Opinion | A case for shorter campaign cycles

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

•••

Tuesday was the last day of the candidate filing period for many cities and school districts who don’t have primaries across Minnesota. While some candidates have had their names out there for months, others only stepped forward in the last two weeks to put their name on the ballot. Waiting to announce until the filing period is not “too late.” It’s right on time.

Announcing during the filing period, instead of months beforehand, shouldn’t be seen as lack of hustle. It could be a deliberate choice. It can signal thoughtfulness, respect for voters and maybe even a dose of humility. It opens the door for community members who’ve been quietly considering the decision to run, without feeling boxed out by early fundraising or endorsements. Jumping in on the final day can also be a strategic move to prevent uncontested races.

When the week started, there was only one candidate for two seats on the Falcon Heights city council — now there are four. The race for mayor of Minnetonka had one candidate until three additional citizens raised their hand to run on Tuesday. Democracy requires options, and even a late entry can turn a coronation into a conversation.

Let’s challenge the idea that starting during the filing period means that a candidate isn’t ready, or that lack of a “campaign machine” is a disadvantage. Running for office isn’t just about being prepared to campaign — it’s about being prepared to govern if they win. Public service shouldn’t be automatically rewarded to those who are just first out the gate.

This year, the St. Paul DFL opted not to endorse in citywide races. That decision arguably may have created more dynamic races in St. Paul. More candidates. More ideas. Less gatekeeping. The absence of early endorsements gave the process room to breathe and voters more opportunity to hear from a full field, when they actually might be paying attention.

Meanwhile, we’re already seeing announcements — or analysis that a challenger won’t be stepping up — for some races that won’t happen until 2026: statewide offices, congressional seats and all 201 state legislative seats. That’s nearly a year and a half away! While there is a place for long-term planning, we should ask whether these extended campaign cycles truly serve voters, or if they just amplify noise.

Longer campaign cycles don’t just wear us out — they wear us down. When candidates start campaigning more than a year before the election, we’re asked to pick sides earlier, defend positions longer and navigate divisive rhetoric for months on end. That kind of extended politicking can harden perspectives before solutions even enter the conversation. It makes it harder to find common ground and easier to drift into camps, instead of communities. Political engagement should invite collaboration and conversation — not put neighbors on opposing teams for months.

Never mind the figurative costs, what about the literal costs? Year-plus campaigns aren’t just exhausting, they’re expensive. They require sustained fundraising, bigger staffs, larger teams of volunteers, longer ad and lit buys, and more events. That level of investment isn’t equally accessible to everyone, which means extended campaigns tend to favor those with deep pockets. There are people and entire industries that do benefit from this kind of spending, but I’d question if those spends are good cultural investments.

In Minnesota, where civic engagement is strong and participation matters, long campaigns might benefit a few, but they can (sometimes intentionally) discourage others. Let’s make space for the candidates who stepped up within the last couple weeks just as the doors officially opened. Let’s honor the people who decide to run when it’s not performative, but purposeful.

Because ultimately, the choice to serve should be about the community — not the campaign calendar.