After the Election: Martin Bauer on AH, Civic Life & What’s Next

Arlington Heights, IL – As the dust settled from Arlington Heights’ April 2025 local election, I caught up with former village board candidate Martin Bauer over a casual Zoom chat. It was the day after the big trustee race, and despite coming up short in a crowded field of eight candidates (for four seats), Martin’s mood was upbeat and reflective. In fact, the first thing he told me was how “yesterday was an unexpected day” – not so much because he lost (he admits he always knew it was “an uphill battle”), but because of how the results defied expectations. “I’m totally fine with the outcome,” he insisted, noting that in the end “the nice thing about a democracy is that voters have the last word, and the voters have spoken, so it’s all good.”

That gracious attitude set the tone for a candid and wide-ranging conversation. We chatted about everything from low voter turnout and campaign trail frustrations to the influence of local media and political parties. Along the way, Martin shared what he learned during his run for trustee and his hopes for the future of civic engagement in Arlington Heights. I also couldn’t resist sprinkling in some of my own thoughts – after all, this was as much a friendly post-election debrief as it was an interview. What follows is a feature-style recap of our discussion, blending Martin’s insights with a bit of my personal commentary.

Election Night Surprises and Voter Turnout
Election Day 2025 in Arlington Heights had a few surprises up its sleeve. For one, the voter turnout was both encouraging and underwhelming at the same time. Only about 13,362 ballots were cast in the village – roughly 23.9% of registered voters. That’s actually higher than the dismal ~14% turnout of the last local election, but still a far cry from robust participation. Martin wasn’t shocked by the low numbers. “People vote when they feel like something’s at stake,” he observed. “If they don’t really care – and let’s face it, most people don’t pay that much attention to what’s going on locally (they should, but they don’t) – then they stay home.” In other words, unless a local issue grabs them by the collar, a lot of residents simply tune out municipal elections.

We both lamented this perennial challenge of getting neighbors to the polls. Early voting had been promoted by all the candidates, but nobody really pushed mail-in voting despite its growing popularity. I asked Martin whether he thought making mail-in ballots a bigger part of the campaign would have changed the outcome. He didn’t think so. As an actuary by profession, Martin had dug into the data from recent elections and found that many voters were already voting early or by mail. By Election Day, most who cared to vote had done so. “I don’t think it changes the outcome,” he said of any mail-in ballot push, noting that in bigger elections as much as two-thirds of votes are cast before the actual day. The real issue, in his view, is interest: if people aren’t engaged, the convenient option of mailing a ballot isn’t going to magically boost turnout.

Still, the outcome itself had Martin a bit stunned. He congratulated the winners – Jim Bertucci, Carina Santa Maria, Greg Zyck, and Bill Manganaro took the four trustee seats – but he admitted he “was surprised by the outcome of the election” in terms of who those winners were. Why? Because it upended some conventional wisdom about Arlington Heights politics. For years, a key predictor of success in these races was the backing of the major local newspaper (more on that soon). Martin pointed out that historically the Daily Herald’s endorsements boast an “almost 100% success record at picking the ultimate winners.” Typically, a few thousand undecided or “low-information” voters will just trust the newspaper’s picks when they get to the ballot. This time, however, that pattern didn’t hold. One high-profile candidate, Colin Gilbert, had nearly every establishment advantage – a Herald endorsement, a background of civic involvement, even a flood of campaign money – yet Gilbert lost. In fact, he placed fifth, just out of the running. Another candidate, Argie Karafotias (also endorsed by the paper), finished even further down. Clearly, something different was in the air this cycle.

Martin’s take? The partisan winds blew through town. Although village board races are officially nonpartisan, this election saw an unusual level of involvement by local party figures – particularly from the Democrats. “This time around it was much more partisan,” Martin said. Popular state Rep. Mary Beth Canty, a Democrat from Arlington Heights, openly backed a slate of candidates (the eventual winners), making it well known who her party supported. Martin suspects that, against the backdrop of broader dissatisfaction with national politics, a lot of voters responded to those signals. In his quick post-election analysis, the coordinated effort by local Democrats was “extremely successful” – not just in the village trustee contest but also in nearby township races, where long-held Republican seats flipped to Democrats the same night. As a result, traditional factors like newspaper endorsements or even individual resumes mattered less. Partisan affiliation (or at least the perception of it) might have been the deciding factor for many voters.

