Are we being muted, or are we choosing to remain silent—and what are we willing to do once we know the answer?
That question matters, especially when we look honestly at civic participation in Kansas Senate District 19 (SD‑19). Civic engagement is not just a reflection of individual motivation. It is shaped by systems, history, access, and trust built or broken over time. When participation is low, the most responsible response is not blame, but curiosity.
Recent data from the 2024 Kansas Senate election shows that SD‑19 ranked 36th out of 40 districts statewide when participation is measured as votes cast divided by voting‑age population. Roughly one‑third of voting‑age residents participated in the Senate race, even in a presidential election year when turnout is typically higher.
That number alone does not tell us why participation is low. But it does tell us that something is happening, and it calls us to ask better questions.
Muted or Silent?
There are times when people are effectively muted.
Processes, systems, and structures can act as barriers that make participation harder than it should be. Limited access to information, confusing or shifting procedures, lack of transportation, inflexible work schedules, language barriers, or a long history of decisions being made without meaningful community input can all send the same message over time: your voice does not matter here, and it likely won’t tomorrow either.
When that message is reinforced year after year, disengagement should not surprise us. Silence, in that context, is not apathy. It is often a rational response to repeated exclusion.
But there are also moments when communities become silent by choice, or at least by self‑selection.
After long periods of disenfranchisement, disappointment, or feeling ignored, people may stop participating not because they are unaware, but because they are unconvinced that participation leads to meaningful change. Disinterest, skepticism, or civic fatigue can take root. Silence in those moments can be less about indifference and more about self‑protection.
The data from SD‑19 does not tell us which of these dynamics is at work. It almost certainly reflects some combination of both.
What the Data Actually Shows
To compare participation fairly across all 40 Kansas Senate districts, a single, consistent measure was used:
Participation rate = total votes cast in the 2024 Kansas Senate race ÷ district voting‑age population (VAP).
This is not registered‑voter turnout. It does not assign motive. It simply shows relative engagement using the same yardstick statewide.
Using that measure, SD‑19 falls in the bottom quartile of districts.
This does not mean the people of SD‑19 are less capable, less informed, or less invested in their community. I know too many neighbors to believe that. It does mean that, compared with most other districts, fewer adults are participating in one of the most basic civic processes available to them.
That reality should concern anyone who cares about representation, accountability, and democratic health.
2024 Kansas Senate Participation Rates (All Districts)
Ordered from highest to lowest participation (partial table shown; full table available upon request)
| Rank | Senate District | VotesCast | Voting‑Age Population | Participation Rate |
| 1 | SD 35 | 43,752 | 53,340 | 82.0% |
| 2 | SD 10 | 45,592 | 56,119 | 81.2% |
| 3 | SD 11 | 43,905 | 55,770 | 78.7% |
| 4 | SD 7 | 45,099 | 59,801 | 75.4% |
| 5 | SD 9 | 39,631 | 55,449 | 71.5% |
| … | … | … | … | … |
| 36 | SD 19 | 19,009 | 56,284 | 33.8% |
| 37 | SD 20 | 17,365 | 56,731 | 30.6% |
| 38 | SD 28 | 15,406 | 53,046 | 29.0% |
| 39 | SD 4 | 13,941 | 52,529 | 26.5% |
| 40 | SD 29 | 14,158 | 56,462 | 25.1% |
Why Asking Questions Matters
Low civic participation is not something to shame. It is something to understand.
If people are being muted, responsibility lies with institutions, leaders, and systems to remove barriers and rebuild trust. That requires listening more than lecturing, and changing processes rather than blaming outcomes.
If people are choosing silence, responsibility still exists, but it looks different. It requires honest conversations about why participation matters, how decisions are made whether we show up or not, and what is lost when voices are absent from the table.
In reality, the path forward almost certainly involves both listening and informing.
We must ask:
- Do people feel informed about when and how decisions are made?
- Do they believe their participation can influence outcomes?
- Have past experiences taught them that engagement is worthwhile or futile?
- Are there practical barriers that make participation costly or inconvenient?
And then we must listen carefully to the answers.
The Cost of Not Participating
Choosing not to participate, or being unable to participate, has real consequences.
Decisions still get made. Policies still move forward. Resources still get allocated—often quietly. Representation still occurs, just without the full voice of the community present.
When participation is low, those who do engage carry disproportionate influence, not because they are more qualified, but because they are the ones who showed up. Over time, this can widen gaps between decision‑makers and the communities they represent.
There is also a quieter, longer‑term cost that is easy to miss. According to research summarized by the Urban Institute, civic learning—the knowledge, skills, and experiences that help people understand and engage in civic life—is strongly associated with upward mobility. Civic learning helps develop critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and—maybe most importantly—a sense of agency, all of which matter not only for democracy, but for long‑term educational and economic outcomes.
When communities are disconnected from civic participation, they are often also disconnected from these developmental pathways. Over time, that disconnection can limit opportunity, reduce social capital, and weaken the very skills that help individuals and communities thrive.
Participation is one of the few tools people have to shape the systems that shape their lives. When that tool goes unused, intentionally or not, others will use it in their place.
What We Can Do Next
Before rushing to solutions, we should commit to three simple steps that are anything but easy:
- Listen locally. Create spaces where residents can talk honestly about their experiences with civic systems, without fear of dismissal or correction.
- Lower barriers. Review how information is shared, how accessible processes are, and whether participation requires resources many people do not have.
- Tell the truth about impact. Clearly explain how civic decisions affect housing, schools, infrastructure, and health, and how those decisions move forward regardless of who participates.
These steps will not solve everything, but they can begin to rebuild the connective tissue between community voice and public decision‑making.
As part of this work, SENT has set a concrete, non‑partisan goal: to help register an additional 100 voting‑age citizens in SD‑19 by the 2026 election. This is not about telling people how to vote or who to support. It is about ensuring neighbors know they have a voice, understand how to access the process, and are not excluded by confusion, distance, or silence.
Registering 100 additional voters will not, by itself, transform turnout rankings. For a general‑interest audience, the point is simpler and more human: it means 100 more neighbors who are informed, included, and able to participate if and when they choose. It also represents something important—an intentional commitment to widen the circle of participation, one neighbor at a time, and to treat civic access as a shared responsibility rather than an individual burden.
Closing
The data from SD‑19 should not be the end of the conversation. It should be the beginning.
So we return to the question:
Are we being muted, or are we choosing to remain silent?
The honest answer may be uncomfortable. It may point to failures in systems, in leadership, and in trust. But facing that question directly is the first step toward a healthier, more engaged civic life in Kansas Senate District 19.
Silence, whether imposed or chosen, should never be the final word.
Footnote: In Kansas, eligible residents can register to vote online, by mail, or in person up to 21 days before an election, and registration is open year‑round for any U.S. citizen who is 18 or older by Election Day.
Sources and Methodology
- Urban Institute: Civic Learning Provides a Pathway to Upward Mobility, Student Upward Mobility Initiative. The research highlights how civic learning supports skill development, agency, and long‑term economic mobility, and how lack of civic engagement can limit these pathways. https://studentupwardmobility.urban.org/student-upward-mobility-in-focus/civic-learning-provides-pathway-upward-mobility
- Votes Cast: Kansas Secretary of State, 2024 General Election Official Results, Kansas Senate races. Votes represent the sum of all candidates in each district’s Senate contest.
- Voting‑Age Population (VAP): Kansas Legislative Research Department, Senate District Profiles, based on the 2020 U.S. Census.
- Participation Rate Calculation: Votes cast ÷ voting‑age population. This measure reflects relative participation among adults and is applied uniformly across all 40 Kansas Senate districts.