Elections - Greater Greater Washington

Less foolish primary date

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:36:00 EDT

DC might move its primary date (again), to June. The current April 1, 2014 date invited jokes, would force candidates to collect petitions during the holidays, and would create 8-month lame ducks. (NBC)

Comment

Mara profited from past donors

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:34:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Patrick Mara had a deal with a conservative group to solicit the donors to his 2008 campaign and get a cut of the money. Mara says it was no big deal, while some lawyers say it could have violated the law. (Post)

Comment

Election "rigging" won't pass

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:48:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The Virginia Senate rejected the bill to allocate electoral votes by Congressional district, while the House speaker is likely to kill the surprise inauguration gerrymandering measure. Democrats cited it as a reason to oppose McDonnell's transportation plan (but hopefully far from the only reason). (Post)

Comment

Where's Bob? McDonnell MIA on Metro funding (Feb 16, 2011)
McDonnell trying again to take WMATA seat from NoVA (Mar 31, 2011)
Virginians: Don't forget to vote (Nov 3, 2009)
Virginia legislators say "raise the gas tax" (Jan 29, 2013)
Virginians: Ask your reps to oppose bad highway bills (Jan 20, 2011)

And...

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:40:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Howard Town Center will have will have 445 apartments and a grocery store. (Borderstan) ... Even Ken Cuccinelli thinks breaking up electoral votes by congressional district is a bad idea. (Slate) ... Maryland's Dream Act has a loophole. (Post)

Comment

And...

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:03:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Mary Cheh proposes a bill requesting President Obama put "taxation without representation" on his limo's plates. (DCist) ... Virginia considers allowing gubernatorial reelection. (WAMU) ... Metro reopens elevators at Bethesda station. (Examiner)

Comment

Time to fast-track the southern Bethesda Metro entrance (Nov 2, 2010)
Live chat: Mary Cheh, Friday at 1 pm (Apr 29, 2009)
COG climate change report briefing tomorrow (Aug 25, 2008)
Montgomery Council boosts Purple Line, Bethesda entrance (Mar 14, 2012)
Arlington plans to increase capacity at Rosslyn Metro (Sep 24, 2010)

DC sees more Ward 6 voters

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:48:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

DC has released the final tally for the election. Ward 6, home to some rapidly-growing neighborhoods, had the most presidential votes. Will this growth continue in years without a presidential election? (Post)

Comment

DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Nonpartisan DC primary would give winners more legitimacy (Apr 19, 2012)
Ward 5 redistricting plan hurts voters and neighborhoods (Oct 31, 2011)
ACS shows Ward 6 growing fastest, while Ward 1 shrinks (Dec 15, 2010)
Ward 2 now too large, wards 7 and 8 too small (Mar 24, 2011)

Lines were long

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:37:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Marion Barry called for a council investigation into the Board of Elections for long lines in DC. Voters also waited in line up to 4 hours after the polls closed in many states, including Virginia (WAMU, Post)

Comment

Go vote! (Sep 14, 2010)
Barry holding up streetcar that was his idea 15 years ago (Jun 19, 2012)
Should Barry be worried about next year�s Ward 8 primary? (Jul 13, 2011)
DC Home Rule almost had... nonpartisan elections (Oct 31, 2012)
Barry surprised at streetcar plan from Barry mayoralty (Jul 1, 2010)

And...

Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:28:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

30 feet of the 1st Street NE cycle track have opened in front of Union Station. (BeyondDC) ... Consistently-Democratic DC could give its electoral votes to future Republican candidates if the National Popular Vote takes hold. (DCist) ... Arlington rules against licensing an all-electric cab company, citing the proposal as unfeasible. (WBJ)

Comment

1st Street NE may get cycle track (Nov 30, 2011)
Nonpartisan DC primary would give winners more legitimacy (Apr 19, 2012)
What's wrong with empowering cities? (Jan 4, 2008)
It's TIGER time again (Nov 3, 2011)
Then and Now: Union Station (Feb 22, 2009)

DC Home Rule almost had... nonpartisan elections

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:55:00 EDT

by David Alpert

During Hurricane Sandy, I passed the time by reading the legislative history of the DC Home Rule Act. This 1973 bill, which gave District residents the right to vote for local leaders who can make local laws for the first time in 99 years, established the system of government DC has today. But what might have been?

