Comments on DC Home Rule almost had... nonpartisan elections - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:29:05 EDT

I've heard rumbles that, at some point in the debate about how to create a legislative branch for DC during the home rule debate, there was talk about creating an "ANC assembly," which would have essentially been a lower house to the Council's upper house in a bi-cameral legislature. Is there any evidence that such a move was actually contemplated? Would love to know whether I can put this rumor to bed or actually discuss it more fully!

Comment by ObliviousScout

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:47:06 EDT

Payton hits the nail on the head: the national parties do not often translate into local issues. There are Democrats in DC who support smart growth, and Democrats here who fight it. There are DC Republicans who support bicycle infrastructure, and Republicans here who oppose it. At the local level, the "R" or "D" is often meaningless.

Removing the partisan headline would encourage coalitions to form that actually represent the issues that matter to District residents. That would ultimately be good for holding our elected leaders accountable.

Also, to the extent we’re talking about our home rule charter: I still like this idea (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10087/does-dc-need-more-councilmembers/) for increasing the number of council members to two from each ward and eight at-large. Currently, each council member often acts as lord of his or her own fiefdom. Increasing the size of the council would decrease the relative power held by each individual council-member. It would also increase opportunities for coalitions to form around issues that matter city-wide.

Comment by Payton

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:01:38 EDT

Non-partisan races would, of course, still be subject to coalitions; I'd assume that non-partisan local races would at least break the link to federal politics and allow for coalitions to arise that would be more responsive to strictly local affairs. I'm fascinated by the electoral coalitions (both ad hoc and standing) that I've seen in "nonpartisan" cities like Montreal and Durham.

@JustMe: IIRC, Louisiana's runoff system was inherited from the French. California has recently adopted it, as well.

Comment by Mark Jordan

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:39:11 EDT

Our current system is not serving the public well. Candidates who do not have majority support even among their own party ranks are ending up taking office (see, most recently, Vincent Orange's victory in the Democratic primary). We can design a system that produces better electoral outcomes with candidates with broader public mandates.

My hope is that in the next legislative term some council member, at a minimum, will convene a hearing on voting reform in the District. That would be a start. The public should discuss the merits of nonpartisan elections, runoffs, instant runoff voting systems, approval voting systems, etc.

Mendelson, as elected chair, could do it. But I don't see him willing to disrupt a system that serves incumbents well. I hope he proves me wrong. If David Grosso wins an At-large seat, perhaps he would be willing to champion the issue.

In any event, it's time.

Comment by andrew

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:56:41 EDT

Yes. Voting in the primaries is a lot more difficult than voting in the general election. For one, same-day registration is difficult/impossible if you got registered as a independent when applying for a drivers license.

The closed primaries are a definite "gotcha" for newcomers to the city.

Also, while many here are pointing out that the upsides to nonpartisan elections might not be as great as some are hoping, I'm also not seeing a very big downside. Why not try it?

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:27:17 EDT

"then you're not voting in DC, because you're from and voting in Wingnut's home district"

also there is no requirement for Rep Wingnut to only hire staff from his state. he can hire Ms HighlyTrained Specialist, or Mr Sharp Hill Careerist, who may be from any state.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:24:30 EDT

"The issue is whether the FCRC/FCDC and the candidate are acting in concert with one another to of such degree as to create a representative relationship. Meaning that it's generally understood that the candidate is representing the FCRC/FCDC despite party designation not appearing on the ballot. Their is no bright line rule. "

not only do they endorse, provide funds and volunteers (and printed sample ballots) they will pressure their comm members to not support any candidates the comm did not endorse.

As for why, the School bd is a stepping stone to higher office, and the winners are in deep debt to the party - when they are not already party activists.

Comment by Alex B.

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:19:32 EDT

dcd,

It's not fraud for members of congress to vote in their home districts. The same thing applies to staff from that same state. It's not a requirement, but it certainly can apply.

Comment by dcd

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:05:25 EDT

then you're not voting in DC, because you're from and voting in Wingnut's home district.

You're assuming voter fraud? That's a pretty big leap, don't you think?

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:54:10 EDT

@ dcd:If you're a legislative aide for Rep. Ima Wingnut (R-Crazytown)

then you're not voting in DC, because you're from and voting in Wingnut's home district.

Comment by Brooklander

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:21:57 EDT

@ Tom A (and others): Fenty might also still be mayor had he chosen to run in the General Election. But he chose not to. Just sayin'.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:55:17 EDT

Generally, simple endorsement is not enough. The issue is whether the FCRC/FCDC and the candidate are acting in concert with one another to of such degree as to create a representative relationship. Meaning that it's generally understood that the candidate is representing the FCRC/FCDC despite party designation not appearing on the ballot. Their is no bright line rule.

