(April 4 - Edits were made to this based on updated election results - presumably due to mail-in ballots - which did not impact the original message in this piece)
The 2025 Northbrook municipal elections are behind us, and the numbers tell a more nuanced—and in some ways, more revealing—story than a simple win/loss column ever could. While the outcome may seem familiar, the deeper data suggests important shifts in voter sentiment and engagement that should not be overlooked.
The Northbrook Caucus extended its long-standing winning streak, remaining undefeated in local elections since at least 2009. But this year’s victories came with noticeably narrower margins and a more energized, though perhaps not yet fully organized, opposition. The results may reflect a growing desire for change, even if that change has yet to fully materialize.
Village President Kathryn Ciesla was re-elected to a second term, defeating Independent challenger Josh Kaplan by a margin of 435 votes: 4,235 to 3,800. That’s 52.7% to 47.3%—a difference of just 5.4 percentage points. Among 28,271 registered voters, her win represents support from just 15.0% of the electorate.
It’s a notable shift from 2021, when Ciesla defeated Eugene Marks with 63.9% of the vote. This year, she received 348 fewer votes and saw her share drop by over 11 percentage points—despite an increase in total turnout. While she retained her seat, Ciesla did so with a reduced mandate: fewer votes, a lower share of support, and a much closer race than four years ago.
The race wasn’t just close on paper—it reflected a meaningful shift in engagement. For the first time in years, the Northbrook Caucus faced a challenger who garnered substantial support. Kaplan ran a mostly unconventional campaign that often defied political norms—and, at times, clearly unsettled his opponents’ supporters. His message resonated with a number of residents, including many who had not previously been involved in local elections. While the outcome ultimately favored the incumbent, the race reflected a broader interest in civic participation and a willingness to consider alternatives.
Meanwhile, Ciesla—though running in what is officially a non-partisan race—received support from the local Democratic Party and endorsements from several elected officials outside of Northbrook. While not unprecedented, it marked a shift from the village’s historical emphasis on hyperlocal issues over partisan affiliation. For her supporters, these endorsements likely reinforced confidence in her leadership and signaled broader alignment with their priorities.
Down-ballot, the Northbrook Caucus retained control of the Village Board, winning all three open Trustee seats. Matt Cassidy led the field, appearing on 56.8% of ballots. Michelle Kohler followed with 56.2%, and Joy Ebhomielen secured the third seat with 54.6%. (Voters were able to select up to three candidates.)
Independent candidates also earned strong support. Laura Hochstein appeared on 46.3% of ballots, Charles Zivin on 44.4%, and Anthony Riccardi on 41.8%.
While the Caucus slate ultimately prevailed, these numbers represent a notable drop in ballot presence compared to 2021, when each of the winning Caucus candidates—Daniel Pepoon, JoJo Hebl, and Muriel Collison—appeared on more than 63% of ballots. That year, no independent candidate reached even 37%.
And the difference wasn’t just in percentages—it was in raw votes too. In 2021, each winning Caucus trustee received more than 4,400 votes. In 2025, even with higher turnout, the winning totals hovered just above 4,200. That’s a meaningful decline in absolute support—even as more people cast ballots overall. It’s also worth noting that each of the trustee candidates received at least 5% more votes than the Village President, underscoring the varied levels of support within the slate.
This decline in support becomes even more significant when considering the levels of engagement among the independent candidates. Riccardi formally withdrew six weeks before Election Day, too late to be removed from the ballot. Hochstein paused her campaign for three weeks in the middle of the race due to personal reasons. Zivin did not actively campaign until very late in the cycle.
And still, each appeared on more than 41% of ballots. That kind of support—despite minimal or interrupted campaigning—should make all of us ask: what would this race have looked like if the slate had run a more coherent campaign?
It’s a question made more relevant by the broader turnout picture.
Yes, more people voted this year. A total of 8,325 ballots were cast, up from 7,371 in 2021. That’s a turnout rate of 29.5%, a significant increase compared to 23.7% four years ago. Early voting rose sharply—from 3,520 to 4,545 ballots, a 29.1% increase. Election Day voting (including all mail-in ballots received by that day) totaled 3,780—down from approximately 3,851 in 2021.
But let’s not confuse relative progress with actual success.
Roughly 70% of eligible residents still did not vote. And compounding that, Northbrook now has nearly 2,800 fewer registered voters than it did in 2021. Whether that’s due to population shifts, routine voter list maintenance, or broader disengagement, it all points to the same concern: a shrinking civic base.
We should not pat ourselves on the back for turnout improvements that still reflect widespread apathy. If we want to have a voice in the direction of the village, we have to show up for it—and keep showing up.
