Yesterday was election day for the City of Pocatello, Idaho. The mayor and three city council members were standing for re-election. The mayor and one of the council members were defeated in what should have been a routine, re-elect the incumbents election. So what happened?

One of the city council members was running unopposed. Another one had a young, eighteen-year-old challenger who drew a surprisingly large number of votes for someone so young and inexperienced. That is an intriguing clue.

We’ve had a rather irritating issue in the community for the past several months that just won’t go away: the city’s vicious dog ordinance. While the details aren’t particularly important for this discussion, a sizeable number of people feel that the ordinance as written is flawed. Because nothing really seems to be happening to resolve this irritant, it continues to be in the newspaper, on TV, and in coffee conversations.

My first inkling that this election might not be routine came a couple of weeks ago at the Pocatello League of Women Voters “Meet the Candidates” evening. When I arrived, there weren’t many people in the audience until about two minutes before scheduled start when some thirty people filed in. The candidates for mayor were first on the agenda. While they were stating their case, League members were collecting questions that the audience members had written on index cards. The moderator divided the cards into similar questions and synthesized a composite question for the candidates to answer.

The first question, which was a composite of nine audience questions, was about the vicious dog ordinance.

Mayor Roger Chase, the incumbent, answered first. He stated that he felt the ordinance was fine as written. His opponent Brian Blad, perhaps seizing on the moment, said that if the public was concerned, then the ordinance should be looked at.

Similar questions were given to the city council candidates. The incumbents were in agreement that the ordinance was fine as written and working well. Both challengers responded that the ordinance should be looked at carefully and that the public’s opinion needed to be sought.

Red flags went up in my head.

Satisfied, content people are far less likely to vote in a routine local election. However, people who are not happy with the current circumstances will definitely show up to vote.

Yesterday both sides of this complacency played out. The incumbents’ lack of concern for what is a serious issue for many people was obvious. They were being too complacent, perhaps even appearing to be a bit arrogant.

Less than 30% of the registered voters showed up to vote. Those who stayed home were complacent, perhaps even a bit apathetic.

Of the those who did vote, some were there because of their dissatisfaction with how the incumbents were handling the affairs of the city as demonstrated by their lack of concern about the public’s perception of the vicious dog ordinance.

Complacency looses elections and for the mayor and one of the council members, both excellent, long-term public servants, this complacency turned into a perfect storm. I’m certain, however, that Pocatello’s politicians won’t learn from this example, either.

Mayor Chase has been a good mayor for the City of Pocatello. Another blogger in Pocatello has written a very nice post about Mr. Chase and it’s worth a read.

Goodbye Mr. Chase and Mr. Richway.