Think of it this way: if the Sierra Club, for example, simply endorses Candidate X, we don't think of that candidate as the Sierra Club candidate. But if Candidate X receives and touts the endorsement, uses Club funds and resources (like voting lists), and knowingly acquiesces to the Club distributing sample ballots listing all their endorsed candidates, including Candidate X, then it's generally understood that Candidate X represents the Sierra Club. Replace Sierra Club with a political party and the election is now partisan.

I've never quite understood why party politics need to enter schoolboard races (and the like). Well, other than to use it as a cheap trick to get people who know nothing about you to vote for you based on with whom you associate.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:22:02 EDT

good point, DCD, i overlooked that.

Still I suspect folks in those positions are a minority of the DC GOP (and an even smaller proportion of the Statehood Greens, registered independents, etc)

Comment by dcd

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:15:55 EDT

One could suggest that in DC registering as GOP or Independent is pointless, and folks could register Dem regardless of their national party preference, and so convert the Dem primary into a non-partisan election, but I suppose the need to self express is too important for that.

It's more than just a self-indulgent need for self-expression. Many DC residents work in partisan or pseudo-partisan position, where changing parties is a career killer. If you're a legislative aide for Rep. Ima Wingnut (R-Crazytown), or assistant majority counsel for the House Committee on Democrats Suck, or the General Counsel of the D.C. Republican Party, your boss/compatriots aren't going to be very sympathetic when you tell them you became a registered Democract because you want your vote for the DC Council Chair to count.

(Sorry for the snark - can't wait for the election to be over.)

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:13:49 EDT

thank you 7

so that means a Fed could not hold a fundraiser for an FCDC or FCRC endorsed candidate for Fairfax Board of Education?

Comment by 7r3y3r

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:09:13 EDT

@TM and @AWalkerInTheCity:
The issue hinges on the definition of nonpartisan elections since the Hatch Act only attaches to partisan political activity.

Nonpartisan elections, for purposes of the Hatch Act, are those in which none of the candidates represent a political party. State laws, however, usually designate nonpartisan elections as those in which none of the candidates represent a political party on the ballot. Basically, a nonpartisan election under state law can be partisan under the Hatch Act if partisan politics significantly enter the race (e.g., a candidate solicits or advertises the endorsement of a political party or uses a political party’s resources to further their campaign). Thus, if an election is partisan for purposes of the Hatch Act, despite being nonpartisan under state law, the federal employee cannot be candidate or solicit contributions for a candidate in that race.

But, the Hatch Act has an exception for elections in certain designated localities, such as the DC metro area, that allows federal employees to run for office and to solicit contributions for a campaign so long as they are running as or soliciting for an independent candidate. The problem is, while the areas in Virginia and Maryland that surround DC are included in the list of designated localities afforded the exception, DC is not. It's an anachronism from the Hatch Act being passed before the Home Rule Act (i.e., before DC had local elections).

So even if DC changed their elections to nonpartisan, it's unlikely that a federal employee could run for office since it's almost certain that the parties will be heavily involved. What needs to happen, rather, and what Norton is pushing for with the Hatch Act Modernization Act, is to amend the Hatch Act to treat DC like its surrounding jurisdictions for purposes of the exception. (http://votesmart.org/public-statement/718264/hatch-act-equality-for-dc-moves-in-senate).

Sorry that was so long.

Comment by dcd

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:06:49 EDT

They aren't disenfranchised. They choose not to affiliate w/either party. Voters purged from rolls for nefarious purposes are disenfranchised. Felons who repaid their debt to society are disenfranchised. Not this scenario.

Hence the reason I said "effectively disenfranchised." Residents who are not democratic party members, whether they be Republicans, Green Party, or whatever, have no real voice in city-wide elections, since thise elections are effectively decided in the democratic primary. Non-partisan elections would address this problem.

Comment by HogWash

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:05:33 EDT

It would benefit the thousands of people who are effectively disenfranchised because they are not members of the Democratic Party, and the "real" election for office in DC is the Democratic primary.

The "nonpartisan" scenario means that folks who are not affiliated with the Democratic party are allowed to vote in the "meaningful" part of the election--not that the candidates will be non-partisan.

Oh? I don't think I missed the portion of this article covering that..which is why I said I must not understand the concept.

The observation that "the only group it seems to benefit most would be the losers" is just tautological.

Only to those who read that article and understood what "nonpartisan" implied here.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:41:10 EDT

I beleive the hatch act allows fundraising in a non partisan election, but Im not sure.

Clearly the impact in DC is different than in the suburbs. In Fairfax county the non partisan elections (for school board) are partisan, but with both major parties repreented - FCDC and FCRC both endorse, the endorsements are mutually exclusive, its hard to run as an "independent" etc. In DC a non partisan election would be similar to a democratic primary, but with folks who register as GOP or independent still voting.

