Debate Is On About Nonpartisan Elections

The Queens Civic Congress held a debate about the charter revision questions slated for the November 4th ballot which, most important, ask voters if they want to replace political party primaries with a nonpartisan election and a subsequent general election between the top two vote-getters.
Queens County Democratic Party Chair Thomas Manton and Steve Newman, vice chair of the mayors charter revision commission, debated whether a nonpartisan election would increase voter participation and competitiveness or do the opposite and decrease voter turnout and give wealthier candidates an advantage.
"It is broke, the political system is broke," said Newman, qualifying himself as a registered Democrat who supports the nonpartisan election a contrary stance, considering the donkey party, long a dominant force in city politics, opposes the revision.
Newman attributed many of the citys problems, including three fiscal crises in recent years, to the current election system. Since primaries have low turnouts, he said, they are greatly influenced by special interest groups and political party structure.
Currently the citys charter mandates political party primaries, limiting voter participation in these elections to Democrats and Republicans. If there are enough candidates, the Independent party can also have a primary, though this rarely happens. If a nonpartisan election question three on the ballot wins approval, then any candidate, no matter party affiliation, could participate in a preliminary election in September. All registered voters Democrat, Republican, Independent, Right to Life, etc. would also be able to vote in the preliminary election for any candidate. The top two vote-getters would participate in a general or run-off election in November.
To run in a nonpartisan election, a candidate would have to get 900 petition signatures, but these John Hancocks could come from any registered voter, not just the candidates party. Currently, Democratic and Republican candidates must obtain 900 petition signatures from voters in their party, while Independent candidates require 2,400. Since signatures must come from voters in a candidates party, the petition system often leads to challenges and lawsuits by parties in an attempt to get candidates thrown off the ballot.
Newman argued that nonpartisan elections would open the polls to more voters and make them more competitive, since political offices are usually won in the primaries and candidates with their partys endorsement have the preponderance of victories. He noted that some 1.3 million voters of whom 600,000 are not affiliated with a party do not participate in the primaries. As evidence that nonpartisan elections would increase turnout, he referred to the special elections held when there is a vacancy in the City Council, which are nonpartisan. Since 2001, there have been five special elections for Council seats. Four out of the five had a voter turnout of more than 10% higher than the usual primary numbers. Newman also noted that eight out of the ten largest cities in the US hold nonpartisan elections for their mayors. He also said it would cut down on taxing lawsuits by parties to get rival candidates off the ballot, which drains funds and time away from campaigning.
"Before you build a better mouse trap, it helps to know if there are mice out there," said Manton, taking an if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it stance. He warned that the city would succumb to the sideshow act that occurred during Californias recent recall election, where 134 candidates ran for governor. In his rebuttal, Newman cited major differences between a nonpartisan election in New York and Californias recall. California candidates did not need to accumulate petition signatures just pay an entry fee. In New York City, all candidates, no matter what party affiliation, would be required to obtain 900 signatures before running.
The counter-campaign by Democrats was not limited to Mantons critique. Council Speaker Gifford Miller also led an opposition charge, speaking to the press Sunday and Monday, saying the nonpartisan election would give the city an election system comparable to Louisianas, which allowed former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke to make it to a run-off election in the states 1991 gubernatorial race. Miller also said the title "nonpartisan elections" is not true, since candidates will still have their party affiliation next to their name on the ballot. Miller warned that candidates can mislead voters by simply registering in one of the parties, even though he or she may not share the same political views.
Party primaries, he said, give voters clearer choices. He said they help uninformed voters make decisions about candidates. Charter revision opponents have also said that nonpartisan elections would damage the citys campaign finance program, which matches candidate contributions with public funding. Under the current system, state and local party financing is seriously curtailed, but it would not be if the revision passes.
After the debate, those in the audience had mixed opinions about the charter revision.
"I didnt learn a damn thing from Manton," said a registered Democrat, who came to the event wanting more information before making a decision. Discouraged that the term limits did not lead to new blood in the Democratic party but rather mostly to heirs and the staff members of formerly ensconced politicians, the registered Democrat said that he would vote in favor of nonpartisan elections in a hope to change the political climate.
"I am for election reform, but this is a rush to judgment," said attendee Michael Niebauer, a registered independent. He believed Mayor Michael Bloomberg was trying to push this revision through without adequate time to mull the issue over. He said he would vote no on question three.
Niebauer provided a different name for "Election Day" in November if the charter revision passes, saying, "Its called Bloomberg Day."