|
Frank J. Macchiarola (Charter Revision
Commission Chairman) Nonpartisan elections.“[C]ould pave the way for the
most significant changes in New York City elections
in nearly a century,” said the The New York Times on
Aug. 26, 2003. Nonpartisan elections will open up
the election process to a greater numbers of voters,
ease ballot access restrictions, offer voters more
choices, and create more competitive elections.
New York City is notorious for its corrupt party
bosses and the political machines they control. Boss
Tweed may be long gone, but his spirit lives on in
the City’s politics. In Tweed’s time, and still
today, party bosses derive much of their power from
their control over the ballot. How can we fight
back?
The ballot proposal that will appear before voters
this November is a historic opportunity to strike a
blow for democracy. If the proposal passes, all
voters, regardless of party, will have the
opportunity to participate in the City’s primary
election. Currently, the Democratic primary decides
the election winner in about 95 percent of the
City’s races - the mayoral race is the one big
exception. In elections for the other offices, such
as Public Advocate and City Council member, if you
don’t participate in the Democratic party primary,
you have essentially forfeited your opportunity to
influence the outcome of the election. In most
general elections, there is only one viable
candidate on the ballot - what kind of choice is
that? Shouldn’t all voters, including Democrats,
have the opportunity to choose between two viable
general election candidates?
Most voters in New York City, including myself, are
Democrats. But there are an awful lot of us who feel
that all voters, and not just a small group of party
members, should have the opportunity to cast
meaningful votes. To achieve this, the Commission on
which I served has made a simple proposal: every
registered voter, including independents, would be
eligible to participate in the primary election.
Each voter could cast a vote for any candidate
running, regardless of whether that candidate is a
Democrat, Republican, independent, or member of a
third party. And then, regardless of a candidate’s
party affiliation, the two candidates with the most
votes from would advance to the general election.
“The point is to liberate the electoral process,”
wrote The Daily News in an Aug. 27, editorial
titled, Open Elections for all New Yorkers. “The
Charter Revision Commission has given New Yorkers a
chance to decide whether the city should free local
elections from the stranglehold of the. bosses. The
answer, of course, is yes.”
Let’s bury Boss Tweed, for good. On proposal #3,
vote yes for democracy.
TOP
Patricia L. Gatling (Charter Revision Commission)
Today in New York City there are over 1 million registered voters who are ineligible to
cast a meaningful vote in the general election held in November.
Nearly 15 percent of these voters are African-American or Latino.
They are ineligible to cast a meaningful vote because they are barred from voting in the primary
election held in September, which ultimately decides the participants in the general election. The reason
that they are barred from voting in the primary is because they exercised their right to be unaffiliated with a political party.
As one of the two African-American members of the Charter Revision Commission, I was surprised to
learn that so many members of my community are being left out of the electoral process.
When the subject of non-partisan elections was brought up, my only concern was whether this change
would negatively impact the minority community. In fact, quite the contrary; I have learned that the
current party system has a negative impact.
Opponents of non-partisan elections claim that it violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when, in
fact, it is our current party primary system that may be violative of the Act, since it prevents a
large number of African-Americans and Latinos from accessing the system. According to studies conducted
by Professor Allan Lichtman of American University, an expert on non-partisan elections and voting
rights, non-partisan elections are likely to enhance the prospects for minority candidates to compete
successfully for citywide office in New York.
Non-partisan elections would open primary voting to all registered voters.
TOP
Mohammad S. Khalid (Charter Revision Commission)
It has been a pleasure and honor to serve on the Charter Revision Commission
of 2003 as one of the members under the great leadership of Dr. Frank J.
Macchiarola. After attending about 27 meetings and public hearings in all the
boroughs of the city of New York in the last several months, I am fully
convinced that there is a tremendous public desire to give voters the
opportunity to at least be able to cast their vote on the vital issue of
non-partisan elections. It is not an experiment, which will be conducted for the
first-time in the city of New York. Fifty major cities in the U.S. including Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Houston have non-partisan elections which
have been very successful. Ultimately, it is the voters who have to decide in a
referendum whether the new system will be good for the city or if there is no
need for change. The commission did their job by listening to New Yorkers from
all walks of life and getting their input in the new proposed system. My fellow
commission members are to be commended for their tireless efforts and taking
hundreds of hours of time from their busy schedules in order to help the New
York City political process.
Personally, it was a lifetime opportunity to be serving with such a competent
and distinguished group. I would like to thank Mayor Bloomberg and Chairman
Macchiarola for giving me this opportunity. After hearing the testimonies of
many New Yorkers, I voted for non-partisan elections to be considered by the
voters in the November referendum of 2003 for the following reasons:
- I feel there is a lack of competition in city
elections, because party bosses have more control
than voters themselves whether these voters are
Democrat, Republican, or from any other party.
- In 2001, only 42 of the 51 council races could be considered competitive by
accepted standards with greater than 10% margins of victory.
- In the upcoming city council election an estimated 28 candidates will face no
serious competition.