Comment by TM

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:34:14 EDT

While non- partisan elections would seem to make the Hatch Act less of a problem for federal employees interested in running for Council or mayor, it doesn't. The prohibitions on political fundraising would still apply. It's awfully hard to run for any office above the ANC-level without any fund raising. Public financing would address this, but that's a whole other issue.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:26:19 EDT

+2 dcd...for both comments. Haha.

Comment by oboe

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:25:57 EDT

Maybe I don't understand the concept of "nonpartisan" but Rich is right, the "nonpartisan" scenario here in DC would involve members w/in the same party. The only group it seems to benefit most would be the losers. So if, for instance, Fenty nor Gray got 40%, they could have the runoff. Since Gray was well over 50%, that actually wasn't the case but it could go something like that.

No, you're thinking about it backwards. The "nonpartisan" scenario means that folks who are not affiliated with the Democratic party are allowed to vote in the "meaningful" part of the election--not that the candidates will be non-partisan.

The observation that "the only group it seems to benefit most would be the losers" is just tautological.

Comment by dcd

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:15:39 EDT

During Hurricane Sandy, I passed the time by reading the legislative history of the DC Home Rule Act.

That's just sad.

The only group it seems to benefit most would be the losers.

It would benefit the thousands of people who are effectively disenfranchised because they are not members of the Democratic Party, and the "real" election for office in DC is the Democratic primary.

Comment by 7r3y3r

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:44:01 EDT

I've never understood why I have to pay but cannot play within the primary elections. The public has to foot the bill for primary elections, one in which only party members can vote to elect their representative. I'm a nonparty registered voter and while I respect the freedom of association and choice of a political party to only allow one candidate to represent them, they should figure out how to whittle down their candidates on their own dime if they're going to exclude people from participating.

We should allow any and all candidates to run in the first election ("primary"). (Institute a signature requirement if there's a concern with too many/non-feasable candidates.) Candidate with 50%+1 wins, otherwise, top 2 move on to a second election ("general" or "runoff"). Like Louisiana, as JustMe said.

Nonpartisan elections do not prohibit parties from being involved in the election. They can still endorse, support, etc. It simply prohibits them from controlling who runs and thus controlling the election.

Comment by HogWash

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:30:43 EDT

Comment by charlie

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:30:22 EDT

Honestly, I don't see much difference. Both Arlington and DC are jurisdictions solidly 65+ D performance. That is the operating fact, and turning it "nonpartisan" is just going to result in Michael Browns. The parties aren't very strong in DC -- personalities are -- although the party is much stronger in Arlington.

I don't think the "problems" with the Hatch are a bug, they are a feature.

Comment by JustMe

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:04:19 EDT

Actually, it originated in the South where one-party politics meant that to have a "choice", open elections followed by a runoff was the best under the circumstances. Louisiana still does this for their statewide elections, I believe.

We'd be much better off if we eliminated the closed primaries and just had open elections followed by a runoff.

Comment by Alex B.

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:55:52 EDT

Rich,

Of course non-partisan elections aren't free of politics - that's not the point. The point would be to make those elections truly democratic, rather than shielded behind the partisan primary elections.

Comment by Rich

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:47:18 EDT

Non-partisan elections windup being elections among candidates in the dominant party. Kindof like what happens with the Democratic primary in DC. This originated among progressives and mostly was a way to keep moderate Republicans in power in big cities, but mostly caught on in suburbs. I grew-up in a 'burb that had "non-partisan" elections, except everyone usually was a Democrat and it was a matter of different coalitions within the town and the County Party. The next town over had the same thing, except among republicans. taking the politics out of elections is a bit of an oxymoron. Partisanship promotes debate, nonpartisanship functionally operated to stunt it and it tends to promote strong man figures just as much as a traditional party politics. A couple suburbs over from us was a town where the "nonpartisan" mayor (actually a Republican) ruled for a couple decades. Nonpartisanship wouldn't have prevented the long reign of Barry.

If you want a better government, you have to get beyond gimmicks like this and build strong organizations that promote effective, ethical leadership.

Comment by Adam

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:43:18 EDT

Very interesting. I know that at one point Congress considered giving the District a governor and a legislative assembly, similar to the states.

As for the number of at-large council members, a few years ago voters in Baltimore amended the city charter to eliminate the at-large council seats (except for the chairman). I wondered what would happen if we had all ward seats here in DC and this is what I came up with:

https://twitter.com/AdamLDC/status/247360515179966464/photo/1/large

Comment by Tom A.

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:37:09 EDT

Fascinating. Fenty would still be mayor if we had non-partisan elections.