Delaware Contested School Board Seats – Unofficial Results

Filed in Education by on May 10, 2016

Christina School District

Nominating District F – Term 7/1/16-6/30/21

Desiree Brady – 408 (48.7%)

Elizabeth C. Paige – 429 votes (51.3%)

Total votes cast: 837

Capital School District – At Large

Term 7/1/16-6/30/21

Chanda Jackson – 190 votes (38.6%)

Kevin Ohlandt – 119 votes (24.2%)

Andres R. Ortiz – 183 votes (37.2%)

Total votes cast: 492

Caesar Rodney – At Large

Term 7/1/16-6/30/21

Mark M. Dyer, Sr. – 229 votes (29.4%)

Dana Bordley LeCompte – 67 votes (8.6%)

Michael A. Marasco – 483 votes (62.0%)

Total votes cast: 779

Lake Forest – At Large

Term 7/1/16-6/30/21

Austin C. Auen – 22 votes (9.3%)

Earle Dempsey – 167 votes (70.8%)

Lendon W. Dennis, Jr. – 47 votes (19.9%)

Total votes cast: 236

Tags: , , , ,

About the Author ()

A dad, husband, and public education supporter. Small tent progressive/liberal. Christina School District Citizen's Budget Oversight Committee member, who knows a bit about a lot when it comes to the convoluted mess that is education funding in the State of Delaware.

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. pandora says:

    The turn-out was, yet again, awful. It’s time to consider moving these elections – and no, I’m not completely sold on that idea, but something has to change.

  2. Brian says:

    SussexWatcher, I will atone for my transgression.

  3. Brian says:

    Something has to give, you’re right pandora. I’m not sure what the solution is either. Could be moving the election dates, maybe change the format. Maybe both.

  4. pandora says:

    Here’s an idea… school board members represent certain areas of the district, yet the entire district gets to vote on them – this has been a problem for Wilmington, since the candidate that represents the city’s interest may lose to a candidate that the suburban community votes for.

    How about we restrict who you can vote for by the part of the district you live in? That way the candidate would have to get local support – they’d have to campaign in the district they are running to represent. No more courting votes outside your area to win.

  5. Brian says:

    pandora, I now have an idea for my next post, credited to you.

  6. pandora says:

    Great! Can’t wait to read it!

  7. Mike Matthews says:

    You’re dead on, Pandora. I’ve been saying this for years. I said it again to some legislators a few weeks ago. I think it would be a relatively “clean” bill and I can’t imagine much opposition.

    EXCEPT — I believe a handful of downstate district voting is all AT-LARGE, but I’m sure they could keep doing it that way if that’s what they like.

  8. pandora says:

    This has always driven me crazy. The number of great RCCD city school board members we’ve lost due to Pike Creek/Hockessin influence is wrong. The number of city candidates (usually huge charter supporters) who never even campaigned in the city, only in the suburbs, is wrong.

  9. Harrie Ellen Minnehan says:

    I think there was a time when board members were elected by nominating district. It only makes sense…..we need to push for this.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    I suspect that one of the reasons it is hard to engage City parents in Board elections and business is that few candidates actually speak to them. Having voters from a nominating district select the final member makes sense to me.