Photo by jcolman on Flickr.

Congress considered a lot of different alternatives for Home Rule. Very different bills passed the House and Senate. The House made some amendments on the floor, and then the conference committee made some of its own changes to reconcile the House and Senate versions.

One system that almost was: nonpartisan elections for DC Council and Mayor.

DC's current system includes a 13-member council. 4 at-large members and the chairman run for office citywide, while each of the 8 wards elects one member. All run in partisan elections, with primaries in April (September up until last year) and the general election in November.

But neither the House nor Senate bill specified that. The House bill had the 13 members, 5 at-large, but the Council would have chosen the chairman from among the 5 at-large members each January. (2249) The Senate bill, meanwhile, had only 3 at-large members (2 plus the chairman) for a total of 11 councilmembers. The voters would choose the chairman at-large directly, as they do today. (2887)

House bill had nonpartisan elections with runoff

The House bill also specified nonpartisan elections for Mayor and Council. In the open general election, the top vote-getter would win only if he or she received at least 40% of the votes. Otherwise, there would be a runoff 21 days after the election. For elections for 1 person (like ward councilmember or mayor), the 2 top finishers would participate in the runoff; for at-large elections with 2 to be elected, the runoff would involve the top 3. (2347)

The House's version put elections in November of even-numbered years that aren't Presidential election years (where they are today), but the Senate placed them on Presidential years with primaries in September.

Adams. Photo from Wikipedia.

The conference committee ultimately picked the Senate's option of partisan elections and a chairman elected in his or her own race, but the House's 13-member council and choice of years (3013-3014). Rep. Brock Adams (D-WA, 1927-2004, US Rep. 1965-1977, US Secretary of Transportation 1977-1979, Senator 1987-1993) and his staff prepared a memo during conference on the major House-Senate differences. He wrote,

Both these bills leave much to be desired; to my thinking, elections should be partisan, without runoffs (only Southern states have them) in even numbered non-Presidential years, with primaries in September and generals in November ... with no runoff (like Seattle). (2891)

Business, labor, parties all favored partisan elections

Most local groups favored partisan elections as well. Rep. Donald Fraser (D-MN, b. 1924, US Rep. 1963-1979, Mayor of Minneapolis 1980-1993) said that "Testimony before the House District of Columbia Committee was overwhelmingly in favor of party designation for these elections."

Walter F. McArdle, president of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, spoke in favor of partisan elections, as did George Apperson, president of Greater Washington Central Labor Council, who told the committee:

We think it would be wrong to prohibit partisan politics in elections in the District of Columbia. Partisan politics helps to focus responsibility and that's what we need in the District—responsible politics and responsible government.

The DC Republican Party also agreed, saying, "There is no question but the present political parties in the District of Columbia can provide the machinery by which a candidate aspiring to office can best bring his or her views of the electorate." So did the League of Women Voters.

Fraser concluded, "In my own State of Minnesota, nonpartisan elections for mayor and city council in the large cities did not work well. The State legislature has reinstated party designation. I believe this is wise. (1684)

Hatch Act drove push for nonpartisan elections

If so many people supported partisan elections, how did the House pass a bill with nonpartisan? The committee reported out a bill with partisan elections, but a dissenting commentary from a number of Republicans who opposed a great many provisions of the bill (including Arlington, Virginia Rep. Joel Broyhill, 1919-2006, US Rep. 1953-1974), argued for nonpartisan:

Based on information recently provided by the United States Conference of Mayors' that a total of 152 cities with populations over 100,000, 92 or 60% conduct nonpartisan elections, 49 or 32% conduct partisan elections, and for 11 cities the information is unknown. ... Several such cities with nonpartisan elections are Detroit, Seattle, Oakland, Cleveland, Milwaukee, San Francisco, San Diego, San Antonio, Memphis, and Columbia.
It would appear that in a city such as Washington, D.C., which is the Nation's Capital, where the Federal and local interests are so inextricably interwoven, that nonpartisan elections would best serve the interests of the Federal government, as well as the local residents. ...
It is doubtful if other cities of the size of the District of Columbia have as many Federal employees within their boundaries. Obviously, the drafters of this legislation recognized this in trying to amend the Hatch Act and permit the Federal employees to be partisan political candidates for the office of Council Member and Mayor. How much better it would be to avoid the question of amendment of the Hatch Act, which as is argued elsewhere in these views would undoubtedly result eventually in the repeal of the Hatch Act in its entirety, and hold the elections, in the District of Columbia, if authorized, on a nonpartisan basis. (1585-1586)

The subcommitee and committee markup sessions don't include a lot of debate over the merits of partisan or nonpartisan elections, but they do contain voluminous debate over the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from participating in partisan political activity.

During Senate debate, then-freshman Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM, Senator 1973-2009), said, "in the District of Columbia, 135,141 or 40% of voters would be subject to Hatch and unable to actively participate in the election process."

In fact, the Civil Service Commission issued an opinion that the then-sitting Mayor and City Councilmembers, who were federal appointees at the time, "would have to resign in order to run for office" under the new Home Rule system. (3613) Congress amended the Home Rule Act in 1974 to exempt the mayor and councilmembers from the Hatch Act, but problems with the way the Hatch Act applies to DC continue to this day.

At the beginning of floor debate over the bill, the chairman of the District of Columbia Committee introduced a "Committee substitute" that made a number of changes (2361). One of these was to replace partisan elections with nonpartisan. That provision never came up in the floor debate itself, and was part of the bill the House passed, but the members of the District of Columbia Committee who'd passed the original bill with partisan elections put it back in conference.

All numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Home Rule for the District of Columbia, 1973-1974, Background and Legislative History of H.R. 9056, H.R. 9682, and Related Bills Culminating in the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Approved December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198), Serial No, S-4, US Government Printing Office, December 31, 1974.

31 comments

Nonpartisan DC primary would give winners more legitimacy (Apr 19, 2012)
Nov. elections would strengthen Falls Church's democracy (Oct 13, 2011)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
House bill delayed, but transit, walking, biking aren't safe yet (Feb 23, 2012)

Online voter registration?

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:28:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Tommy Wells wants to allow online voter registration in DC. Today, residents can download forms online, but must print and mail them. Maryland and 11 other states have online registration. (DCist)

Comment

Wells concerned about parking in bike lanes (Jun 20, 2008)
Join Tommy Wells for reelection kickoff Saturday (Mar 25, 2010)
Smart Growth America talks to Tommy Wells (May 9, 2012)
Data on lobbyists comes too late, is too hard to use (Jul 18, 2012)
Live chat: Tommy Wells, today at 3 pm (Jul 22, 2009)

Vote on this and that

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:37:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Maryland voters will be voting on 7 ballot issues including high profile questions on gambling and same-sex marriage. Three of the issues are on the ballot as a result of voter petitions. (Washington Times)

Comment

Go vote! (Sep 14, 2010)
Election day is here! Vote! (Apr 2, 2012)
Spanish speaker faced obstacles to voting (Nov 2, 2010)
See the redesigned Metro maps and vote for your favorite! (May 16, 2011)
Race to replace Johnson will come down to organization (Sep 20, 2011)

No vote on corporate contributions

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:44:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Initiative 70 to ban corporate donations in DC elections will not be on the ballot since there were not enough valid signatures, though supporters are considering an appeal. (Examiner)

Comment

Ban corporate campaign contributions: Support Initiative 70 (Mar 28, 2012)
Election day is here! Vote! (Apr 2, 2012)
Help clean up DC politics this weekend and this month (May 31, 2012)
Have you signed the Initiative 70 petition? Pledge today (Jun 15, 2012)
Super PACs in DC? The evidence doesn't support the fears (Jun 26, 2012)

Too white to be mayor?

