Voters overwhelmingly backed level library funding, but winning investment in growth was harder.

Voters spoke, and to a large extent, libraries continued to find support at the ballot box in 2018. After a striking level of wins in 2017, libraries on the ballot in 2018 have reset back to average historical pass/fail levels for a midterm election year—with a nonetheless healthy 79% passing overall (90% passed in 2017). The 2018 election cycle was split between congressional primaries and the midterm elections in November. This report captures results of 157 library-related elections held across both. There are some notable variations in wins and losses among operating levies, building bonds, and annual budget votes: while those on operating expenses saw a very high rate of success, especially those that preserved the status quo, increases and building bonds saw a mixed response. Several library governance elections with counterintuitive outcomes are also included, as are a few same-year reruns in November of measures that failed earlier in the year. The whole story of library questions proves much richer than these high-level statistics tell.

TEN-YEAR TRENDS

OPERATING LEVIES & ANNUAL BUDGETS

Similar to recent years’ results, operating renewals and annual budget votes passed at a very high rate in 2018. Fully 96% of renewals passed. While renewals were solid, budget increase votes were varied; with only 70%, 26 of 37, passing. In New York and several other states in the Northeast, every single annual budget vote was affirmed. This high rate of voter approval for straight renewals (those with no increase or variance) is important to the overall financial health of the entire field, since around 40% of all public libraries nationwide are districts, joint powers authorities, or other types of governmental structures that require voter approval to create or renew taxing ability. These local levies, millages, measures, or annual budgets make up the bulk of library funding.

OPERATING REFERENDA 2018

Notable campaigns included the Kansas City Public ­Library, MO, which passed with 84%, perhaps the largest margin of victory for any major American city library in recent memory. Crosby Kemper and his team fielded a very engaged Informational Communications Campaign that had branch-level messaging brought out into the community by branch staff. They met with hundreds of local organizations, agencies, and stakeholder groups. Voters also approved new independent taxing districts in Potomac, IL, and Gooding, ID. For Potomac, it was a must-pass situation: the town’s overall budget had been cut and the library would have closed without passing a district measure. For Gooding, the library leadership had been exploring a district option for several years, and this new governance structure stabilizes the budget and expands the service area. Ferguson, MO, passed a new dedicated tax for the library. It was the first citywide funding measure since the 2014 riots and will ­solidify programs, services, and staffing at a level that had been supplemented by donations in the past.

The Spokane Public Library (SPL) and City of Spokane school district each passed their respective parts of an innovative, intertwined bond package that will see SPL and the school district build two new joint-use libraries and allow the library also to reinvest in branches across the city. The joint approach appealed to voters, and 63% said yes to the projects. In Woodstock, NY, a small group of disaffected citizens petitioned to put a question on the ballot to dissolve the library district. Voters there stunningly defeated the proposal. In Douglas, MA, the Simon Fairfield Library was saved from closure when voters narrowly approved a new funding formula for their town in May. In Ohio, voters in both New Carlisle and New London approved measures that provide local levy funding to supplement basic state aid. Unfortunately, in Vineland, NJ, voters rejected a supplemental operating levy that was needed after the city retroactively cut its voluntary budget contribution in March; that 37% cut is now permanent.

Several libraries went to the ballot in 2018 to override their tax caps or rollbacks and restore their budgets to precap voter-approved levels. In Colorado, Garfield County Libraries passed its override. The Pine River Library District failed to do so by nine votes (after a recount). In Michigan, the North Branch Township Library, Fruitport District Library, and St. Charles District Library passed local overrides.

COMPLEX GOVERNING QUESTIONS

In 2018, voters in seven jurisdictions grappled with complicated questions about how to organize library services. It is sometimes difficult to categorize a “pass” or a “fail” vote as a win or a loss for libraries. That said, sometimes voting “no” preserves library funding, and a “fail” in the results column is a cause to celebrate. When the ballot measure about the Woodstock library was defeated 64% to 36%, everyone cheered. In Oak Park, IL, voters approved by 61% to 39% an advisory measure that included the library. On its face, that vote hits the “pass” column. But the question suggested that all independent districts, including the library, should be eliminated or consolidated. Likewise, in Sequim, WA, voters approved the creation of a special taxing district within the North Olympic Library System but did not approve the levy to construct the new building.

