Beyond the City–County Divide: Examining Consolidation Referenda Since 2000

• Author: Christopher Acuff
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X221115361
• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Date: 01 December 2022
• Subject Matter: Research Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X221115361

State and Local Government Review

2022, Vol. 54(4) 287 –309

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X221115361

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg

Research Article

1137322SLGXXX10.1177/0160323X221115361State and Local Government ReviewAcu

research-article2022

Beyond the City–County Divide:

Examining Consolidation

Referenda Since 2000

Christopher Acuff

Abstract

Despite the relative infrequency of successful city-county consolidation campaigns, local govern-

ment off‌icials and reformers continue revisiting the possibilities and perceived benef‌its associated

with consolidation. While studies analyzing campaigns for and against consolidation efforts exist, lit-

tle is known beyond factors at the city and/or county level. For this reason, it is important to dig

deeper and explore the differences at smaller geographic levels. Utilizing demographic, geographic,

and electoral data, this study examines the factors which contribute to support (or opposition) to

consolidation at the voting precinct-level in reform efforts over the last two decades. Results indi-

cate that factors related to higher levels of education, home values, and larger Hispanic populations

tend to increase the vote share in favor of consolidation, while areas with larger median household

incomes demonstrate lower levels of support. These f‌indings help extend our understanding of

boundary change and voting in local referenda in the United States.

Keywords

local government, consolidation

The Quest for Consolidation

Consolidated governments encompass a wide

range of geographic, demographic, and political

characteristics, ranging from urban to rural, tradi-

tionally conservative to traditionally liberal, and

extremely diverse populations in terms of race,

ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Yet, despite

a wide range of characteristics, scholars have

found that consolidating governments can have a

disparate impact on certain populations—particu-

larly racial and ethnic minorities, and those of

lower socioeconomic status (e.g. Bollens 2003;

Clarke 2006; Martin and Schiff 2011; Swanson

2000). In general, voters within the city limits typ-

ically favor consolidation, while voters who reside

outside of the city typically oppose the referenda;

however, analyses of consolidation votes typically

stop at comparing the votes between the city and

county, or differences between broad subgroups

in the community as a whole (e.g. Carr and

Feiock 2004; Leland and Thurmaier 2004;

Leland and Thurmaier 2010).

Despite the abundance of research on cam-

paigns and elections (particularly at the

national-and state-levels) local campaigns are

typically more diff‌icult to examine due to the

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615 McCallie

Avenue, Dept. 6356, Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher Acuff, The University of Tennessee at

Chattanooga, 540 McCallie Avenue, Dept. 6356,

Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598, USA.

Email: Christopher-Acuff@utc.edu

288 State and Local Government Review 54(4)

intricacies involved in what often amount to

small-scale, low-turnout elections. Political

science has long established the importance of

party identif‌ication, partisan cues, elite attitudes,

socialization, and individual attributes such as

education, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic

status that ultimately contribute to vote choice

and electoral successes on the part of

candidates and political parties. Aside from the

administrative and economic issues involved,

consolidation referenda often take on attributes

of typical political campaigns, with various

groups and interests advocating for or against

passage. However, simply comparing voters in

their respective cities and counties, or urban to

suburban areas, ignores a great deal of variation

between different sub-city and sub-county

groups. For this reason, much can be gleaned

from exploring factors at the sub-city and

county levels. Thus, this study examines charac-

teristics at the precinct-level which ultimately

contribute to the approval or rejectionof consol-

idation referenda in the last two decades.

Campaigns and Consolidation

Referenda

As Hawkins (1966) explains, “it is sometimes

suggested that the success or failure of proposed

changes in governmental structure rests in large

measure with the proponents of change”

(p. 79). In many of the cases to date, this perspec-

tive still holds true, as many of the consolidation

campaigns analyzed from an empirical perceptive

have shown that issues identif‌ied by reformers,

relative campaign strength, and the ability

to effectively convey the need for change to the

electorate are often identif‌ied as deciding

factors. However, it should also be noted that,

as Swanson (2004) argues, “interpretations of

outcomes generally go to the victors,”and it

“often takes years for clarif‌ications to emerge,

and then outcomes generally ref‌lect the views

of those in prominent positions”(p. 41). For the

most part, comprehensive analyses of consolida-

tion campaigns and referenda come from sources

such as Rosenbaum and Kammerer (1974) and

Leland and Thurmaier (2004), both of which

have developed and ref‌ined models of successful

consolidation, or case studies of one particular

locale, in the case of works by Hawkins (1966)

and Lyons (1977). Subsequent updates to the

Rosenbaum and Kammerer (1974) model have

been suggested; however, the Leland and

Thurmaier (2004) model is the most comprehen-

sive and thorough of these updates, and includes

contributions from many scholars who have

worked to improve our understanding of these

occurrences.

Another consideration is that many consoli-

dated governments have never been studied, as

they are often too small or have occurred too

recently to have undergone comprehensive

study. Other analyses are somewhat less compre-

hensive, and as Swanson (2004) noted, are

subject to change based on time, and the interpre-

tations used. That is not to say that individual

cases are not informative—many of them are—

however, with many analyses related to consoli-

dation, the focus tends to be primarily on

outcome variables related to eff‌iciency, effective-

ness, or economic development, with the narra-

tive of events surrounding the consolidation

referenda in these cases serving only as a back-

drop. Thus, many of the prevalent studies specif‌ic

to consolidation campaigns and referenda employ

the Rosenbaum and Kammerer (1974) model, or

are tests of that model (Johnson 2004; Johnson

and Feiock 1999). Additionally, earlier cases

which were the result of legislative action and

not referenda are excluded (e.g. Owen and

Willbern 1985; Rush 1941).

Compared to other forms of local govern-

ment reorganization—such as establishing

special districts, interlocal agreements, and

annexation—Scott (1968) classif‌ies consolida-

tion as the “most radical”approach to govern-

ment change (p. 254). According to Scott

(1968), this “radical”change impacts a great

deal of people and “threatens (or is perceived

as threatening) the political-governmental

world that citizens, governmental employees

and off‌icials, and political leaders have learned

to live with and like”(p. 255). In most cases,

voters are more likely to reject such proposals,

as reformers are either unable to make the case

for consolidation, or opposing forces—political,

socioeconomic, geographic, or otherwise—are

2State and Local Government Review 0(0)