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:18:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Although the sentiment has eased over the past decade, many DC residents think it's important to have a black mayor. Candidates Jack Evans and Tommy Wells face a difficult route to election. (Post)

Comment

Knocked on our heels, it's time to broaden the urbanist tent (Jul 13, 2011)
Finding good candidates shouldn't be waiting for Superman (Nov 9, 2011)
Gorge yourself on streetcars (May 5, 2010)
Ask the Ward 2 Council candidates (Jul 8, 2008)
Weekend links: The end (Apr 1, 2012)

And...

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:36:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Will Fairfax County decide the presidential election? (Post)... The Adams Morgan streetscape project is finishing up. (DCist)... DC picks a company to run the first streetcar line. (WBJ)

Comment

More time for special elections

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:49:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Congress has passed a law allowing DC special elections between 70 and 174 days after a vacancy, giving more flexability than the current standard of within 114 days. (NBC4)

Comment

Running for office in DC? Tell our readers about yourself (Dec 19, 2011)
Nov. elections would strengthen Falls Church's democracy (Oct 13, 2011)
Go vote! (Sep 14, 2010)
DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Orange objects to a fairer special election process (Nov 16, 2010)

It's never too early

Mon, 28 May 2012 13:09:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

With the Gray administration mired in scandal, several candidates appear to be positioning themselves for a run for mayor in 2014, including councilmembers Muriel Bowser, Jack Evans, and Tommy Wells. (Post)

Comment

Nonpartisan DC primary would give winners more legitimacy

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:11:00 EDT

by Topher Mathews

Since the 2010 general election, DC has had 3 council elections where the winning candidate gained less than 50% of the vote. Our current system too often hands a victory to someone who most voters vote against, in elections that too few voters participate in.

Photo by KCIvey on Flickr.

"The way District residents elect a mayor and Council members needs to change," Chuck Thies noted this week. He's right. It's time for a new voting system.

In the 2011 at-large special election, Vincent Orange won with only 29% of the vote. This month, Yvette Alexander won her primary with 42%, and Orange got 40% in the at-large primary.

It diminishes winners' legitimacy and support for our electoral process to end an election without strong public support for any candidate. And it's no way to choose our decision makers when we have better options available.

Back in 2010, I argued for scrapping DC's primary system. DC should replace it, I said, with a single general election with some form of a preferential voting system (like Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting, or one of several others).

These other voting systems represent a big change, and stand little chance of becoming law any time soon. But a less radical, yet still effective, option is available.

Nonpartisan blanket primary is the answer

If the District must keep holding primaries, the best model would be to hold a single primary open to all candidates and all voters. The top two vote-getters would then face off again in the general election in November. This system, known as a "nonpartisan blanket primary," is used in several states including Louisiana and Washington, and was recently adopted in California.

This system would easily work well for electing the mayor, the council chair, the ward councilmembers, and the attorney general (which will be an elected position starting in 2014).

How would at-large seats work?

Electing the at-large seats gets a little more complicated. Currently, 2 at-large seats (not including the chair) are up for election every two years. No party can hold more than 3 of the at-large seats, and because the chair will remain a Democrat for the foreseeable future, only 1 of the 2 at-large seats can go to another Democrat in a given election year.

This creates a complication for a blanket primary, since the top 2 vote-getters in the primary may not both be able to win in the fall if they're both Democrats. However there is a solution: eliminate these set-asides. The rule isn't accomplishing anything, anyway: Michael Brown, one of the "independent" members of the council, is in all practical senses a Democrat, and more aligned with his party on a number of issues than some members who are officially Democrats.

This move may also appease a DC Democratic party that might resist opening up the primary. While non-Democrat candidates could be unhappy about losing their set-aside seats, non-Democratic voters, who account for 25% of registered voters, would finally have an opportunity to cast a vote that matters.

Since there are 2 at-large seat open each year, 3 at-large candidates should advance from the primary to the general election. Voters would continue to cast 2 votes for the 2 seats. This would not guarantee that either of the victors would garner 50% of the vote, but it would guarantee that every voter that voted both votes would have chosen at least one winner.

