OPINION: Low turnout for Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District election is a threat to democracy

It was the worst of setups for an election. Four candidates for four seats. Three uncontested incumbents and one uncontested newcomer.

The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) held an election for its board of directors earlier this month and almost no one noticed. The MRGCD manages the flow of the Rio Grande through Sandoval, Bernalillo, Valencia and Socorro counties. It decides when irrigators along the river get water, maintains acequias and plays an important role in flood control in the valley. It’s a vital government agency in the Rio Grande Valley.

When the votes were counted, only 259 ballots had been cast out of 64,259 eligible voters. The at-large seat was won with just 74 votes, one-tenth of 1% of those eligible to vote. This wasn’t supposed to happen.

In 2018, the New Mexico Legislature consolidated the smaller elections such as school boards, flood control districts, and soil and water conservation district elections into a unified ballot. Lawmakers wanted to make it easier for voters to participate and avoid low turnout, stand-alone elections.

During the 2025 New Mexico legislative session, the MRGCD argued and won an exemption from participating in the municipal elections to be held on Nov. 4. Notice of the election was published in the legal section of local newspapers, but the conservancy district never contacted the property owners in the district to tell them there was an election.

The League of Women Voters of Central New Mexico attempted to compile a voter guide, but only one candidate participated. The League sent out news releases and distributed flyers throughout the district telling people about the election. The response? Crickets.

Democracy isn’t always an exciting contest between passionate candidates. Sometimes it’s a quiet ritual that keeps our civic life alive, until we stop showing up. If an uncontested candidate can win with a single vote — perhaps their own — what does that say about our commitment to self-governance?

We express outrage over threats to democracy at the national level, but the more dangerous threat may be at home. When we stop paying attention to the institutions that shape our daily lives, we surrender our power of oversight without even thinking about it. Maybe the question we should ask isn’t who won the election, but who cares? Because if the answer is “no one,” democracy doesn’t need an enemy to destroy it. Indifference will do the job just fine.