The Northbrook Caucus has a 75-year history of shaping local leadership—recruiting, endorsing, and supporting candidates for public office. That legacy includes decades of volunteer-driven civic involvement. But in recent years, it has become increasingly aligned with the machinery of campaign strategy—disciplined, coordinated, and focused above all on electoral success. We should not think of it as anything other than a prototypical political party. Its consistent “Vote Caucus” messaging simply reflected that role—focused and unapologetic in its aim.
But with this year’s results, Northbrook continuing as a single-party town feels increasingly unlikely. Several community leaders have privately expressed to me their hope that the Caucus will be reformed from within, but it’s equally clear that others are signaling an appetite for meaningful alternatives.
Unfortunately, civic engagement isn’t just about showing up physically—it also requires a willingness to engage respectfully, thoughtfully, and in good faith. Yet if these numbers paint one picture, the behavior we witnessed during the election paints another—and it made civic participation harder, not easier.
Maybe the electorate’s disengagement reflects more than apathy. Maybe people didn’t want to participate in something that, at times, resembled a grade school student council election—complete with anonymous blackmail notes, neighbors tearing down neighbors, performative outrage on social media, and a surprising silence from community leaders who could have called for decorum but didn’t. The Facebook commentary. The endless attempts to twist disagreement into moral superiority. People on all sides contorted themselves to claim the high ground—and then, once the results were announced, in a time that calls for grace and reconciliation, some went even further, gloating with oddly personal jabs at their former opponents. This kind of negative environment not only alienates potential voters—it also discourages thoughtful residents who might otherwise step forward to serve.
It’s exhausting. And it's a problem. Because all the process improvements and voter guides and campaign flyers in the world don’t matter if we continue treating civic life as a game to be won rather than a community to be nurtured.
As things were reaching a crescendo this past weekend, my wife and I made a small but meaningful choice: we signed the Welcoming and Inclusive Community Pledge. Our names haven’t yet appeared on the village website here: https://www.northbrook.il.us/1027/Welcoming-and-Inclusive-Community-Pledge.
For those of you unfamiliar with it, the spirit of the pledge is clear: Be kind.
Adopted by the Village Board in 2021, the pledge affirms that Northbrook is home to residents of all backgrounds, beliefs, and identities—and that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. It explicitly rejects discrimination and hatred in all forms, and commits the village to serving all residents, regardless of race, religion, gender identity, disability, income level, or immigration status.
As of today, more than 700 individuals in Northbrook have signed the pledge. Of the Village Board-elect, I commend the two members—Michelle Kohler and JoJo Hebl—who have taken the pledge and agreed to publicly display their names.
I hope more members of the board will join them soon—though I’m surprised that even needs to be said. Not as a political move, but as a public affirmation of the values this community says it wants to uphold. As a demonstration of leadership.
And maybe it's time to consider taking the pledge one step further.
Maybe we need a version of this commitment that includes not just who we serve—but how we speak. What if we added a standard of behavior around public communication and social media—at least for elected officials, if not for all of us? Would we think twice before liking a divisive post? Would we speak up to denounce cruelty or condescension toward fellow residents? Because at the end of the day, we’re all on Team Northbrook. Or at least, we’re supposed to be.
I want to believe we can do better. That we can disagree without demonizing. That we can lead without posturing. That we can serve without playing to a base.
I want to believe it—but I’m not there yet. Time will tell—and my eyes will be firmly on Village Hall to see what those who purport to lead us actually do to bring this community together. This is not entirely on them, it is on all of us.
As for what’s next: the winning slate raised expectations for progress in Northbrook. I remain disappointed with the overall engagement—both in tone and in total votes—so it is clear that more needs to be done. I continue to plan to hold our leaders to account for what they have promised to do and will root for success in doing so.
Recently, someone told me: “Your writings have focused on undermining a set of candidates, instead of finding better candidates. You may not be on the record, but your actions signal a preference.”
I don’t wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, but it’s something I’ll continue to reflect on. I’ve always tried to live my life believing that feedback is a gift, especially when it’s challenging. I’m sure I didn’t get everything right, and I want to be better the next time around.
Going forward, I want to make sure my efforts—through Engage Northbrook and beyond—are not just about critique, but increasingly about contribution. Not just about analysis, but about solutions. Despite living here for twenty years, I’m still learning—about this community, about the challenges Northbrook is facing, and about how best to show up in a way that helps, not just reacts.
And I’ve learned that in some corners of local life, there’s a tendency to be dismissive of those who arrive at civic engagement through a different path or perspective. I don’t take that personally—but I do think it’s a missed opportunity for connection and growth.
I plan to keep exploring what’s actually happening in this little village once known as Shermerville—and to expand the work of Engage Northbrook to help more residents understand, engage, and hopefully help more people feel connected to the place we all call home.
For me, this feels closer to the beginning than the end.