law is underinclusive if, given the reasons asserted for it, the law should go further than it does.

To put it another way: If government seeks to do X for Reasons 1, 2, and 3, yet Reasons 1, 2, and 3 would also support doing Y, but government doesn’t seek to do Y, then Reasons 1, 2, and 3 may well not be the reasons for doing X in the first place.

It can be–although it isn’t necessarily–akin to questioning the motives behind doing X.

Let’s apply this here.

It’s really quite simple: If the odd-to-even switch is a good idea, why not apply the odd-to-even switch to all county- and local-government offices?

How does one distinguish county executives, county legislators, and town officeholders from sheriffs, county clerks, district attorneys, family-court judges, county-court judges, surrogate-court judges, city-government officeholders, and village-government officeholders?

Just look at the division: On both sides are full- and part-time officeholders; county- and local-government officeholders; and legislative-, executive-, and judicial-branch members.

What’s up?

If a legal roadblock prevents applying the odd-to-even switch to some but not others, why not make an effort to remove the roadblock?

Or is something else at work here–something other than the reasons proponents have articulated?

Such as partisan politics.

Did opponents of the odd-to-even switch raise underinclusiveness?

Regardless of whether they did, the state’s highest court has given the green light to the odd-to-even switch.

Barring something surprising, this episode is closed.

≤≤≤

If you also stayed up until 3 a.m. watching the 18 inning World Series game of Monday evening, Oct. 27, and early Tuesday morning, Oct. 28, Randy Elf hopes you enjoyed it too.

COPYRIGHT (c) 2025 BY RANDY ELF