Partisanship of Local Elections and Government Ethics
Is the partisanship of local government elections a government ethics
issue? I think it is, partly.<br>
<br>
The story that sparked my thoughts about this was one <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/nyregion/14nonpartisan.html" target="”_blank">from
today's New York <i>Times</i></a> about Mayor Bloomberg's second attempt to
turn New York City elections from partisan to nonpartisan.<br>
<br>
Pro-nonpartisan arguments include "the unhealthy influence of parties"
and the encouragement of more voter participation (there was an
especially low voter turnout in last year's mayoral election). Also,
under the current NYC system, unaffiliated voters cannot vote in primaries,
and in an essentially one-party city, primaries are usually where
candidates are selected. Therefore, people who choose not to join major parties are effectively disenfranchised.<br>
<br>
Pro-partisan arguments include the worry that wealthy outsiders, like
Bloomberg, get more power under a nonpartisan system, and that minority
candidates are helped by party support. The head of one local party
compared eliminating parties from elections to “having teams without
uniforms. ... They signal to voters who stands for what."<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.nlc.org/about_cities/cities_101/195.aspx" target="”_blank">The
National League of Cities has a page</a> showing the forms of
government and partisanship of elections in the thirty largest American
cities (as of 2004). Only 9 of the 30 cities have partisan elections,
and all but one of those cities has a mayor-council form of government
(the oddball is Charlotte, NC). Of the 21 cities with nonpartisan
elections, 9 have a council-manager form of government, and the rest
have mayor-council forms. The reforms that created the council-manager
form generally included nonpartisan elections, as well, but clearly
the two reforms did occur separately in many cities.<br>
<br>
Of the 9 partisan cities, 5 are on the east coast, 2 in the midwest, 1
on the west coast, and 1 in the southwest. So clearly the choice of
partisanship is more cultural than anything, but cities are not bound
by culture any more than by history.<br>
<br>
<b>The Government Ethics View</b>
From a government ethics point of view, it's interesting how much
emphasis New Yorkers are placing on the problem of a wealthy
independent candidate. In contrast, the government ethics emphasis is on candidates
who are not beholden to others, who do not appear to the public as if they are, at
best, acting for special interests rather than acting in the public
interest. A wealthy independent is, presumably, beholden to no one but
voters. He or she cannot get elected on the basis of money filtered
through party committees, and does not need money filtered through
PACs. In terms of campaign finance, very wealthy candidates have much
less chance of causing appearances of impropriety.<br>
<br>
However, the wealthier the candidate, the more likelihood there is of
conflicts of interest. Yet, on the other hand, a wealthier candidate
has little need to use government office to push his or her interests,
except for the interest in getting re-elected. And this is exactly
where Bloomberg's conflicts have arisen, especially the support given
to him by nonprofits he personally supports (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/536" target="”_blank">my blog post on this</a>).<br>
<br>
But nonpartisanship does not necessarily lead to wealthy candidates,
and partisanship certainly does not prevent their success. In fact, in
a one-party city, the opposition party is no likelier to be able to
support candidates than where there are nonpartisan elections. This is
why there have been many wealthy Republican candidates in
Democratic-controlled cities. In fact, Bloomberg ran originally as a
Republican.<br>
<br>
Nonpartisan elections do not prevent candidates with party affiliations
from running. They only prevent parties from taking a leading role in
elections. Party support does not directly lead to corruption, but
party committees are themselves supported by people who do business
with local governments. Party fundraising allows these people to give more and,
therefore, expect more from local government officials. It also allows
powerful officials to use party committees as a part of their
pay-to-play efforts.<br>
<br>
Nonpartisan elections do not allow candidates to present their
positions easily by means of the party brand name. But it is disingenuous
to think that party ideology is generally important in local elections.
Yes, there are often differences at the extremes, and in terms of
approaches to development, but in general local candidates lack the
clear ideological differences of national candidates. And poorly
understood internal party schisms and personal agendas end up having much more to do with primary elections than does ideology. Party labels hide much from voters while appearing to make their voting decisions simpler.<br>
<br>
In some ways, nonpartisan elections allow minority candidates more
freedom. In an nonpartisan election, an Hispanic-American candidate
who is not the party's first choice can run against an African-American
candidate (or vice versa) without having to destroy his or her
relationship with the party. And minority candidates, as well as
others, do not have to choose whether to run or change parties (nor can
they threaten to change parties if they are not supported over another
candidate). All these party issues become secondary to winning public
support.<br>
<br>
But this is expensive. That is why it is best that nonpartisan
candidates be allowed to participate in public campaign financing
programs, such as the one in New York City (and the one I administer in
New Haven). Although a wealthy candidate such as Bloomberg can
undermine such a program, this is uncommon. Public financing programs
allow individuals without party support to compete for elections, and
prevent all candidates from taking too much from any individual or
group of individuals.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---