You are here
Arguments For and Against "Resign to Run" Laws
Thursday, December 5th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
A "resign to run" law is an unusual sort of conflicts of interest
law. It requires that before an elected official runs for a
different office, she resign from her current office. Philadelphia's
"resign to run" law is one of the most onerous ones. According
to the Committee of Seventy, a Philadelphia good government
organization, other cities that have such laws, such as Phoenix and
Dallas, also have term limits for council members. Philadelphia does
not.
Philadelphia's "resign to run" law was part of charter revision in 1951, which also included the creation of a civil service commission. That is, it was part of an attempt to bring patronage under control.
Things have changed. The Committee of Seventy says, "It’s hard to gauge whether elected officials who are not forced to resign would be more or less likely to influence and intimidate employees as they would if they were running for reelection (as they can now). When the Philadelphia Board of Ethics discussed 'Resign to Run' at a recent meeting, its Executive Director said it didn’t seem that it would."
The Committee of Seventy supported removing the "resign to run" law in 2007. The same ballot question has successfully gone out of committee and will soon go before the city council.
Arguments for "resign to run" laws:
1. Elected officials tend not to fulfill all their duties when running for a higher office (it's usually less work to get re-elected). For this reason, Pennsylvania’s Election Code prohibits Philadelphia’s three elected City Commissioners from doing their jobs when they are running for reelection (however, the commissioners still get their full pay). This was probably the principal reason that in 2007 Philadelphia voters rejected a ballot question that would have abolished the city's "resign to run" law.
2. From a government ethics perspective, the most important argument in favor of "resign to run" laws is that elected officials running for office tend to misuse government resources, including their staff. But, of course, they do the same thing when they run for re-election. A "resign to run" law is unnecessary if there is strict enforcement of the misuse of government resources provision.
3. Elected officials looking to higher office may act in ways that benefit the constituency they are considering, rather than the one they are supposed to be representing. But this would be just as true before they formally announce their candidacy (or whenever the trigger point is) and have to resign. This problem is generally accepted as one of the many unfortunate aspects of politics. In fact, the problem is more common where there are term limits, because career politicians are forced to move around more frequently.
4. An issue raised by the Philadelphia Inquirer in its support for the "resign to run" law is that council members who want to run for mayor can attack the mayor and bring productive work to a halt. But they can do that anyway. And this law also affects elected officials who want to run for state office.
Arguments against "resign to run" laws:
1. The Committee of Seventy's principal reason for opposing "resign to run" is to "encourage more people to run for public office," to have more competitive elections. One way that "resign to run" laws can make elections less competitive is that those aspiring to higher office may choose not to run for lower office, but instead seek appointed positions or non-governmental positions that might give them equal visibility and connections. Non-governmental jobs lead to more conflicts of interest.
2. The Committee of Seventy also notes that when a council member resigns to run for mayor, her constituents can go for several months without a representative, and then the newly elected council member has to run again. This is expensive and no better for constituents than having a council member who is busy with her campaign for another office (hopefully aides will still be paying attention).
3. "Resign to run" laws harm communities that have them by making it less likely that people from their community reach higher office. A local in higher office is usually beneficial to a community.
4. "Resign to run" laws create an uneven playing field, because a state senator can run for mayor, while a mayor cannot run for state senator.
5. Sometimes, "resign to run" laws are intended to make it harder for a particular individual to run for higher office. This is what happened in the late 1970s in Hawaii, according to a Honolulu Civic Beat article from 2010.
Another issue is whether an elected official can be on the ballot twice in the same election. The ballot question before the Philadelphia council prohibits this. I think this is a good idea. Individuals should have to commit to one future office.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Philadelphia's "resign to run" law was part of charter revision in 1951, which also included the creation of a civil service commission. That is, it was part of an attempt to bring patronage under control.
Things have changed. The Committee of Seventy says, "It’s hard to gauge whether elected officials who are not forced to resign would be more or less likely to influence and intimidate employees as they would if they were running for reelection (as they can now). When the Philadelphia Board of Ethics discussed 'Resign to Run' at a recent meeting, its Executive Director said it didn’t seem that it would."
The Committee of Seventy supported removing the "resign to run" law in 2007. The same ballot question has successfully gone out of committee and will soon go before the city council.
Arguments for "resign to run" laws:
1. Elected officials tend not to fulfill all their duties when running for a higher office (it's usually less work to get re-elected). For this reason, Pennsylvania’s Election Code prohibits Philadelphia’s three elected City Commissioners from doing their jobs when they are running for reelection (however, the commissioners still get their full pay). This was probably the principal reason that in 2007 Philadelphia voters rejected a ballot question that would have abolished the city's "resign to run" law.
2. From a government ethics perspective, the most important argument in favor of "resign to run" laws is that elected officials running for office tend to misuse government resources, including their staff. But, of course, they do the same thing when they run for re-election. A "resign to run" law is unnecessary if there is strict enforcement of the misuse of government resources provision.
3. Elected officials looking to higher office may act in ways that benefit the constituency they are considering, rather than the one they are supposed to be representing. But this would be just as true before they formally announce their candidacy (or whenever the trigger point is) and have to resign. This problem is generally accepted as one of the many unfortunate aspects of politics. In fact, the problem is more common where there are term limits, because career politicians are forced to move around more frequently.
4. An issue raised by the Philadelphia Inquirer in its support for the "resign to run" law is that council members who want to run for mayor can attack the mayor and bring productive work to a halt. But they can do that anyway. And this law also affects elected officials who want to run for state office.
Arguments against "resign to run" laws:
1. The Committee of Seventy's principal reason for opposing "resign to run" is to "encourage more people to run for public office," to have more competitive elections. One way that "resign to run" laws can make elections less competitive is that those aspiring to higher office may choose not to run for lower office, but instead seek appointed positions or non-governmental positions that might give them equal visibility and connections. Non-governmental jobs lead to more conflicts of interest.
2. The Committee of Seventy also notes that when a council member resigns to run for mayor, her constituents can go for several months without a representative, and then the newly elected council member has to run again. This is expensive and no better for constituents than having a council member who is busy with her campaign for another office (hopefully aides will still be paying attention).
3. "Resign to run" laws harm communities that have them by making it less likely that people from their community reach higher office. A local in higher office is usually beneficial to a community.
4. "Resign to run" laws create an uneven playing field, because a state senator can run for mayor, while a mayor cannot run for state senator.
5. Sometimes, "resign to run" laws are intended to make it harder for a particular individual to run for higher office. This is what happened in the late 1970s in Hawaii, according to a Honolulu Civic Beat article from 2010.
Another issue is whether an elected official can be on the ballot twice in the same election. The ballot question before the Philadelphia council prohibits this. I think this is a good idea. Individuals should have to commit to one future office.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
