Beyond "Do You Support Book Bans?" Questions Every Voter Should Ask Local Candidates

Election season often brings renewed attention to education, libraries, and the freedom to read. Candidates for school board, superintendent, city council, county commission, state legislature, and other local offices routinely encounter questions about book bans and censorship. Unfortunately, many of those conversations stop at a simple question: "Do you support book bans?"

While that question may seem straightforward, it rarely provides meaningful insight into how a candidate would actually govern.

Most candidates know that overtly supporting censorship is unpopular. Many will insist they oppose book bans while simultaneously supporting policies that remove books, restrict access to information, weaken library protections, or bypass established review procedures. Others may genuinely support intellectual freedom but struggle to articulate how they would protect it when faced with political pressure. 

Efforts to censor books and library materials have come from both the left and the right over the years. However, recent state and federal bills aimed at restricting access to library materials have mostly been sponsored by Republicans, while Democrats have generally been the ones to introduce "Freedom to Read" legislation. Still, voters should not rely solely on party affiliation when evaluating candidates. In many local races, especially those involving oversight of public schools, candidates run in nonpartisan (NPA) elections, meaning their political party is not listed on the ballot and may not be a major part of their campaign.

If voters want to understand how candidates will approach these issues, they need to ask better questions. The goal is to understand how candidates think about constitutional rights, public institutions, professional expertise, and the role of government in determining what information is available to the public.

Why Local Elections Matter

When discussions about censorship make national headlines, it can be easy to focus on Congress, governors, or federal courts. In reality, many decisions affecting access to books happen much closer to home.

School board members vote on library policies. Superintendents have the power to create a culture that empowers choice or one of fearful over compliance. County commissioners determine library funding. State legislators introduce laws that impact collection development and educational materials. Local officials appoint advisory boards, oversee public institutions, and shape the climate in which librarians and educators work.

The candidates who appear on your local ballot may have more influence over your community's access to information than many national political figures.

That makes candidate accountability essential.

Ask About Process, Not Just Outcomes

One of the most effective ways to evaluate a candidate is to ask how decisions should be made rather than focusing solely on specific books.

For example:

Do you believe decisions to permanently remove or restrict books from libraries should occur only after established review and reconsideration procedures have been followed?

This question reveals whether a candidate values due process and transparency. Even people who disagree about particular titles should be able to agree that decisions deserve clear procedures and public accountability.

You might also ask:

Should elected officials have the authority to remove books directly, or should trained library and educational professionals make those decisions according to established policies and review procedures?

The answer can reveal how a candidate views professional expertise and institutional safeguards.

Ask About Intellectual Freedom

Many candidates talk about parental rights. Fewer are asked about the rights of students, readers, and community members.

Consider asking:

How do you balance an individual’s parental rights with the rights of other families who may want access to the same materials?

Do you believe one family's objection to a book should determine whether it remains available to everyone else?

What role should intellectual freedom play in public education and libraries?

These questions move the conversation beyond slogans and force candidates to address the competing rights and interests that exist in diverse communities.

Ask About Transparency

Transparency is one of the strongest protections against censorship. Voters should know whether candidates support open processes and public accountability.

Questions might include:

Should all attempts to permanently remove books be documented and publicly available?

Should communities be informed when books are permanently removed, restricted, or relocated?

Do you support public access to challenge records and reconsideration decisions?

A candidate who supports transparency demonstrates confidence in allowing the public to evaluate decisions for themselves.

Ask About Professional Expertise

Librarians and educators spend years developing expertise in collection development, curriculum selection, and age-appropriate materials. That expertise should matter.

Ask candidates:

Do you trust librarians and educators to make professional recommendations about library collections?

What role should professional standards play in decisions about library materials?

Should collection development policies be based on professional best practices or political preferences?

The answers can reveal whether a candidate sees public institutions as professional organizations or political battlegrounds.

Ask About Government Power

At its core, the freedom to read is a question about government authority. Candidates should be willing to explain where they believe that authority begins and ends.

Questions may include:

What limits, if any, should exist on a government official's ability to restrict access to information?

Do you believe government officials should determine which ideas are appropriate for the public to access?

How do First Amendment principles influence your approach to library and educational policy?

Do you believe that library patrons have a First Amendment right to share and receive ideas in a publicly-funded library?

These questions encourage candidates to articulate a broader philosophy rather than simply reacting to individual controversies.

Learn From Successful Efforts

Across the country, advocates have developed thoughtful candidate questionnaires that move beyond partisan talking points and encourage substantive discussion.

One excellent example comes from Texas advocate Frank Strong, whose candidate surveys have become a valuable tool for voters seeking meaningful answers on public education, library governance, transparency, and censorship issues. Rather than focusing on political labels, Strong's approach emphasizes accountability and encourages candidates to explain their positions in their own words.

You can see Frank’s work here as an example. 

His work demonstrates an important principle: candidate questionnaires are most useful when they illuminate how someone will govern rather than simply identifying which side they support.

Communities everywhere can benefit from adopting a similar approach.

What Answers Should Concern Voters?

While there is no single "correct" answer to every question, certain responses should prompt closer examination.

Be cautious when candidates:

• Suggest that books should be removed without formal review procedures.

• Dismiss the expertise of librarians and educators entirely.

• Refuse to discuss transparency around book removals.

• Argue that government officials should have broad authority to determine which viewpoints are available.

• Use terms like “wholesome” or “clean” to further define what they mean by “appropriate” while dismissing the more complex needs of teen readers.

• Frame access to information as a privilege rather than a right. “It’s not banned. Go out and buy it, if you want it!”

Similarly, voters should pay attention to candidates who consistently avoid answering questions directly. A willingness to engage thoughtfully with difficult issues is often as important as the answers themselves.

Democracy Requires Participation

Defending the freedom to read is not simply about responding to censorship after it occurs. It is also about helping communities elect leaders who understand the importance of intellectual freedom, due process, transparency, and constitutional rights.

That work begins with informed voters asking informed questions.

Candidates should not be expected to support every book. They should, however, be willing to explain how they would protect the rights of people who disagree with them. They should be prepared to discuss the role of government, the value of professional expertise, and the importance of transparent decision-making.

The next time a candidate visits your community forum, attends a school board event, or knocks on your door, consider moving beyond the question of whether they support book bans.

Ask them how they would protect the freedom to read. Their answer may tell you far more than you expect.