Political groups taking over our broken school, city elections. Here’s how to fix it | Opinion

The church conservative political clique is winning.

But there’s a way to slow down special-interest committees and other groups.

As soon as you can — start now — advocate to switch your school board and city council to single-member districts.

Do it right away.

For one thing, smaller districts are better. They’re closer to the people.

For another — and this is new — they make it tougher for any political or partisan special-interest club or PAC to take over.

Right now, the clique in the news is Grapevine-based Patriot Mobile Action.

The phone company’s PAC was supporting 15 school board candidates in seven districts Saturday, with varying success.

If you like Patriot Mobile, a cellphone service reseller that uses faith-and-values politics as marketing shtick, fine.

But remember: The next takeover might be by somebody you don’t like.

What if a construction company spent $400,000 to elect an entire school board? Or a textbook publisher?

Single-member districts are safer districts.

Any school board can make the change with a simple board vote. Cities may require a charter election.

“In single-member districts, a group has to rally voters in each district,” said TCU political scientist Jim Riddlesperger.

Fort Worth’s city council and school board went single-member in the 1970s. Yes, nearly 50 years ago.

Yes, Fort Worth has revolting PAC politics in this election, too.

But a single PAC can’t take over the entire city.

“In multi-member [at-large] districts, turnout is about partisan priming,” said Brandon Rottinghaus of the University of Houston.

The bigger the district, the more the officials rely on gutter politics — and the further they are from reality.

For example, each of Arlington’s school trustees must represent 363,000 people.

That’s twice the size of a Texas House district.

Trustees from the Northwest district north of Fort Worth have to campaign across three counties spanning 234 square miles.

“It is definitely easier for a motivated, mobilized faction to capture a school board with at-large elections,” Southern Methodist University political scientist Matthew Wilson said.

We have 50 years of proof that single-member districts elect better leaders.

But now, the debate is different.

Trustees are losing elections to a monolithic slate of candidates who promote a few special-interest views. They’re backed by slick, big-money campaigns.

At-large elections have become too risky.

Critics used to say that voting according to neighborhood hindered unity.

But today, it upholds unity.

Would you rather vote for someone you know who supports your churches, youth groups and civic clubs?

Or somebody from across town with a boatload of PAC money?

In Everman, the school board has single-member districts ensuring trustees come from Highland Hills, Forest Hill, Hallmark and the more rural southern districts.

It may or may not be coincidence that Everman has a stable school district and a high “B” state rating overall, better than neighboring Crowley or Kennedale.

Stable leadership and a focus on achievement are hallmarks of a successful district.

The school board doesn’t have to waste time dealing with angry mobs or anonymous text messages accusing teachers of “indoctrinating” or sexing up children.

The focus is on protecting and teaching kids in school.

In a 2018 paper, respected political scientist Richard Murray of the University of Houston and colleagues wrote that single-member districts are best for local races because elected officials are “intimately aware of the issues of the local community.”

In 1991 and again in 2014, researchers found that at-large elections give power to a few dominant political factions.

But in single-member districts, candidates emerge with deep roots and neighborhood strength.

The effort used to promote fair racial representation. Now, it promotes religious pluralism and geographic balance.

Imagine if, for example, the Grapevine-Colleyville school board had an equal number of trustees from each city, instead of every election becoming a perpetual city-rivalry tug-of-war.

Our councils and school boards are stronger with single-member elections and local neighborhood leadership.

So are our cities and schools.