It is a matter of concern that in St. Louis, the region’s largest city, the mayoral primary attracted only 14.5 percent of the city’s registered voters. That meager turnout is a reflection of an electorate that believes that either it had no good choice or that their choice will not make a difference. However, this low-turnout race showed an unexpected vulnerability for Mayor Slay in his bid for a third term. Clearly a candidate with name recognition, some financial resources and a strong, resonant message for needed change could mount a serious challenge.
The outcome in the primary was a foregone conclusion, given the huge disparity between the resources of the incumbent (he raised $2.8 million) and his opponents, but we believe that minimally a vigorous public discussion about the city’s problems and viable, forward-thinking solutions are warranted.
Slay’s 60-40 margin of victory looks much less impressive with further analysis. Buoyed by his huge financial advantage, lopsided victories in South Side wards, active support from some self-interested African-American elected officials and a mainstream media that came close to being his declared ally with its refusal to hold him to account for any responsibility for incompletely searched scandals during his watch.
Slay’s public campaign restricted itself to self-congratulatory public relations fodder with no serious discussion about the daunting challenges facing the city nor any creative ideas for the future. We salute the challengers in the April election for giving the public another opportunity to critique Slay’s fitness for re-election. Because the stakes are so high for the city and the region’s future and his voter support was so meager despite his pumped-up efforts in the primary election, there needs to be a strong, insistent public demand for Slay to debate his opponents in a public forum.
Given the increasingly competitive environment in this global age, the entire political structure of the city, represented at the top by – but not limited to— – the Slay administration, is a barrier to greater progress if there is no change in direction in a period when there will be increased priorities at the federal level for urban concerns. It stifles the creative thinking and actions needed to capitalize on these new opportunities.