Editor's Note: This post was originally published on March 19, raising the question of why anyone would want to get involved in village government in Northbrook given the vitriol it seems to stir. After it was published, multiple people sent me a screenshot of a post from earlier this week from one of the candidates that underscored some of the points I was attempting to make. The post appears to have been a private share, not meant for public consumption, so I am respecting that intent and do not feel right sharing it. As part of that process, I realized that there were some revisions—unrelated to the private post—worth making. These are, after all—like all of us—works in progress.
As someone new to participating in local elections, I have found my first one in Northbrook to be, at times… unusual.
In our modest village of about 30,000 residents, a surprising amount of energy has gone into name-calling, accusations of injecting national partisan politics from all sides, anonymous threats to expose a candidate’s arrest records from long ago, publication of private (albeit unfortunate) text message strings, and the vast oversimplification of reasonably complex issues.
An appointed volunteer on one of the village’s commissions publicly posted a picture of a candidate’s house—and unshoveled sidewalk—as evidence of unfitness for office. Some candidates have become so exhausted by the drama that they dropped out after ballots were set—one officially, and one who later rejoined the race.
These dynamics, while perhaps more common in larger political settings, feel out of place in a small village run by a council of quasi-volunteers who collectively cost taxpayers a little over forty thousand dollars annually (about a dollar and a quarter per resident per year). We should, by the way, all hold those who do volunteer their time in the highest regard for their service and their civic duty, whether we agree with every decision or not—it is a thankless job and one that should be heralded.
The unrelenting back-and-forth arguments on social media have made this election deeply personal, emotions are high, and a growing lack of trust is evident. Given the tone of online discussions, this may just be an echo chamber of a relatively small number of highly engaged voters rather than a reflection of the broader Northbrook electorate—most of whom may just have tuned out and will resume the tradition of not voting.
It makes me wonder: why would anyone want to go through the process of running for the village board in Northbrook, let alone serve on it? Just the act of putting your name on the ballot has become so fraught with hostility that it actively discourages participation.
And the numbers back it up. Since 2009, in eleven consecutive races for Village President and Village Trustee, every single Northbrook Caucus-endorsed candidate has won. Sixty-four percent of those elections have been unopposed. The average voter turnout since 2013 has been just 11.2%, and if we exclude 2021—when an unusually high 7,371 voters participated—the average drops to 8.7%.
When an organization has gone undefeated for over a decade, and two-thirds of elections are uncontested, there are only two possible explanations. Either the system is so perfect that every single Caucus-endorsed candidate is objectively the best choice every single time. Or, even with its benevolent beginnings, the process has evolved to discourage competition and limit voter choice.
The fact that we have candidates who see a pattern of mostly unanimous votes by our current Village Board and want to get involved—perhaps to inject some different ideas—should be something we all celebrate as democracy in action.
Instead, outside political groups continue to insert themselves into our election.
In January, The Northfield Democrats sent an email that I covered in a previous blog post. It’s worth reminding everyone again that in our local election, there is one official political party—the Northbrook Caucus—but another group, Northbrook Focused, has informally organized in support of independent candidates. Nobody officially has a red or blue designation next to their name on the ballot.
This week, the Northfield Democrats released a voter card endorsing their preferred "nonpartisan" candidates in Northbrook’s village elections—alongside their endorsements for actual Democratic candidates in partisan races.
And in the same section where they endorse their preferred candidates from the Northbrook Caucus, they include this curious "caution":
⚠️ CAUTION: "An “independent” group filed to oppose the Northbrook Caucus-endorsed candidates above; some have since announced they have withdrawn from the race. The Caucus-endorsed candidates listed above are genuine and committed to serve."
It wasn’t enough to put their thumb on the scale of a nonpartisan election. They also felt the need to circle back and cast doubt on the other candidates on the ballot, just in case voters missed it the first time.
A Northbrook Caucus candidate reinforced these talking points in his candidate questionnaire for the local press:
"The opposition slate for Trustee includes one person who dropped out of the race and won’t serve, another who dropped out but is now reportedly back in, and just one who has stayed in for the campaign. Aside from the obvious lack of commitment shown, the remaining opposition candidates also have minimal to no history of community service. Neither has even voted in a municipal election. The Caucus slate is committed to making Northbrook the best community it can be. The opposing slate has shown no such commitment."
Not only do these statements portray the candidates as people who don’t volunteer or vote—implying they aren’t good citizens—they also call their very commitment to Northbrook into question.
What’s especially odd is that the “opposition” candidate for Village President clearly lists his volunteer work and local involvement in his candidate profile. Perhaps the criticism was aimed solely at the trustee candidates—all three of whom grew up in Northbrook, attended local schools, and are now raising their families here. It seems preposterous to suggest that they lack commitment to the community—just as it would be preposterous to suggest that someone who hasn’t lived here their entire life is inherently less invested in the village.
It is worth noting that none of the trustee candidates list specific volunteer activities on their profiles. Is that due to actual civic apathy, or just upstart candidates—without a seasoned political machine behind them—who haven’t learned how to craft the perfect campaign bio? Maybe it’s neither. Maybe they’re simply newer voices, taking the first step toward civic engagement.
Hopefully, voters look at the full picture and take the time to understand what fresh ideas, different experiences, and diversity of thought each candidate could bring to the board. For me, I’m just glad that Northbrook gets to have a contested election this cycle—thanks in no small part to the courage of these challengers.
And that’s the deeper concern. If stepping forward as a newcomer—without being tapped by the establishment—is met not with curiosity or respect, but with condescension and derision, the message being sent isn’t really about qualifications or preparedness. It’s about control. It says: You are not welcome unless you follow our process.
The danger is that contested elections will remain the exception rather than the norm—because potential candidates will take one look at the tone, the tactics, and the temperature, and decide it’s not worth the trouble.
The engagement and attention of outside political forces also makes me wonder: When the election is over and it’s time to govern, who will have more influence?
The residents of Northbrook?
Or the political organizations that helped them get elected?
Will Northbrook’s leadership be guided by what’s best for our village, or by the hyper-polarized playbook that dominates national politics?
It also raises the question: if the Northbrook Caucus and its candidates are closely aligned with an outside political party, why not drop the ruse and just run under the official flag of that party?
I am still optimistic that, despite all of this, a competitive election will drive the highest voter turnout that we’ve seen in recent history. And if we see record turnout, regardless of who wins, I’ll be absolutely ecstatic that our electorate demonstrated such a surge in engagement. That would hopefully mean the residents were informed, paying attention, and making their own choices.
But it won’t signal that we cannot do better. Since the Northbrook Caucus now openly receives external political support, it is unlikely to change in a way that encourages broader participation on its own.
If we want to make elections competitive in the long run, we need to start building a process for the next cycle in 2027—one that prioritizes choice, transparency, and public engagement.
It is time for a fresh, alternate approach to fielding candidates for Northbrook village elections. An approach that:
- Informs rather than anoints.
- Evaluates rather than endorses.
- Activates rather than restricts.
The goal should be a process that serves the people—not one that decides for them. And I’m sure this will be met with skepticism, but that’s no reason not to try.
Northbrook deserves a system that encourages engagement, empowers voters, and ensures that every resident has a fair shot at public service.
After all, a more engaged Northbrook is a better Northbrook.