- As a member of the minority community, I disagree with the critics who allege
that non-partisan elections will disenfranchise the minority community any more
than the current system already does.
- In fact, non-partisan elections will allow more minority candidates and voters
to participate in an open and fair system.
There is no doubt that the campaign finance board may have a little difficulty
in adjusting their voluntary campaign finance program. The board is already
providing the service under the current system. The campaign finance program can
be changed according to new proposed system. The board has the authority to make
changes as required by law, and laws can be changed by public vote. After all,
the power lies in a majority of the voters and not in the hands of a few who do
not want a change due to a personal agenda.
May God Bless the United States of America and our great city of New York.
TOP
Bob Armstrong (Manhattan Libertarian, Drug Affairs Director)
While the proposed open primary followed by a runoff between the top two vote getters may not be optimal,
it breaks our current virtual monopoly of the ballot by a particular political class : the registered
members of a single political party.
The proposal enfranchises the 1.3 million of us who choose
not to join that monopoly and encourages any group of us,
who support any one of us enough to collect 900
signatures, to add their choice to the political market.
Democracy is what brings market freedom to the control of
the state’s monopoly on the use of force. In the everyday
marketplace, each dollar you spend is a vote for the
provider of the goods you choose. In the political
marketplace, your vote is like having a couple of dollars
to spend every couple of years.
In this age when state force is replacing individual
decision in more and more aspects of our economic and social
lives, this proposal may be the most lasting positive legacy
of these times. To remain a World Capital in governance as
well as talent - because the talent will leave if the
governance is not competitive - vote YES for Open Primaries.
TOP
Michael R. Bloomberg (Mayor)
It is the duty of every government to promote opportunity and participation
by tearing down obstacles that stand in its way, to provide services
efficiently, and to operate according to the highest ethical standards. This
year’s Charter Revision Commission has gone a long way toward promoting these
ends.
The proposals to be placed before voters this November will change the way the
City does business by reducing the burdensome regulations which frustrate and
hamper companies’ efforts to work for the City, while at the same time
increasing opportunities for small businesses, particularly those owned by women
and minorities. They will bolster the City’s ethics laws by providing enhanced
enforcement measures to punish those that violate them. And they will put
elections back in the hands of the voters by opening the process to all.
The time has come for the voters to decide. I enthusiastically encourage you
to vote “Yes” on proposals 3, 4, and 5.
TOP
Margaret S. Chin (Deputy Executive Director, Asian Americans for Equality)
As a former candidate for the City Council and a long time
community organizer in the Chinese American community, I feel strongly that
non-partisan elections will increase voter participation in the Chinese American
community.
I have taken part in many voter registration drives in Chinatown over the last
20 years. I have found that when filling out the voter registration form, when
Chinese American voters are asked to “choose a party,” he or she will most
likely check the last box “I do not want to enroll in a party.” Many new
immigrants are hesitant to be affiliated with a political party because of prior
negative experience with parties in their homelands.
In New York City where candidates winning the democratic primary will most
likely win the general election, they will not spend too much time reaching out
to the Chinese American community.
With non-partisan elections more Chinese American voters will be able to
participate in the democratic process and hopefully will begin to gain more
clout with their votes.
TOP
Susan Cleary (Republican District Leader)
Based on my experience as a former candidate for office, I strongly favor
Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal for non-partisan municipal elections. I believe that
non-partisan elections will promote issue driven campaigns that have the best
chances of creating a real dialogue about critical issues facing voters. When
voters are engaged in substantive debate that directly affects their
neighborhoods and families, it is reasonable to conclude they will have more
motivation to be involved in the process or at least bother to vote. The current
system, which allows voters to be lazy and just vote along party lines since
that is often all they know about the candidates, has been responsible for
widespread voter apathy.
Non-partisan elections would also open up the electoral process to ordinary
citizens who have skills and experience to bring to public service. From my own
experience, I know how much trepidation can occur when stepping into party
politics. After collecting signatures to run for district leader here in
Brooklyn, I was “welcomed” by the Kings County Republican Party with a lawsuit.
Even though there was nothing wrong with my petitions, I had to hire a lawyer to
represent me in court. Most people just don’t want to go through such an
experience, nor should they have to. There are numerous examples of these kinds
of tactics by both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Non-partisan elections will favor candidates who can articulate issues they
stand for and are able to sell their experience and qualifications to the
voters. The electoral process in New York City can be about more than outdated
party labels and machine tactics that discourage many good potential candidates
from seeking public service to their communities.
TOP
Pedro Espada, Jr. (City Council Member)
I believe I am the only Democratic elected official in New York to support the Proposal on City Elections, an important reform for fairer,
more competitive elections that decreases the control of party bosses! I
have fought hard to bring this proposal before New Yorkers for a vote this
year -- one that favors the people, not the politicians!
Party bosses don’t like this reform because it makes it possible
for those independent of the machine to win!
Our communities are very needy of services in healthcare,
education, recreation and so on. When public officials have more loyalty
to a party than to the people, these services turn into political
footballs! And our kids suffer as a result.
