Monday, April 28, 2025
*Editor's note: Since press time, the village has clarified it will analyze voter data to determine whether to make polling consolidation permanent.
Valley Stream village election voters who assume they can cast their ballot at their usual polling place will need to think again. The village has done away with all but one of the dozen or so customary polling sites it runs on Election Day.
Gone are the days of voting at schools, firehouses or community landmarks like senior housing facilities. From now on, Village Hall will be the only dedicated polling location where residents can vote on village electoral contests. Election Day, on Tuesday, will serve as the first test of this new electoral precedent.
Compared with the logistical heavy lifting and cost of running a dozen or so polling locations, village officials argue that this shift provides a streamlined, cost-effective alternative that aligns more closely with the growing popularity of mail-in voting.
“It’s wildly expensive to have all these polling places,” said Mayor Ed Fare, who noted that the village burned through $43,000 on last year’s general election.
Early signs show that voters are increasingly opting to mail in their ballots over showing up to the ballot box.
Before 2020, New Yorkers could only vote by mail if they held a valid excuse — like being out of town or ill— but pandemic-era expansions turned it into a widespread option now upheld by the courts.
As the "law of the land," Fare said the village has worked to expand access to mail-in voting and the process seems to avoid confusion.
For residents who want to vote in-person, “all day on Election Day, our office fields calls with one question: ‘Where do I vote?’”
Now, the answer is simple. Village Hall is, according to Fare, an obvious choice. It’s an easy-to-spot landmark, the nerve center of local politics, and destination residents are well accustomed to visiting whether to apply for parking permits or visit the nearby library and Village Green park space.
This new arrangement might work in practice, but voting rights groups and experts have serious doubts. Trimming polling places to the bare minimum will certainly shrink, however borderline, the already narrow universe of voters who turn out in-person for village elections, argues Craig Burnett, associate professor of political science at Hofstra University.
The logic is rather intuitive. When the price of voting increases, voters pay attention. Things like the degree of familiarity and ease of access to polling sites can tilt the odds of a voter’s decision to turn out or stay home on Election Day.
“Humans understand and are sensitive to costs,” she said. “(Fewer polling places) means the cost of voting increases, and, as a result, fewer people will deem the cost of voting as worth it, especially when the contest is hyper-local because there are already limited ways for individuals to become aware of those elections, who is running, and when to vote.”
While white-collar workers with access to cars may face fewer time and transportation constraints, individuals without cars, those with mobility challenges, and working-class people who can’t afford to miss work on a weekday are especially impacted when polling site availability is reduced.
“For those who are less likely to vote, it’s this lack of access that could be the barrier that keeps them from voting,” said Andrea Libresco, head of the Minors in Civic Engagement at Hofstra University, feeding a vicious cycle of civic disengagement.
Yawning rates of voter participation have been a longstanding problem at all levels of government. But in Valley Stream, it’s less a case of drowsiness and more of a deep hibernation according to the latest election figures.
In the most recent general village election, of the 27,000 registered voters, 1,550 cast their ballots — just 5.7 percent. Over ten polling places were kept open yet less than half of voters, or roughly 650 residents, headed to the polls in-person.
Village administrators argue that maintaining the existing number of polling places won’t boost voter engagement past single digits if the engagement isn’t there to begin with. The results simply don’t justify the “massive” undertaking to facilitate an election operation of previous years, argued Fare.
“Fiscally, if we have to spend money to increase voter turnout, I would do it. But spending money does not increase voter turnout,” said Fare, the evidence is just not there.
Voters in recent memory experienced polling closures comparable to what is being proposed in a trustee general election in 2020. At that time, the Herald reported voter participation fell by roughly a third compared to the previous mayoral election, when more than 3,000 residents cast ballots. Its unclear, however, whether polling availability, or other factors like the shocks of the pandemic, led to the drop-off.
On normal election times, other factors can also likely dampen turnout, including low-stakes races with outcomes that seem all but decided and off-cycle village elections that fall outside the spotlight of state and federal contests.
This year the village has made strides in streamlining the voter rolls. Residents no longer need to register separately for village elections; a single visit to Village Hall now suffices to register for local, county, and state races alike at all times of the year.
Have an opinion on this article? Send an email to jlasso@liherald.com.