That led us to discuss a somewhat worrying question: Are local elections becoming too much like national elections? Martin, an independent-minded candidate, voiced concern that our village might be at the start of a trend where local races become hyper-partisan battles. “There is a concern that local elections will become equally partisan as state or national elections,” he said. “At which point the individual candidate is no longer as relevant as the letter they have behind their name, and I think that’s unfortunate.” In his ideal world, neighbors would judge candidates on their local knowledge, ideas, and community ties – not on a party machine’s backing. If voters simply choose the “D” or “R” next to a name without digging deeper, we risk losing the nuanced, issue-focused discussions that local government needs. That was one of Martin’s biggest takeaways from April 2025: Arlington Heights might be headed into a new era of partisan-slated municipal politics, for better or worse.

The Campaign: From “Table Stakes” to Future Challenges
Before we got too deep into what went wrong (or right) this election, I asked Martin to reflect on the campaign itself. What did he think of the conversation during the race? Were there ideas he wished had gotten more attention? His answer revealed a bit of frustration about the campaign discourse.

According to Martin, much of the campaigning revolved around what he calls “the same old” issues – basically the table stakes of local government. Every candidate, for instance, talked about keeping taxes in check, replacing old lead water pipes, and improving storm water drainage. “Yes, taxes – big deal. Yes, lead pipe replacement – big deal. We already know that’s necessary. Storm water mitigation – all of those things to me are table stakes,” he said with a slight grin, as if to acknowledge of course those basics are important. But those are also the obvious topics everyone agrees on. Martin had hoped to push the dialogue into less familiar territory – the challenges and opportunities that aren’t yet fully on the village’s radar. In the various candidate forums and debates, he tried to inject some forward-thinking points, though it didn’t always catch fire with the moderators or other candidates.
So, what “truly new concerns” did Martin want to talk about? He rattled off a few that he believes Arlington Heights needs to start planning for now:

• The Retail Shift: Our shopping habits have changed dramatically. Martin lives on Ridge Avenue, and he can’t help but notice “an Amazon delivery truck running up and down the street 5 or 6 times a day.” Online shopping is booming, which has “significant implications for brick-and-mortar retail.” What happens to our local stores and malls in the Amazon era? Martin felt this deserved more discussion, beyond generic statements that we need development.
• Generational Housing Preferences: Martin pointed out a generational divide in how people want to live. Older residents often prefer single-family homes, while younger folks are gravitating toward condos and apartments, valuing flexibility over putting down roots. There was some talk of affordable housing during the campaign, but virtually no debate about what these shifting preferences mean long-term for Arlington Heights’ housing stock and planning.
• Remote Work and Office Space: As Martin spoke to me midday, he waved at his home office surroundings. “I sit here at home in the middle of the afternoon – it’s the middle of my work day. I work from home as opposed to from the office,” he noted. Commercial real estate is suffering from these new work-from-home norms. What does that mean for all the office parks and business districts in our village? Martin believes we should be thinking ahead about how to adapt to this new reality.
• Transportation & Infrastructure: Given these lifestyle shifts, Martin is a proponent of making the village more bicycle-friendly. “Transportation is different, and I for one would like there to be more bicycle-friendly infrastructure,” he said, “so we’re not completely tied down to cars as everything, as is still in 2025 the standard in suburbia.” In a town built around the automobile, he knows this idea might be an uphill battle (indeed it didn’t gain much traction in the campaign), but he sees a need for diversifying how we get around.

Martin suspects that some voters did care about these forward-looking issues – he heard plenty of questions at doors and on social media about things like the proposed Chicago Bears stadium development, or how to attract young families to town. But on the public stage, the candidates mostly stuck to safe, broad themes. “Local elections don’t have really stark differences in positions, even between left and right,” Martin said. Everyone tried to sound prudent and positive, and perhaps avoid controversy. For example, every candidate claimed to be “fiscally conservative” (Martin chuckled at this, doubting all of them truly are) and everyone voiced some support for the Bears’ move (even if privately their stances may differ on details). Hot-button social issues or bold proposals were largely absent from the forums. “Some of the potentially most controversial topics… were really not brought up much,” Martin recalled, clearly a bit disappointed. Even the idea of expanding certain village services – one area where at least one candidate hinted at doing more – never evolved into a substantial debate.

“I almost was disappointed that there wasn’t more that bubbled up,” Martin admitted. He truly wanted a richer conversation about the village’s future. Unfortunately, those Amazon trucks, remote workers, and bike lanes didn’t become central campaign talking points. The reality of campaign life, as he wryly noted, is that “we can only answer the questions that we are given.” And the questions he got at debates tended to be about the usual topics (taxes, development in general, public safety, etc.), not the visionary stuff. Still, Martin doesn’t regret trying to broaden the conversation. If nothing else, he hopes he planted a few seeds that village leaders and residents will mull over in the months and years ahead.