Opinion | Candidates should stay in their lanes

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In Minnesota, we know a thing or two about snowplows. When they’re aligned — each clearing its designated path — wide roads get cleared efficiently. But when one veers into another’s lane, chaos ensues, and spots get missed. The same is true in government.

Every level of government has a defined scope. City councils manage potholes, parks and police. School boards oversee school funding and teacher contracts. County commissioners handle public health and solid waste management. That clarity isn’t just bureaucratic — it’s foundational to good governance.

(Yes, before the “but what about ...” questions arise: That’s a less-than-complete list of duties. And, yes, there are areas that from the outside look like overlap. Local, county, state and federal governments all have roads within their purview, and they all have different levels of public safety practitioners. And those areas are distinctly divided in an intentional way, even though it’s hard to spot the nuances and know who’s responsible for what.)

Yet increasingly, we see candidates campaigning on promises that fall outside their lane, or focus on issues that aren’t handled at their level. While this happens frequently, the most visible and widely relevant example at the moment is that we now have two candidates for state auditor running on platforms to expand the scope of the office, despite the fact that the auditor’s role is clearly defined in statute. Without the Legislature changing the law — which it could do — these candidates are promising to plow a lane that isn’t theirs.

This isn’t just a technicality. It’s a problem for democracy.

Voters want problems solved. That’s fair. And sometimes they look to the elected official they know best (or see most often in the news) to take on a project or a program that isn’t actually within that official’s jurisdiction. It’s understandable. People don’t walk around with government org charts in their pockets.

But here’s the challenge: As much as they might not enjoy saying it, sometimes elected officials need to say, “That’s not my job.” Few of us enjoy saying no to our boss, and elected officials work for constituents. Which is exactly why they have a responsibility to educate — tactfully, of course — about what their office focuses on. And they need to resist the temptation to wade into issues that aren’t theirs to tackle, even when the pressure is high or the spotlight is tempting.

Take foreign policy. It’s not the purview of city councils. Yet over the last few years we’ve seen local bodies spend hours debating nonbinding resolutions on international conflicts — issues they have no authority to act on. Even when well-intentioned, these efforts take time and energy away from the work they were elected to do: infrastructure, public safety and local services. Worse, they often inflame divisions within communities, forcing neighbors into polarized camps over issues far beyond the scope of local government. That’s not leadership.

Advocates and constituents do of course carry part of the blame, in some of these situations. When they can’t make progress with the governmental body that does have jurisdiction, sometimes advocates look to other bodies to try and achieve a goal. High-pressure tactics work, and maybe they can achieve a patchwork of “wins” for their issue. But I’d argue that they’re contributing to a breakdown in institutional credibility, and that’s a bigger loss for all of us.

More often than not, good government is boring government. It’s potholes and procurement. It’s budgets and oversight. It’s the unglamorous work that keeps communities running. And when elected officials get distracted by shiny, high-profile issues, the basics suffer.

Jurisdictional discipline isn’t about limiting ambition — it’s about channeling it effectively. The best way to “move up” should be to do the current job, and do it well. A city council member who focuses on housing policy, public safety and infrastructure can make a real impact. A school board member who understands the funding formula and student needs can shape lives. The state auditor protects taxpayer dollars by overseeing local government finances, while the Office of the Legislative Auditor focuses on the state.

But when those roles blur — when candidates run on platforms and focus on issues that belong to someone else’s job description — we lose clarity, efficiency and public confidence.

So what can we do?

We can ask better questions. We can support candidates who want to do the job in front of them. And we can model alignment by focusing our advocacy on elected officials based on their jurisdiction, not on who is easiest to pressure or persuade. When elected officials stay in their lane and communicate across lanes, we cover more ground more effectively.

Minnesota deserves leaders who know their role, respect their boundaries, and collaborate for the common good. Because when government works as designed, everyone gets where they need to go — including the people who want to make a career in public service.