Would the Democratic Party support this?

To implement this new system, the DC Democratic Party will have to get on board. The party has historically resisted any attempts to open the Democratic primary. Typically the argument is that it will lead to "meddling" or mischievous voting by people who aren't "true Democrats."

But there is scant evidence that mischievous voting actually occurs in open primaries. In fact, there would be little incentive to vote mischievously because your preferred candidate will need all the votes he or she can get to reach the general election.

Incumbents who have historically been elected and reelected with more than 50% of the vote, which often happens in the ward primaries, would likely continue to win easily under the non-partisan blanket primary system. They'd just have to beat their opponents twice. If they're popular, this shouldn't be a problem.

Moreover, with the primaries now so early in the year, an incumbent who loses would be a lame duck for 9 months. How would they govern for so long, knowing they have already been fired? Would they become indifferent? Ineffective? Venal? Voters won't find out this year, but eventually it will happen. In a nonpartisan blanket primary system, the campaign would continue into the fall, making the lame duck period very short.

Some might argue that the flaws of DC's voting system are hardly unique, particularly in jurisdictions dominated by one party. That's true. But it doesn't make it any more acceptable, especially when a better system is available.

We can continue to use a system where the 60% of the voters, in an election that only 9% of the registered population votes in, vote against a candidate who wins. Or we can demand a better system that produces victors with wider support from a larger electorate. This proposal could deliver that.

20 comments

Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Crowded at-large Council race could help Orange win (Jan 4, 2012)
Put the democratic back in DC's Democratic Party (Nov 8, 2011)

Fix DC elections

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:27:00 EDT

by David Alpert

DC should provide public funding for campaigns and replace the current party primary system with a nonpartisan runoff between the top 2 finishers, suggests Chuck Thies. (NBC Washington)

Comment

Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
Nov. elections would strengthen Falls Church's democracy (Oct 13, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)

And...

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:45:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

Shaw's Tavern has a liquor license at last. (DCist) ... DC's arts commission weirds up the town with a stainless steel... box? (Post) ... Prince William County gets away from federal oversight of its voting practices. (Washington Times)

Comment

Blame for the Shaw's Tavern mess does not lie with the city (Aug 31, 2011)
The plight of the blight: River East liquor stores (Jul 10, 2009)
A liquor license reveals challenges with living on the border (Apr 11, 2011)
Knee-jerk liquor license opposition undercuts credibility (Jul 19, 2010)
Density on U Street? (Dec 4, 2007)

Make your voice heard

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:04:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

If you haven't gone to vote yet,exercise your rights. If you missed our endorsements, we compiled the list for you. Find your polling place for DC here and Maryland here.

Comment

Go vote! (Sep 14, 2010)
DC's ridiculous precinct boundaries (Sep 10, 2008)
Spanish speaker faced obstacles to voting (Nov 2, 2010)
Endorsement quick reference (Sep 13, 2010)
Election day is here! Vote! (Apr 2, 2012)

Garvey wins

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:25:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Democrat Libby Garvey won the open Arlington County Board seat in a special election that saw historically low turnout. She defeated Republican candidate Mark Kelly by less than 900 votes. (Post)

Comment

Do Arlington candidates only like smart growth in theory? (Jan 9, 2012)
Arlington candidates discuss streetcars and Crystal City (Jan 10, 2012)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Melissa Bondi for Arlington County Board (Jan 15, 2012)
Want to run a freeway through your voters' neighborhood? The Post will endorse you (Oct 27, 2009)

Election needs money

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:07:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The May 15 Ward 5 special election needs $318,000 to happen. The money has to come quickly, too, as mailed notices of the election have to go out by March 24. (Examiner)

Comment

Ward 5 progressives must unite behind one candidate (Jan 9, 2012)
DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Orange objects to a fairer special election process (Nov 16, 2010)
Future at-large member will sit on important committees (Dec 22, 2010)
DC Council considers primary date, diagonal parking, free school transit, taxi medallions and much more (Mar 16, 2011)

And...

