2017 →
← 2015
|
![]() |
Date Type |
Due to a number of high-profile incidents between police officers and the public, Ballotpedia also tracked how crime and public safety debates impacted 2016's largest municipal elections. To learn more about these issues, click here.
Of these 47 cities with elections in 2016, 24 held elections for both mayor and city council. Twenty-one held elections just for their city council, and one held elections only for mayor. Additionally, 12 counties covered by Ballotpedia held municipal elections for various offices.This page contains links to all municipal elections covered by Ballotpedia in 2016 by state, by date, and by type. At the time of this election, Ballotpedia covered elections in the top 100 cities by population and select counties each year.
As a result of elections in 2016, Republicans gained one mayorship in America's 100 largest cities, while the number of Democratic mayors decreased by one.
On November 8, 2016, 33 of America's largest 100 cities by population held elections. Ballotpedia also covered elections in 12 large counties across the United States. Across those 45 municipalities, there were 287 positions up for election. Incumbents ran in 195 (67.9 percent) of those races, and 24 (12.3 percent) were defeated in their re-election bids. To read our review of the most interesting races, click here.
Across the largest 100 cities by population, 33 cities held elections for mayor or city council. A total of 158 positions were up for election, and incumbents ran in 108 (68.4 percent) of those races. Fifteen incumbents (13.9 percent) lost their re-election bids.
Incumbents Running |
Incumbents Defeated |
Ballotpedia provided coverage of 12 large counties with elections in 2016. A total of 129 county official and special district offices were up for election, and incumbents ran in 87 (67.4 percent) of those races. Nine incumbents (10.3 percent) lost their re-election bids.
Incumbents Running |
Incumbents Defeated |
Local elections are often nonpartisan by law, but they are not isolated from or immune to partisan politics. The Democratic and Republican parties—as well as minor and local political parties ideologically aligned with one or the other major party—are in constant conflict over the level of government closest to home.
In some localities, liberals and conservatives have fought over city offices for years. In others, one group has dominated the political landscape without much challenge for decades. This partisan reality is often hidden from the public, as candidates and officeholders at the local level may refrain from associating themselves with more polarizing state and national political figures and issues. Nevertheless, understanding the connection between partisan ideology and local politics is essential to grasping who's in control of local government.
Each municipality is a unique entity with a different mixture of partisanship in terms of its elected officials and residents, but some trends may be discerned. Big cities tend to have more liberal populations and elected officials, while more rural areas tend to have more conservative populations and elected officials.[1] At the start of 2016, 65 mayors in America's 100 largest cities by population were affiliated with the Democratic Party. Governing magazine claimed, "Cities have been magnets for younger, more diverse populations that tend to be socially liberal. This makes the Republican Party, with its national image of social conservatism, a tough sell."[2]
Although only 16 of these cities have officially partisan elections, many candidates who run in nonpartisan races are endorsed by or otherwise affiliated with local political parties. Mayors with a known political affiliation are treated as members of that party for the purposes of this study even though they may hold a nonpartisan office.[3]
Democratic mayors significantly outnumber Republican mayors in America's 100 largest cities, and the Democratic Party's control over these mayoral offices is greater than the party's control over any other major political position. Their 65 percent of control in 2016 was higher than the party's control over the U.S. Senate (44 percent), U.S. House (43 percent), state legislators (43 percent), and governors (36 percent).
In 2016, there were 25 mayorships up for election. Of the mayors serving in those mayorships, 12 were Republican, 11 were Democratic, one was nonpartisan, and one was of unknown affiliation. These positions up for election accounted for the seats of 44.4 percent of all Republican mayors, 16.4 percent of Democratic mayors, 33.3 percent of nonpartisan mayors, and 33.3 percent of unknown mayors. This large percentage of seats up for election meant Republicans were on the defensive. San Diego's Kevin Faulconer, the only Republican mayor in the 10 largest cities, was up for and won re-election in 2016. He defeated two Democratic challengers in the city's primary election with 58 percent of the vote. If a Democratic candidate would have won that position, the largest city with a Republican mayor would have been Jacksonville.
*Denotes an incumbent who ran for re-election.
Few issues received as much attention in previous election cycles as did the role of money in politics. Although most of the attention on the issue went to money in federal elections, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Robert Lenhard claimed that, "The relative impact of a Super PAC can be far greater in a down-ticket race."[4]
The amount of money raised and spent by political candidates and outside groups in local elections can vary dramatically. Although most local elections feature little campaign spending or political advertisements, some resemble state or even congressional elections in terms of the money involved. This spending may stem from partisan battles between Democrats and Republicans or interest groups such as business associations or labor unions.
Elections for county and city offices tend to receive more attention than other local elections. This attention manifests by way of voter turnout, media coverage, and political spending. The size of the city and the structure of its government are important variables impacting the amount of money campaigns need in order to win. One research study found that the average cost to run a successful city council campaign in a major American city ranged from $112,512 to $193,732 depending on the election system.[5]
Mayoral campaigns in big cities tend to be much more expensive. For example, the Chicago Tribune estimated that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's (D) campaign and PAC spent more than $22.8 million on his 2015 re-election bid. His general election opponent spent less than $5 million.[6] By comparison, the mayoral election in America's 99th-largest city by population—Boise, Idaho—featured less than $250,000 raised by all three candidates.[7]
In cities across the country, major law enforcement-related incidents occurred in the years prior to the 2016 election. These included the shootings of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Laquan McDonald in Chicago, along with the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, following an arrest. During the 2016 election cycle, Ballotpedia measured the impact of those events on municipal elections. Areas of research included incumbent re-election rates, voter turnout, and the prevalence of discussions about public safety and crime among candidates for office.
The following were cities with elections in 2016 that featured conversations surrounding public safety:
Across America's 100 largest cities with 2016 elections, the average crime rate per 1,000 people was 40.72. This was split between 5.60 violent crimes and 35.11 property crimes per 1,000 people. The city with the lowest violent crime rate was Irvine, California, at 0.64, while Oakland, California, had the highest at 17.00. These two cities also had the least and most property crime, with 13.71 and 60.28, respectively.[12]
Local officials and state governments throughout the United States struggled to resolve conflicts over policy issues in 2016. Tensions emerged as local governments tried to assert control over policy decisions impacting their residents, while state governments—seeking uniformity in policy across communities within their purview—pushed back. The fault lines between local and state governments included fracking, firearms, and LGBT issues, which drew attention from national media including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal due to their potential repercussions on future policy discussions.[13][14]
Legislators and governors argue that preemption allows states to create consistent laws across all municipalities. State officials also suggest that they are in better positions than cities to protect the rights of individuals by virtue of a larger view of policy debates. Mayors, city councils, and county officials argue that preemption takes away local control necessary to respond to specific issues. Local officials also suggest that they are more attuned to the needs of the public given the relatively small number of state officials.
|