The Boston Globe posed an interesting question in its “The Argument” column Sunday: Should local elections remain non-partisan in Massachusetts?
Arguing in favor of maintaining status quo is Melrose Alderman at-large Monica Medeiros, Arguing that local elections should require candidates to list party affiliation is Progressive Needham’s Ted Steinberg.
From Medeiros:
“In today’s divided world where one cannot open a newspaper, view the feed of a social media account, or simply even turn on the TV without being bombarded with the flames fueled by that day’s partisan skirmishes, we do not need party politics to cloud [voters’] relationships.”
From Steinberg:
“Even if many of their decisions may have no overlap with official party platforms, any way we can enhance voter insight into the values that shape our representatives’ policy-making perspective is worth pursuing.”
Is this a Democrat vs Republican issue? What do you think?
Retaining non-partisan status should entail that Newton’s City Council stay away from highly divisive partisan issues beyond local administration and management of the city — such as when the body enacted Newton as a Sanctuary (or “Welcoming” or whatever) city. Immigration is currently a highly divisive federal issue (the GOP generally favoring that all immigration be legal and the Democrats generally favoring open borders unfettered by the law). Newton lawmakers need not join the fray.
Please fix the headline – you left out the “non” in non-partisan.
I very much appreciate local elections being non-partisan. When voting for Newton officials, my main concern is always whether I think they will be good for this city, not their party affiliation, and I want it to stay that way.
Keep them non-partisan and reduce the size of the Council.
@Meredith: Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Keep local elections non-partisan, so voters will continue to be completely uninterested and uninformed about local elections.
By depriving voters of one of the only ways to determine candidates’ beliefs, together we can attempt to keep turnout for municipal elections to well below 20% of registered voters – and hopefully as low as 10% of the population.
In turn, by promoting voter apathy, we can also continue to ensure that small cliques of individuals can get their candidates easily elected.
Municipal governments have relied upon this model since time immemorial – please do not tamper with it.
It’s probably best to keep local elections non-partisan. I actually think it’s the most effective way to ensure a diverse background of candidates and viewpoints. Hard partisans may think that requiring party labels will aid in their efforts to enforce party rigidity. However, in a state dominated by NPAs (no party affiliation), they will discover that political parties just aren’t what they used to be.
@Michael – having them partisan will do more than attach labels to them. It will require separate primaries by party. If you want to know a candidate’s party affiliation, it’s usually easy to find out. Personally, I’ve never found party that useful for determining stands on local issues.
PLEASE!!! keep local elections non-partisan.
Definitely non-partisan– there are far better and more accurate ways to discern a candidate’s local stances than by affixing a label on their lapel. I have always found that party matters less the more local you get (this includes State level, and not just because the GOP barely registers a blip here).
Non-partisan without question. Local issues should be decided by what is best for the city and its constituents.
The meaning of party affiliation changes all the time – members within each having distinctly different ideas on issues. Many in Newton are unenrolled or a member of a party just to be able to vote in a primary. Besides if local politics was partisan oriented wouldn’t the labels actually need to include super progressive, progressive, liberal, conservative, alt-right, evangelical conservative, etc. otherwise the labels mean nothing.