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:37:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Today is the last day to switch political parties in DC before the April primary. (WAMU) ... Bills would restrict local governments in Virginia from reducing the number of taxis. (Sun Gazette) ... How can Centreville be more bicycle-friendly? (Patch)

Comment

Elect the regionals?

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:06:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

The only elected regional government in the US presides over Portland. Though the experiment is a success, state and local governments have been reluctant to give away such power and follow Portland's example. (Atlantic Cities)

Comment

Amsterdam proves bikes and streetcars are allies (Nov 7, 2011)
New Partners: Frustrating Transit Administrators (Feb 8, 2008)
Bookstores create public places (Dec 1, 2010)
Portland gets excited about transit with a Mobile Music Fest (Nov 1, 2011)
McDonnell still pushing WMATA takeover, vote Thursday (Oct 5, 2010)

And...

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:34:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

SW Waterfront's Wharf development looks to be sailing along. (DCmud) ... Elections don't matter that much when it comes to real estate. (Post) ... A shanty town has sprung up in a half-finished shopping mall in the heart of Caracas. (Foreign Policy) ... Metro riders go pantless. (Post)

Comment

Battle for succession

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:44:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

Now that Harry Thomas, Jr., is out of office, it's time to prepare for the special election to succeed him, and it's bringing out all the Ward 5 leaders. That election will likely be in early May. (Post)

Comment

Thomas adopts fair community proposal for ANC map (Dec 16, 2011)
Council balks at bike lane parking fines (Jul 16, 2008)
DC Council considers primary date, diagonal parking, free school transit, taxi medallions and much more (Mar 16, 2011)
Who will stand up for recreation center users? (Oct 14, 2011)
Will Thomas push for local business and good urban design? (Dec 28, 2010)

Running for office in DC? Tell our readers about yourself

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:54:00 EDT

by Geoff Hatchard

If you're running for elected office in the District of Columbia in the 2012 cycle, we'd like to run a guest post from you.

Photo by League of Women Voters of California on Flickr.

As a first step in our election coverage, we want to give candidates a chance to introduce themselves and let our community hear from them in their own words, like this.

Our election coverage team has already emailed the candidates they could find contact information for, but there are some of you out there who we haven't reached. If you haven't received an email from our election coverage team, please contact us at elections@ggwash.org.

Meanwhile, for the Arlington County Board race, Alison Crowley has reached out to candidates with a questionnaire; please also contact elections@ggwash.org if you are running and haven't heard from her.

As with all submissions to Greater Greater Washington, we reserve the right to edit them for length or clarity and to comply with our submission policy and other guidelines at the sole discretion of the editors.

3 comments

Our 2012 DC election coverage will focus on issues (Sep 22, 2011)
GGW introduces a new comment policy (Aug 12, 2011)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
Nov. elections would strengthen Falls Church's democracy (Oct 13, 2011)
Greig: The DC Council and Ward 2 need a fresh start (Oct 27, 2011)

Can Falls Church ban parties endorsing local candidates?

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:44:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

Virginia state law prohibits ballots from listing partisan affiliation for local elections. The Falls Church City Council wants to go a step further, banning political parties from endorsing candidates in city races altogether. Can they do this, and with extremely limited public input?

Photo by yakfur on Flickr.

In the wake of two major shakeups to Falls Church city politics, the City Council is set to vote tonight on amendments to the city charter that were just drawn up at the council work session a week ago.

Under the amendments, candidates for the city who are nominated by political party primary or convention will not be listed at all on the ballot. Candidates can only be nominated by petition, the way non-party candidates get on the ballot today.

The amendments warn against not just the evils of partisan elections, but of partisan candidates.

Why the rush to change the charter? Under Virginia's Dillon's Rule system, the changes need Virginia General Assembly approval, so the city council wants to get the amendments into its legislative package in time for the next General Assembly session in January.

