Non-partisan partisans?
As many Scoop readers know, Greensboro City Council elections are non-partisan. In fact, Scoop's written about that fact before, here and here.
Of course, there are some folks who think adding partisan seasoning to the political stew would spice things up around here and maybe draw more interest and/or turnout to elections.
The chief proponent of this theory is Marcus Kindley, the local Republican Party Chairman.
Kindley's most recent post on the topic drew this response from JW, who begs to differ.
The primary argument in Guilford County against making the City Council partisan is that they shouldn't do anything to emulate the County Commissioners, a partisan body that sometimes gets too tied up in partisan wrangling to take care of business. And frankly, the commissioners have obliged those who use that stance as recently as this week.
Kindley seems to have drawn fire from folks who I think sympathize more with Democrats than they do with Republicans, or at least with the local and national Republican organizations. And it strikes me that their tone implies that the GOP, or at least one Republican leader, is sort of whacky for even suggesting such a move.
But here's the thing:
Democratic organizations, or organizations with strong ties to the Democrats, seem to be at work in city elections already and I have the impression that's been the case for a long time. And every election I keep getting more and more hints that's the case. For example, I got an e-mail from a local Young Democrats group was encouraging members and friends to bring their "I Voted" sticker by a Tuesday night shin-dig to get a free beverage. (I edited this graph some after I first wrote it.)
And there's this from an e-mail the state Democratic party sent out Wednesday:
In 2001 and 2003, the NC Democratic Party played a significant role in municipal races across the state in an effort to enhance its farm team for future years. The state party committed financial resources for training, targeting, and get-out-the vote activities. That effort continues in 2005.After the 2003 elections, Democrats control 14 of the state’s 20 largest city councils. In addition, Democrats won mayoral victories in eight of North Carolina’s 10 largest cities holding elections in 2003.
Greensboro Mayor Keith Holliday, a Democrat, is running opposed so he wasn't in the primary this time, but he would be in that 14 of 20 number.
In fact, that e-mail specifically cites the mayor of Reidsville as a win for the Democrats. Like Greensboro, Reidsville is a non-partisan contest. In prior years, a very similar e-mail from the state Democrats has specifically cited Holliday.
And in fact, political parties have good reason to be interested in municipal races. Those offices help their holders get known, get experience and provide a nice resume bullet when they run for higher office. Just ask Katie Dorsett, Earl Jones, Alma Adams, Joanne Bowie, Mary Jarrell or any of the other Greensboro and High Point municipal-office holders who have gone on to the legislature. (All of those Democrats, by the way.)
So here's how I would like to reframe the question: Is it enough that the offices in question don't come with partisan labels? Should parties - Democrats and Republicans - stay out of municipal elections entirely? Isn't it natural that folks interested in partisan elections would be interested in all elections? So would it be perhaps a little more honest for candidates to openly embrace their parties, even if they don't organize that way once they reach the council?
Really. I'm asking. Y'all tell me.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I'm open to arguments in favor of partisan council races, but I can't think of anything good that would come of them. I can see some good things that have come from having non-partisan council election. One is Sandy Carmany. She's unafilliated. If I understand correctly what it takes for unafilliated voters to get on a ballot in a partisan race in NC, she'd have to collect thousands of signatures each election just to get on the ballot. Would she? Would anybody? Partisan races practically eliminate unafilliated candidates from participation.
Posted on October 14, 2005 12:13 AM
I say stay non-partisan, but I can see no legal way to keep the parties out of local election activism.
The Guilford GOP just needs to play catch up with the Dems in the behind the scenes stuff.
That said, the our way of choosing our council is inefficient and costly to the taxpayers. The whole thing needs a rethink.
Posted on October 14, 2005 11:32 AM
I'm sure there's plenty of folks who would agree about the re-think. There are a few cities, like Raleigh, where election day was last week. They would only have a run-off in November if someone failed to hit a certain threshold (more than 1/2 the vote, I think).
Given the numbers at work in the council races - where at least a couple folks facing multiple challengers scored more than 60 percent of the vote - that seems reasonable.
Although, I'm not sure how that would work in the at-large races.
Posted on October 14, 2005 11:36 AM
In the Greensboro at-large race, Johnson, Vaughan and Anderson all received better than 50 percent support. Remember, each voter had three votes. A candidate who was credited with 20 percent of the total vote actually received votes from roughly 60 percent of voters, assuming that each voter used all three votes.
I wish the election board would calculate the votes in a way that conveys a more accurate picture of voter support.
Posted on October 14, 2005 5:14 PM
Repubs playing ketchup is right...but how's that gonna happen when they are so divided among
themselves....Republican party was not even visible in GSO...and the only HP GOP'rs that took active role supported Democrat mayor and council
Dem candidates...now, that's a real formula for
success....Repubs have a 6-3 majority in HP with
Democrat mayor!!! WS has Dem mayor and
l Repub...
rockribbed
Posted on November 16, 2005 10:53 PM