In a Letter to the Editor published in Thursday’s edition of The Dispatch, Bob Raymond recommends the city use a single polling site for its municipal elections.

Raymond cited confusion over polling places during the October Columbus school bond issue and the cost of staffing polling places in the city’s six wards as primary reasons for a single polling location. He suggested the Municipal Complex. He further stated that city officials are violating the city’s charter, which he said requires all city elections to be held at a single voting location.

With all due respect to Mr. Raymond, we believe the potential negative effects of what he suggests far outweigh the benefits. In another respect, he is simply mistaken.

Comparing the school election to regular municipal elections is a poor choice. That’s because a portion of the school district lies outside the city limits, which meant additional polling locations to ensure voters in that area had a place to vote.

It’s hard to make a convincing argument on the cost of the elections, either. Cities the size of Columbus typically spend in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $30,000 to stage these elections. That’s a cost that emerges just once every four years, unless there are special elections. Those who urge fiscal caution can easily find many other areas where the belt can be tightened long before they get around to the cost of a municipal election. It’s tantamount to straining a gnat and swallowing the camel.

In stating that the city’s charter requires a single voting place, Raymond neglects an amendment to the charter, passed in 1961, that states “an election for mayor and six (6) councilmen of the said city shall be held in said city at such voting precincts as may be designated by the mayor and city council thereof.”

Given that almost every city large enough to be divided into wards designates polling places in those wards, it seems quite evident what Raymond relies on is an archaic requirement last found in the city charter of 1884 at a time when the population of the city was less than 4,000.

The city of Columbus has 13 polling locations in its six wards. Could there be fewer? Perhaps. But we strongly suggest that having polling places in our neighborhood encourages people to vote.

In the last municipal election in 2021, there were 5,792 ballots cast, a large turnout compared to previous elections over 20 years, but still a poor turnout for a city whose population is about 24,000.

What that tells us is that people don’t need much encouragement to stay away from the polls. Before contemplating any change in our voting process, we should first ask this question: Will this change make it easier for people to vote or more difficult?

In almost any situation, providing more options encourages participation.

We absolutely believe that people are more inclined to vote if their polling places are close to home and the waiting is kept to a minimum, something the current process ensures.

There is something affirming when you vote among your neighbors. The great illustrator Norman Rockwell recognized it, devoting six of his paintings to images of regular people casting their ballots in makeshift polling places located in their neighborhoods.

When we go to the local schoolhouse, church or other facility close to home and see our neighbors there also casting their ballots, it creates a sense that the people in our neighborhood are invested in our community in a simple, but important way.

To herd every voter in the city to a single polling location only discourages participating in the process.

The current voting process is not illegal, not costly and not confusing.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Roses and Thorns: 6-20-26

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 23 hours ago