By Charlie Meadows

There is currently a significant effort to have school board elections moved to the general election every other year in November. I have generally been against such a measure, but the effort has caused me to look a little closer at the issue.

I recently spoke to a respected leader in the effort to find out the movement's goal and was told it was all about increasing turnout. Well, if that is the goal, it will certainly be achieved, even though I suspect more voters will choose not to vote for school board candidates than any other section of the ballot. Many voters choose not to vote for a person or on an issue they know nothing about.

I personally believe turnout as a goal is flawed. I believe the end goal should be making improvements in our government schools to equip our young people with an ability to think critically with a basic understanding to accomplish what God has called them to do throughout life. The ability to read, do math, communicate are vital to those goals, as well as an understanding of accurate history.

However, there are a couple of basic political realities. The voters most likely to turn out (anytime they are aware of an election) are generally the most informed voters as they have a conviction that voting is what they are supposed to do. On the other hand, it is in the larger turnout that the less informed also go to the polls. One might be surprised at the large number of voters who only vote in November of a presidential election year. There are many thousands more of those voters that turn out at that time, than on a year when the governor is on the ballot.

The next thing to consider is the cost of an election. Cost can be measured in time spent by a candidate and their supporters, as well as money for consultants, signs, radio, television, social media, newspaper ads or direct mail. The smaller the group of voters you are trying to convince to vote for a particular candidate, the less expensive the race. A list of the most likely voters to turn out in a school board election can be acquired. In that case, a candidate will want to campaign to those voters first, then try to expand the number of voters beyond that list.

Campaigning to a list of 500 voters is much less expensive than campaigning to a list of 5,000 voters. That shouldn’t be rocket science to understand, but let me ask this question. When conservative candidates with an intention to make major reforms to improve our government schools decides to run, are those candidates well-funded? Usually not, but on the other hand when status quo candidates are running, how well funded is a candidate like that funded? Usually, they have what is necessary as the teacher unions with their deep pockets along with administrators are willing to step up to the plate to protect their candidates who go along with what these liberals want done.

The teachers’ unions are against this change because most of their huge war chest is set aside to influence the legislature. Only a minimal amount is used to elect their stooges to school boards. However, should these elections be put on general elections, far more of their dollars would have to go for school board elections. In reality they have those dollars where conservatives usually come up short.

I don’t believe changing election dates will have anything to do with putting better people on school boards, it may even mean it will be more difficult to put conservative reform minded people on boards. Some advocates for changing the election dates make the case that conducting the elections in November would save money since the school districts pay for those elections. However, no money is saved for the taxpayers since those monies spent for school board elections simply stay with the school districts and is used for other purposes. It would make more sense to conduct school board elections along with city government elections, so that the schools and cities could share the costs of an election where there is a jurisdictional overlap.

So, what is the solution? A couple of years ago I read an article where a well-known liberal was bemoaning the outcome of an election where about five school boards in the Dallas Texas area had been taken over by conservatives. And once those conservatives were sworn in, they quickly began making significant changes in their respective school districts. The phone carrier Patriot Mobile donates a percentage of everyone’s monthly bill to conservative or Christian causes. It seems that year they chose those five districts and backed about 13 candidates, which if elected would provide a majority of conservative reformers in each of these school districts.

Patriot Moble hired a consultant to run the campaigns for these candidates. Armed with sufficient funds and some political expertise, they began to mail information to good voters and parents of children in the districts, educating them about the agenda of things like Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), the Trans efforts and etc. By the time the election rolled around, the voters were well educated and overwhelmingly voted all of those candidates into office. I believe that is more the model to improve things rather than trying to change the system.

I know there will be some who will disagree and will not be convinced until a change is tried. If the change is tried, it may take years to determine who is right regarding this argument. If I am right, it may take even more years to return to the system we have now and we will have wasted time and much energy to no avail.

Charlie Meadows is the founder and former president of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC). In 2023 he won a Special Election becoming County Commissioner for District 2 in Logan County. He may be contacted at: charliemeadows7@gmail.com