Election 2013: the affirmation of 21-only
What happens when one lives by the student vote in Iowa City? One dies by the student vote.
Last Tuesday, 21-only defied revocation with 66 percent voting against its repeal — and I am sure city and university leaders were grinning ear to ear.
The pro-19 crowd blamed itself for not better publicizing “the facts.” However, lying low was their game plan from the get-go: keep things quiet and hope the townies stay home on election night. That did not happen. Though there was a long lull in media coverage, it picked up during October and the “21 Makes Sense” campaign intensified. When it came time to step up and make their case, the “Yes” campaign was far behind and a fresh, convincing argument was woefully lacking. The only “Yes” signs I saw were orange pieces of paper stapled to downtown kiosks.
The pro-19 campaign bet big on students and early voting in the dorms. It lost the early vote, 51 percent to 49 percent, which was a little surprising. But the death knell of extremely low turnout rang once again on Election Day. Of the 4,526 voters registered at the Quad and UI Library precincts, only 80 bothered to vote. Forty-five out of 2,318 voted at the Courthouse, and 35 out of 2,512 voted at the Rec Center. The Senior Center had the best campus/downtown turnout: 115 out of 2,309. (North Liberty takes the cake for low turnout in this election, though. Out of the 10,015 voters registered in the entire city, only 177 — 1.77 percent — bothered to vote.) Almost half of the votes cast in the election were early votes — 5,141 — and I assume many were students. But the majority of the student voting bloc seems to have stayed home.
The future of pro-19 looks murky right now. Only the postgraduates and oldest undergrads were around during the pre-21 days, and most will be gone when the issue can be revisited in two years. I suppose there are students whose older friends or siblings experienced the raucous, bygone days when downtown Iowa City was the underage drinking capital of the Midwest; and perhaps, being a little sore for showing up too late, they will continue carrying the pro-19 torch. But most don’t care about the bar entry age when they turn 21. In the same vein, there are obviously a few bar owners who made a lot of money during the underage binge and have been unable to adjust to 21-only. They may renew the fight, but Tuesday’s resounding defeat means they face long odds. Plus, the drinking culture downtown and at the UI is changing. Though the UI’s party pipeline is still intact, I assume the inflow is decreasing. (As much as the university wants to tout great programs in this and that, we all know that many students were drawn to the party scene. C’s get degrees, baby!)
So what happens next? The low-key, city council election did not work, and neither did the midterm election three years ago, so perhaps we will see another attempt in (I assume) 2016 during the next Presidential election. Even then, I doubt the automatic student votes will be enough.
One thing may never change, though: John Deeth’s insistence that 21-only repeal efforts serve as referendums on the drinking age. Case in point, he was beating the drum again in a P-C guest column the day after the election. Voters were unsympathetic to his pro-19 case — that Iowa City serve as a party Mecca where young adults can make mistakes with alcohol and, hopefully, learn from them — and there is zero talk of lowering the drinking age at the state and national levels, where that decision will ultimately be made. Is it strange and unfair that Americans can vote, buy tobacco and porn, and serve in the military at eighteen but not purchase alcohol? Sure, especially given the fact many of us start drinking around eighteen anyway. Though that seems to be the overarching issue, I think that is a different discussion that we should have at some point. Besides, I believe Iowa City’s bar entry ordinance is legally tied to the drinking age, so if one lowers the drinking age, one lowers IC’s bar entry age.
Last Tuesday, 21-only defied revocation with 66 percent voting against its repeal — and I am sure city and university leaders were grinning ear to ear.
The pro-19 crowd blamed itself for not better publicizing “the facts.” However, lying low was their game plan from the get-go: keep things quiet and hope the townies stay home on election night. That did not happen. Though there was a long lull in media coverage, it picked up during October and the “21 Makes Sense” campaign intensified. When it came time to step up and make their case, the “Yes” campaign was far behind and a fresh, convincing argument was woefully lacking. The only “Yes” signs I saw were orange pieces of paper stapled to downtown kiosks.
The pro-19 campaign bet big on students and early voting in the dorms. It lost the early vote, 51 percent to 49 percent, which was a little surprising. But the death knell of extremely low turnout rang once again on Election Day. Of the 4,526 voters registered at the Quad and UI Library precincts, only 80 bothered to vote. Forty-five out of 2,318 voted at the Courthouse, and 35 out of 2,512 voted at the Rec Center. The Senior Center had the best campus/downtown turnout: 115 out of 2,309. (North Liberty takes the cake for low turnout in this election, though. Out of the 10,015 voters registered in the entire city, only 177 — 1.77 percent — bothered to vote.) Almost half of the votes cast in the election were early votes — 5,141 — and I assume many were students. But the majority of the student voting bloc seems to have stayed home.
The future of pro-19 looks murky right now. Only the postgraduates and oldest undergrads were around during the pre-21 days, and most will be gone when the issue can be revisited in two years. I suppose there are students whose older friends or siblings experienced the raucous, bygone days when downtown Iowa City was the underage drinking capital of the Midwest; and perhaps, being a little sore for showing up too late, they will continue carrying the pro-19 torch. But most don’t care about the bar entry age when they turn 21. In the same vein, there are obviously a few bar owners who made a lot of money during the underage binge and have been unable to adjust to 21-only. They may renew the fight, but Tuesday’s resounding defeat means they face long odds. Plus, the drinking culture downtown and at the UI is changing. Though the UI’s party pipeline is still intact, I assume the inflow is decreasing. (As much as the university wants to tout great programs in this and that, we all know that many students were drawn to the party scene. C’s get degrees, baby!)
So what happens next? The low-key, city council election did not work, and neither did the midterm election three years ago, so perhaps we will see another attempt in (I assume) 2016 during the next Presidential election. Even then, I doubt the automatic student votes will be enough.
One thing may never change, though: John Deeth’s insistence that 21-only repeal efforts serve as referendums on the drinking age. Case in point, he was beating the drum again in a P-C guest column the day after the election. Voters were unsympathetic to his pro-19 case — that Iowa City serve as a party Mecca where young adults can make mistakes with alcohol and, hopefully, learn from them — and there is zero talk of lowering the drinking age at the state and national levels, where that decision will ultimately be made. Is it strange and unfair that Americans can vote, buy tobacco and porn, and serve in the military at eighteen but not purchase alcohol? Sure, especially given the fact many of us start drinking around eighteen anyway. Though that seems to be the overarching issue, I think that is a different discussion that we should have at some point. Besides, I believe Iowa City’s bar entry ordinance is legally tied to the drinking age, so if one lowers the drinking age, one lowers IC’s bar entry age.