Unfortunately, it seems the City Council is putting that deadline ahead of opportunity for public input. This is an especially unfortunate move after voters just dealt the council a harsh rebuke in this month's election.

Voters rejected City Council efforts to keep city elections in May, passing a referendum to move city elections to November by a stunningly large 2-to-1 margin. Referendum opponents warned voters a move to November could make city elections more partisan, but voters ignored those arguments.

Then, just days later, the civic organization Citizens for a Better City (CBC) announced it would no longer endorse local political candidates. As the Falls Church News-Press editorialized, the changes left a sudden void:

So now, there is a flattened and broadened political landscape: no direction and twice the voters. One could call that a more "purely democratic" environment, but it may advisable to revisit Plato's "The Republic" for a poignant critique of the shortcomings, or, better, short livelihood, of "pure democracies."
The CBC may have thought it could dictate by its action a newly-leveled political environment, but its withdrawal will likely encourage other groups, or the formation of other groups, to fill the vacuum. No wish to mandate that future elections be non-partisan, for example, can prevent the exercise of First Amendment rights to the contrary.

A new dictate seems precisely what the city council is proposing. Rather than regrouping, reassessing, and gathering public input, leaders are rushing ahead under deadline pressure on proposed amendments that may or may not reflect the desires of current voters, never mind future ones.

What's more, it's not clear if any of the proposed amendments are either constitutional or enforceable. Can the City Council decide which groups of voters can or cannot publicly endorse political candidates? What if a party doesn't formally endorse, but does a mailing without a candidate's approval or knowledge? Would that candidate be thrown off the ballot anyway?

What about donations? Many city council and school board members have donated to political candidates. For example, Council Member Lawrence Webb, whose name is on the amendments, donated $100 to Democratic Delegate Charniele Herring's campaign in 2009. Under the amendments, would it be enough for Webb to swear off Democratic references on campaign literature? Or would he have to swear off all Democratic affiliations and donations for the duration of his term?

Just weeks after voters settled Falls Church's biggest electoral controversy, will the City Council open a new one? We may find out tonight.

7 comments

Nov. elections would strengthen Falls Church's democracy (Oct 13, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
Finding good candidates shouldn't be waiting for Superman (Nov 9, 2011)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)

Area elections extremely close

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:17:00 EDT

by Eric Fidler

The Virginia Senate will be evenly split between the two parties, but Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) may cast deciding votes. (Post) ... Fazlul Kabir beat incumbent Christine Nagle by 2 votes for a College Park Council seat. (Patch)

Comment

McDonnell trying again to take WMATA seat from NoVA (Mar 31, 2011)
Where's Bob? McDonnell MIA on Metro funding (Feb 16, 2011)
College students deserve a voice in local government (Dec 1, 2010)
How good is Congress' word on Metro funding? (Feb 18, 2009)
Breakfast links: Mo' train money, mo' problems edition (Oct 1, 2008)

Put the democratic back in DC's Democratic Party

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:21:00 EDT

by Dennis Jaffe

Top DC Democrats have taken drastic measures to prevent voters from disrupting their control of the party. Ironically, as a result, they have sown the seeds for a successful voter revolt to open up the party and turn it into a powerful agent for change.

Photo by wiccked on Flickr.

The party leadership was so worried about facing voters next April, they canceled the election in which 340,000 voters get to choose who will lead the party. We should elect new leadership for that reason alone.

In the local primary of every presidential election year for decades, DC's registered Democratic voters have elected who represents them on the Democratic State Committee. Of the committee's 82 members, 48 are—or at least were—elected at either the ward level or at-large, while another 34 are appointed.

The Democratic State Committee is supposed to represent Democratic voters. It could, and should, weigh in on "national" issues like DC voting rights and legislative autonomy, and local issues including the conduct of Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. Thomas is under federal investigation for allegedly stealing $300,000 in taxpayer funds intended for a youth athletic organization and spending it instead on himself.

Rank-and-file Democrats could open up the party and turn it into a courageous force that engages, listens to and represents the grassroots—and demands that our elected officials honor the highest ethical standards. It's up to us to put "democratic" in the Democratic Party and voice our clear disapproval of the current chairman's recent decision to disenfranchise DC voters.

