Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats
For only the second time in the past decade, the budget has failed at referendum, and for the first time in 13 years, it wasn't just because voters opposed the school budget. Both the municipal and Board of Education budgets went down by approximately 200 vote margins (see our referendum story, also on page A1).
What was different was that voter turnout decreased for the first time in three years following it bottoming out in 2022 at 7.7%. Last year's referendum hit 25.4%. This year, the turnout was 3,326 casting votes out of 18,367 registered voters, an 18% turnout.
The 2025 budget referendum passed with 4,287 out of 18,310 eligible voters casting a vote, 25.4%. This was up 17.7% from the low in 2022.
For the 2024 budget referendum, during which the feedback was negative, the education budget went down for the first time in 11 years; 1,701 No votes to 1,194 Yes votes, with a 15.1% turnout. In May, it passed, 2075 Yes votes to 1198 No votes, with a turnout of 17.4%.
In 2023, Newtown had a turnout of approximately 8.8%, the first year of increased participation after years of waning participation, especially following the COVID pandemic. In 2022, participation was only 7.7%; in 2021, the turnout was 8.98%; in 2020, there was no budget referendum due to the pandemic; in 2019, turnout was 17%; in 2018, turnout was 15.7%; and in 2017, turnout was 19.9%.
Lower voter turnout is not only a sign of voter apathy but also a sign of lessened support. While a large amount of people made sure to turn out in 2025 to support a difficult sell budget with a more than six percent increase largely driven by self-insurance claims, that same ground swell did not again come out to support the budget.
Sending out a budget and having it voted down isn't a bad thing — it gives a chance to those who would like the opportunity to support a higher budgetary point. However, the message is clear, shown by lower turnout and both budgets going down for the first time in 13 years: Between sticky inflation that began in 2021 and still hasn't completely gone away, as well as escalating affordability issues such as insurance, energy, and housing, and gas prices continuing their recent spike, households across Connecticut are struggling. Residents in Newtown and across the state are continuingly being asked to pay more while their wages are not keeping pace. It is not sustainable, and voters cannot be blamed for saying "no" when given an opportunity.
The Board of Finance and the council have their work cut out for them, and hopefully they can find a way to get to a number residents can live with without gutting town services.
This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline “Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats” pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative.
Sure, voter turn out for this year’s referendum, 18%, was lower than last year’s. However, last year’s turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year’s turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say “Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year”, which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year’s turnout is some type of aberration – a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support.
Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the “lower turnout” to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we’ve experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day.
In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn’t like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.
The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you’re reading things into the editorial that simply aren’t there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn’t spelled out clearly enough, but that’s what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I’d rather see more people come out and vote “no” then not vote at all.