LIBRARY GOVERNANCE REFERENDA 2018

BUILDING PROJECTS ARE ALWAYS LESS SURE

Unlike operating renewals, building bonds have historically passed at lower levels, and this was no different in 2018. Of the 41 building-specific questions we tracked, 25 passed (61%) and 16 failed (39%) (72% passed in 2017). There are no clear trends indicating whether the success of these measures was affected by a project being a new building or an upgrade or remodel to an existing facility, or a stand-alone effort vs. a component of another infrastructure question. The price tag also did not seem to be a determining factor.

BUILDING REFERENDA 2018

EveryLibrary (of which one of the authors is executive director and the other, a 2018 political action intern) is working with many more libraries to prepare for elections in 2019 and 2020. Many of these are going to the voters because they anticipate significant capital expenditures for aging buildings. Not only do 100-year-old Carnegies need repair and updates, but the library building boom of the 1990s is about to catch up to many communities. Those relatively recent facilities retain wonderful “curb appeal.” Their original bonds are being paid off, too. Despite proper maintenance, however, leadership teams know that over the next five to 15 years, everything from the HVAC systems and roof membranes to parking lots, window caulking, wiring, plumbing, and sump pumps may need to be replaced, resurfaced, upgraded, or remediated. The money for that work will come from either new taxes or cuts to programs, services, collections, or staff. Donor money may be in the mix for some, but we don’t know many “replace the radiant heat pump system” fundraising campaigns that truly inspire.

In our experience, building initiatives are difficult to pass for several reasons. “Why do we still need physical libraries?” is still an open question for many voters. Each facility EveryLibrary works with has to start from scratch to make an independent and local-level case for a significant taxpayer reinvestment in brick and mortar. We don’t see the advocacy ecosystem doing enough to sway public opinion toward reinvesting in libraries. Likewise, and despite the relative ease of renewing an operating levy, renewing long-term public debt requires much more voter engagement. Libraries that are facing a fiscal cliff because of aging facilities need to work on engineering plans and create a community engagement team to talk with voters. That team should especially target voters who may not be library users but support the institution’s mission.

MORE THAN PROPERTY OR PARCEL TAXES

In an interesting development, two multipurpose local sales taxes that include libraries were enacted in Hanna and Laramie, WY. Not every state has an option to use such taxes (not a property or parcel tax) to fund libraries. However, in previous years we have seen both county and city sales taxes pass in California and other Western states, as well as special purpose taxes for libraries in Philadelphia and Boulder, CO (in those cases on sugar-sweetened beverages). While some jurisdictions require voter approval to enact new sales or use taxes, other libraries could work with their town, city, or county partners to explore new, nonproperty revenue options. Likewise, library leaders should anticipate and work toward ensuring that libraries are beneficiaries of legal recreational marijuana sales taxes.

GO BOND FOR LIBRARIES PASSES HANDILY

The only statewide ballot measure dedicated to library funding this year was the New Mexico “GO Bond for Libraries.” Voters sweepingly approved a $12.7 million General Obligation (GO) Bond 69% to 31%. This bond is unique because it is targeted solely to libraries (school, public, and tribal) and is put out for voter approval on a regular schedule. This is the sixth biennial renewal of this critical state funding. This ringing endorsement offers the New Mexico Library Association momentum for other legislative and funding priorities.

States and local governments have a variety of rules about issuing public debt. Nonetheless, every state has funding options that could, with the right policy and advocacy, be used for libraries. For example, in 2017, New Jersey voters approved a landmark $125 million construction bond providing state matching funds for local library projects. State library association leaders should review the law and consider voter-approved measures as a possible path to new revenue.

