Voters Reject $169.2 Million Saginaw Township School Bond By 23.80% Margin

The $169.2 Million Saginaw Township School Bond proposal faced defeat in the November 4^th special election by a significant margin, with a total of 12,426 votes cast and 7,691 ‘No’ votes (61.90%)  outweighing the 4,735 (38.10%) ‘Yes’ vote total, meaning the bond proposal was defeated by a margin of 2,956 votes, or 23.80%.

The "No" vote led across all three voting methods, but its dominance was highest among absentee voters.

The table above provides the breakdown of 'Yes' and 'No' votes for the Saginaw Township Community Schools Bond Proposal by the three voting methods: AV Counting Boards (Absentee/Mail-in), Early Voting, and Election Day.

The analysis is as follows:

•    Overall Result: The bond failed, with 38.1% Yes and 61.9% No overall.


•    AV Counting Boards (Absentee/Mail-in): Highest number of ballots cast (6,301), and the highest opposition (64.2% No).


•    Early Voting: Lowest number of ballots cast (123), with strong opposition (62.6% No).


•    Election Day: Second highest number of ballots cast (6,029), and the lowest opposition (59.5% No), making it the most supportive method for the bond.


This data is crucial for the "why" analysis, as it shows the opposition was consistently high across all voting methods, but was most pronounced among absentee voters.

Key Takeaways by Group:

•    Absentee Voters (AV Counting Boards): This group showed the strongest opposition, with the "No" vote capturing approximately 64.6% of the ballots.


•    Election Day Voters: While still voting "No," the Election Day electorate was slightly more favorable to the bond, with the "Yes" vote receiving its highest percentage (40.5%) here.
 

•    Voter Participation: Absentee/AV voting (6,301 ballots) slightly surpassed Election Day voting (6,029 ballots) in this contest, indicating that the strong opposition in the absentee ballots played a decisive role in the proposal's failure.


 Key Takeaways About the Opposition

The defeat of a school bond proposal is typically a sign of one or more of the following:

•    Taxpayer Aversion: Voters may be reluctant to approve a significant tax increase (in the form of a bond millage) due to economic concerns or general opposition to higher taxes.


•    Scope of the Proposal: If the proposal's cost or the specific projects it would fund (e.g., new facilities, major renovations) were perceived as too ambitious or unnecessary by a large segment of the community, they would vote "No."


•    Community Trust/Communication: A failed bond can sometimes indicate that the school district did not sufficiently communicate the need for the funding or failed to earn the necessary trust and support from the electorate.
 

The next step for the Saginaw Township Community Schools Board will likely be to either significantly reduce the scope of the proposal or change the method of funding (e.g., pursue a smaller, more focused bond, or a different millage type.

Deeper Analysis: The "Why" Behind the Patterns

The decisive defeat of the bond is rooted in the overwhelming opposition from all voting groups. However, the variation in opposition between the groups offers insight into the composition of the electorate.

1. Absentee Voters Led the Opposition (AV Counting Boards)

The highest degree of opposition came from the AV Counting Boards (Absentee), who voted "No" by a margin of 64.2%. This group was also the largest voting bloc, casting 6,301 ballots (over 50% of the total vote).

Why the Strong Opposition?  Absentee voters often skew older and are more likely to be long-term residents living on fixed incomes. Historically, this demographic is more sensitive to property tax increases, even those designated for schools, especially if they no longer have children attending the district. Their high turnout and strong "No" vote provided the critical mass needed to defeat the proposal.


Election Day Voters Showed the Most Support 

The Election Day voters, while still overwhelmingly voting "No," had the lowest opposition rate at 59.5%. This means that 40.5% of Election Day voters supported the bond, making this the proposal's most favorable method.

 Why the Slightly Lower Opposition? Election Day voters tend to be a mix of younger families, working professionals, and those who are more engaged in the immediate community. This group often includes parents with children currently in the school system, who have a direct, vested interest in facility improvements and modern learning environments, leading to slightly higher support for the bond.


Interpretation of the Overall Defeat

The consistency of the "No" vote across all three groups, even with the slight variance in percentages, indicates that the issue was not simply one of "getting out the vote" for one side. 

Instead, it suggests a widespread and fundamental disagreement on:

 Fiscal Responsibility: A large portion of the electorate, particularly retirees and longtime homeowners, felt the potential tax increase was too large or that the district should find alternative funding solutions.


This group supports the schools and cares about facility needs but may have been put off by the bond's size or scope.

While those opposing the bond proposal recognize that our schools have needs, the current board’s approach was an all-or-nothing failure, as opposed to a more phased 10-year facility maintenance plan that addresses urgent needs without overburdening taxpayers.

Additionally, opponents felt the focus should be on core education by maximizing the existing $9.6 million Millage Renewal (which passed previously) along with other operating funds to deliver academic results by focusing on students and teachers instead of grand construction projects.

Opponents also feel immediate concerns pertaining to assuring safer schools can be addressed by using existing funds along with smaller, more focused levies (if needed) to enclose open-concept classrooms and upgrade security systems projects that the community supports, but the current board tied to their failed, massive bond measure.

The defeat of this measure wasn’t simply about saving money, it centers upon better management skills to fix the district’s long-term planning issues.