As 2008 presidential candidate Barak Obama repeatedly declared, "sí se puede."

Or, we can decide now to not complain and to accept backroom politics-as-usual.

In August, party Chairman Anita Bonds ended a decades-long tradition of Democrats voting at their nearby polling place in the local primary for the Democratic State Committee. Instead, the party will hold a convention—in just one location—probably next November. It will likely last at least a few hours and involve complicated rules.

In deciding to eliminate the right of hundreds of thousands of Democrats to vote next April on the party's leadership, Bonds didn't even allow the current members of the State Committee to vote. And according to the Washington Post, "Committee members say they were not told of the decision until it had already been made." You can't make this stuff up.

Democratic activist John Capozzi, himself a former member of the State Committee, told the Post, "This is why we need new leadership in the [D.C.] Democratic Party...Deciding to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of D.C. Democrats is just plain wrong."

It's a sure way to drastically reduce voter participation in deciding who will lead the party. A turnout of even 1% (3,402 voters) would be exceptionally high. The leadership is unlikely to plan to accommodate even half that many attendees.

But the Democratic Party can move from insular to invigorating, if we insist it do so. What do you care about? Affordable housing? Accessible health care? Improving our education or transportation system? Do you think members of the DC Council are being influenced too much by big donors whose agendas may be seen as being at odds with your vision of what the Democratic Party should stand for?

The Democratic State Committee could be a perfect vehicle for the grassroots to engage in order to press our elected officials to pursue a policy agenda that is actually consistent with the party.

The DC Democratic Party organization today is so removed from the grassroots, there isn't even a place you could go to volunteer.

That might just be because the party's leadership has its priorities wrong. Donald Dinan, general counsel for the Democrats, wrote in an August 16th letter to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics that the party was canceling the primary vote for party representatives because of the "disruption" that an election could have on the Democrats' delegate selection process for the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

Dinan confirmed by telephone on Friday their fear that if new party leaders were chosen in a "DC Spring" next April, they could decide to upend months-long planning on who gets to go to the convention. Regrettably, it sounds more like bunker mentality than an outreach strategy.

But Dinan's letter, along with Bonds' quotes in the Post, indicated that the Democratic National Committee had pressured the District's Democrats to select their party representatives in a convention rather than in a primary, as has been the custom for decades. On Friday, I called the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to request a copy of a letter that would have forced DC Democrats to disenfranchise approximately 339,000 voters. They had no idea what I was talking about. Then I called Dinan. He didn't have it either.

Democrats get to vote in primaries for who the leaders of their party in such states as New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland and many others. It would defy belief that the DNC would force only the District of Columbia to replace the primary with a convention to select party representatives.

In fact, despite his letter, Dinan told me that ditching the primary method was indeed not the central reason for the move. "Had the DC Council picked May [after delegates are selected] for the local primary, it would have been fine."

The notion that the Democratic National Committee forced DC Democrats to make this move is malarkey.

Enough backroom politics-as-usual. Let's do something radical. Instead of accepting less democracy, let's create more. As Ward 8 activist and DC's former Youth Mayor, Markus Batchelor, recently wrote:

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the people, the party of inclusion and the party seeking transparency and fairness. The DC Democratic State Committee, through this decision, has single-handedly flushed all these principles down the toilet simultaneously and I believe it is our duty to call for new leadership and a new way forward for the Democratic party in this city.

Let's not allow ourselves to do nothing and then read the newspaper next November reporting that just 200 Democrats met the day before in the corner of a high school gymnasium to elect their party leaders. Instead, let's adopt President Obama's 2012 campaign slogan—"We can't wait"—and start now, talking neighbor to neighbor to open up DC's Democratic Party with a campaign that declares, "We can't wait to clean up DC politics."

10 comments

DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Orange objects to a fairer special election process (Nov 16, 2010)
The Ward 4 council race is crowded. Will it be competitive? (Nov 14, 2011)