STATE EDUCATIONAL FUNDING COALITIONS

Across the country, 11 of 15 states (73%) with statewide educational funding ballot measures passed new revenue that could impact funding for school library programs or school librarian positions. In Utah and Colorado, state library associations embraced a new approach to supporting statewide school library funding measures by joining their respective education funding coalitions and campaigning for passage.

In Utah, the Utah Library Association (ULA) and the Utah Educational Library Media Association (UELMA) signed on to endorse Question #1, a statewide fuel tax that would have dramatically improved funding for schools as well as statewide transportation infrastructure. School librarians were specifically mentioned in the ballot language and school library program funding overall stood to benefit. The coalition was a multifaceted group of state and national educational organizations, and ULA/UELMA had a natural place at the table. Each member of the coalition focused on different constituents and voter blocks. EveryLibrary partnered with ULA to create and field a digital voter engagement campaign focused on the potential positive impacts to school libraries and to encourage pro-library voters to “Take the Pledge” to vote for the measure. Unfortunately, Question #1 failed. However, future ULA/UELMA advocacy efforts should benefit from the new relationships made with other educational stakeholders. EveryLibrary helped them identify voters across the state, which will be an asset moving forward.

Meanwhile, the Colorado Association of Libraries (CAL) and Colorado Association of School Librarians (CASL) were early supporters of Amendment 73, a statewide question to change the income tax formula in the State Constitution to fund education better. As in Utah, CAL and CASL knew that better education funding overall could mean better funding for school library programs. Unlike in Utah, however, there were no direct prescriptions about where in a school the funding should go. CAL/CASL recognized that in order to influence how revenue would be spent, they needed to be part of trying to pass it. As part of the “Great Schools Thriving Communities” coalition, their leadership teams supported both the petition process to get the amendment on the ballot and then statewide voter education and outreach during the campaign. EveryLibrary partnered with CAL to create a digital voter engagement “Take the Pledge” campaign that reached tens of thousands of potential voters. The amendment failed, but the new approach to coalition work puts CAL/CASL in a good place for future alliances.

The statewide education coalitions in Colorado and Utah are composed of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations working side by side on a common goal. These (c)(3) and(c)(4) coalitions bring nonprofits, political action committees (PACs), and even unions to the same “issue and advocacy table.” This approach is very common outside of libraries. We see these kinds of coalitions successfully advance issues such as medical or recreational marijuana legalization, minimum wage, education funding, and Medicare expansion. It is both legal and normal for nonprofit organizations and PACs to work together in this way. EveryLibrary, as a 501(c)(4) PAC, was proud to support both the Utah and Colorado initiatives. We believe that more state library associations should join relevant state (c)(3)/(c)(4) education coalitions to advance common issues and improve funding for school libraries.

LOOKING AHEAD

2018 SUMMARY

In 2018, the electorate proved open to renewing library funding. New revenue—whether for operations or capital projects—was less assured. Expected outcomes for libraries on the ballot in 2019 and 2020 are varied. Library leaders still need to reckon with the critical things we learned in the 2018 update of the “From Awareness to Funding” report: willingness to pay for the library is shrinking and so is perception of the librarian as a competent, involved, and necessary professional. [For EveryLibrary’s take on how to address these crucial challenges to continued success at the polls, see Chrastka’s “Reversing the Slide in Voter Support.”]

The “From Awareness to Funding” data shows us that political affiliation is not a determinant of how someone votes. Still, we know from EveryLibrary experience that certain types of opposition to libraries originate with antitax or antigovernment groups. If 2019 or 2020 is anything like 2015 and 2016, there could be a renewed emphasis on issues like local taxes by national and state organizations.

Library leaders must anticipate ways to inoculate themselves against antitax advocates by early, vocal, and frequent communitywide engagement. A proactive, broad-based, pro-library coalition is the best approach.

John Chrastka is Executive Director of EveryLibrary and a 2014 LJ Mover & Shaker. Samantha Mairson was EveryLibrary’s 2018 Political Action Intern and a 2018 MLIS graduate from Syracuse University, NY.