Let the evidence decide.

East Lansing has already answered this question. In November 2024, a city only proposal on rental and housing regulation sat far down a presidential ballot. It drew 14,638 votes (7,972 yes, 6,666 no). One year later, the stand alone City Council election drew 6,322 ballots. More than twice as many residents weighed in on a local housing question in an even year as chose their council in an odd year.

Some voters do skip down ballot races in busy elections. But the drop off is small compared with the turnout gain, and national research on voter attention points the same way: a 2026 working paper surveying voters in hundreds of communities found that on cycle voters were more likely to say local elections are important, with no decline in reading local news, interest in the campaign, or discussing local politics (Hajnal, Hartney, Zhao and Houston 2026).

Zoning and stormwater matter. That is exactly why more residents should decide them.

The most direct test of this claim combined three large surveys of local political knowledge: about 11,000 California voters in 500 cities, more than 1,400 voters in 30 suburbs across five states, and nearly 5,000 respondents in school districts nationwide. On seven of ten knowledge measures, on cycle and off cycle voters were statistically indistinguishable. On cycle voters did better on two measures and worse on one (Hajnal, Hartney, Zhao and Houston 2026). The authors conclude that the benefits of consolidation “are unlikely to come at the expense of voter knowledge or attention to local affairs.”

This study is a working paper and has not yet completed peer review. But it is the only systematic evidence on the question, and it does not support the claim. The claim itself comes with no evidence at all.

Suppose the data had gone the other way. The question would remain: is a knowledge threshold the standard by which we decide whose vote should count? We answer that below.

Diverse government starts with a diverse electorate, and off cycle electorates are the least diverse we have.

• A national study of more than 500 cities found that turnout gaps by age and homeownership in local elections are twice as large as the gap between Black and White voters, and considerably larger in off cycle contests (Einstein, Palmer, Hamilton and Singer 2026).
• Moving California city elections on cycle produced an electorate “considerably more representative in terms of race, age, and partisanship,” especially in presidential years (Hajnal, Kogan and Markarian 2022).
• Holding local elections in November of even years increased minority officeholding in California, with the largest gains for Latino candidates (Hajnal, Kogan and Markarian, American Journal of Political Science).
• In off cycle school elections, seniors made up nearly half of all voters in the typical election (Kogan, Lavertu and Peskowitz 2018).

In a city where most residents are young and many rent, an electorate dominated by older homeowners is the barrier to diverse voices. The letter offers no evidence that campaign costs “skyrocket,” and East Lansing's own school board candidates already run in even years, on the same nonpartisan part of the ballot.

The letter's real concern is that organized groups will gain outsized power over our council. The research shows that this happens most in off cycle elections.

The reason is simple. Organized groups, whether unions, business associations, developers, landlords or neighborhood associations, have members who vote in every election. When turnout is high, those members are a small share of the electorate. When turnout falls to 26%, they are a much larger share, and every voter they mobilize counts for more. Political scientist Sarah Anzia calls this the strategic opportunity that off cycle elections create for organized interests (Anzia 2011; Anzia 2014).

The evidence bears this out. In school districts, officials elected off cycle adopted policies that favored the dominant organized group, measurably more than officials elected on cycle (Anzia 2011). In a study of 1,600 large U.S. cities, off cycle governments were less responsive to the typical resident whenever an organized group wanted something different (Dynes, Hartney and Hayes 2021).

As for money itself, we know of no peer reviewed study showing that moving council elections on cycle increases outside spending, and the letter cites none. Reaching 20,000 voters may cost more than reaching 6,000. That is the cost of talking to all of your constituents, not a sign of corruption. Meanwhile, the city itself would save more than $65,000 per off cycle election, according to a former city clerk.

Proposal II changes one word in the City Charter, “odd” to “even.” Council races stay nonpartisan, with no party labels on the ballot, just as East Lansing's school board races already are in even years.

The research on polarization finds the opposite of what the letter predicts. A 2026 study of cities that moved their elections from off cycle to on cycle found “no support” for the claim that the switch polarizes local politics, and “even suggestive evidence of depolarization,” because on cycle elections bring in more moderate and nonpartisan voters (Markarian, Hajnal and Holzer 2026). Those voters are the ones least tied to any party operation.

Three studies speak directly to this question. Read together, they point the same way for city council races.

• Mayors (2018). A study of nearly 10,000 mayoral elections found that mayors enjoy a larger incumbency advantage in on cycle elections (de Benedictis-Kessner 2018). East Lansing does not directly elect its mayor, so this finding does not describe the office on our ballot.
• City councils (2026). The same author's new book examines council races separately. Among cities that switched their election timing, council incumbents had the same advantage on cycle as off cycle. On cycle council races were also more competitive: when an incumbent was running, the average winning margin was about 20 points on cycle, compared with about 30 points off cycle (de Benedictis-Kessner 2026).
• Incumbent vote shares (2026). A separate working paper found that incumbents' vote shares and win rates fell in on cycle elections (Hajnal, Hartney, Zhao and Houston 2026).

None of the three finds that city council incumbents do better when elections move on cycle. One finds they do no better and face closer races; another finds they do worse. The only larger on cycle advantage appears for directly elected mayors, an office East Lansing does not have.

Accountability also means responsiveness to residents. Off cycle governments are less responsive to the typical resident where organized interests disagree with them (Dynes, Hartney and Hayes 2021). An official answerable to 6,000 voters is answerable to far fewer of the people they govern.

Every extra election is an extra cost: learning the date, making a plan, getting to the polls. Those costs fall hardest on people who move often, work hourly jobs, or are new to the community. Voting is also a habit. A randomized field experiment found that people nudged to vote in one election were more likely to vote in the next (Gerber, Green and Shachar 2003). Building that habit is a civic good, and it is easier when elections come on a predictable schedule.

The result is not a mystery. Nearly three times as many East Lansing residents voted in November 2024 as in November 2025. A calendar that reliably yields a 26% electorate is a choice, and it can be changed.

Proposal II does not favor any candidate. It changes when East Lansing votes, and it lets more of East Lansing vote.

If motives are the test, the test applies both ways. Three of East Lansing's five sitting councilmembers, including the mayor, are listed as supporters of the No campaign, along with three former mayors, and each won office under the current system. Yet former councilmembers who won under that same system support Proposal II, as does the entire East Lansing Board of Education, whose members already run for office in November of even years. Everyone is entitled to a view. That is why we would rather both sides be judged on the evidence.

If the concern is that a larger electorate might choose differently, including on housing, that is a policy disagreement to be won by persuading voters. Research on local land use meetings shows that the residents who participate most are older, longtime homeowners who oppose new housing far more than the general public does (Einstein, Palmer and Glick 2019). Keeping the electorate small does not settle that debate. It only decides in advance who gets to take part in it.