I got elected in 2003 by reaching out far beyond the clubhouse, which makes
me accountable to the people and not the parties.
We don’t want to be dependent on a political machine that can abuse us
whenever it chooses to! Vote “Yes” on the Proposal on City Elections so
that your elected officials are accountable to you!
TOP
Fiorello LaGuardia Good Government Committee (Nicholas Chahales, President)
As you may know, the Fiorello LaGuardia organization is composed of
Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives dedicated to the support of efficient, effective
government initiatives, policies, and
people without regard to party affiliation. We have hundreds of members,
including many community leaders in Brooklyn, Queens and beyond.
It is common knowledge that winning the Democratic primary for an office in this
City is tantamount to winning election to any political office other than Mayor or Governor. This is
tantamount to “one party rule” of most political offices in this City and it fosters the perception, rightly or
wrongly, that citizens must donate money to that party in order to win lucrative contracts or employment
with the City.
Therefore, in order to encourage voter participation and avoid the appearance of impropriety, the Fiorello
LaGuardia Good Government Committee supports the concept of non-partisan
elections for the following six (6) reasons:
- We believe that the 670,000 independent voters in this City have been
effectively disenfranchised by the current party system, which denies them the right to
participate in the primary system because they are not registered in any one party.
- We believe that the 1.3 million people in this City who are registered
voters, but not registered members of the Democratic Party, have also been effectively disenfranchised by
the current party system, which denies them the right to participate in the Democratic primary
because they are not registered as Democrats.
- We believe that a greater number of honest, independent and effective
candidates will emerge to lead this City under a non-partisan voting system that
removes the barriers created by the current requirement of party endorsement.
- We believe that our City’s abundance of media outlets, serving every special interest,
minority and majority group imaginable, will improve their reporting as needed in order to
more fully inform the public of specific candidate positions once “catch all” (and often meaningless)
party labels are diluted by the multiplicity of candidates allowed under the new system.
We also believe that a multiplicity of candidate debates and new technology will allow candidates
to directly reach voters so as to inform them further. To suggest that our voters cannot
understand candidate positions without party labels is a condescending and implicitly racist
insult to our voters. One need only look at the records of Governor
Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg to see how misleading party labels can be.
- We believe that our increasingly sophisticated voters of all races and ethnic
origins will elect the best candidate, regardless of race, creed, ethnic origin, age,
or sexual preference once informed of that candidates positions.
- We believe that our increasingly sophisticated voters and candidates of all races and ethnic
origins will be better served by an open and incorruptible system that promotes full
voter participation in the nominating process without the artificial constraints
imposed by the current party process which effectively disenfranchises independent
voters and voters not registered in the Democratic party.
For these reasons, we urge all New Yorkers to join the great cities of Los
Angeles and Chicago in amending our Charter to allow non-partisan elections.
TOP
Rudolph W. Giuliani (Former Mayor)
New York City government works best when politicians put aside narrow
partisan differences and work together for the benefit of all New Yorkers.
The non-partisan election reform proposed by Mayor Bloomberg’s 2003 Charter
Revision Commission promises to free voters and elected officials alike from the
grips of excessively partisan politics and the inheritors of Tammany Hall.
When I first ran for Mayor, I asked New Yorkers to “embrace a candidacy based
not on political name tags, but on integrity, leadership and vision.” I was
proud to appoint qualified Republicans and Democrats to senior positions in my
administration. I’ve always believed that smart, dedicated people working
together in the spirit of ’let’s get this done,’ can outperform and ideological
clique, any day of the week.
By opening the primary process to all registered voters, as this Charter reform
proposes, all registered New York voters would be able to support the
candidate of their choice in the primaries, regardless of party label. This
would reduce the influence of local power brokers over the selection of
candidates, and free elected officials to speak their mind and vote their
conscience.
I supported bringing non-partisan elections to New York City as Mayor and I
support the proposal now. It would be a positive step toward opening the
political process while further reducing the power of special interests in our
city. Most importantly, it promises to bring greater independence and integrity
to local politics - and that will benefit all New Yorkers for decades to come.
TOP
Martin J. Golden (New York State Senator)
I urge a Yes vote in support of the NYC Charter change that would bring about
a system of nonpartisan elections in New York City for Citywide offices, Borough
Presidents, and the City Council.
The present system works poorly. In fact 1.3 million New York City voters have
absolutely no say. These are the enrolled Republican, Independents and members
of the smaller parties who live in communities in which there are no competitive
contests in November. Even Democratic voters are often limited in their choices
by Party bosses who use election law technicalities to eliminate opposition. In
many communities the incumbent and/or Democratic Party choice actually ran
unopposed in November. In fact 42 out of 51 November elections last year were
won by more than 30%.
Today, three quarters of municipalities across the United States have a
nonpartisan ballot, including major cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago,
Atlanta, Seattle and Boston. Once considered an experiment, there is now many
years of evidence to prove that a nonpartisan system attracts candidates from
diverse backgrounds, often with records of accomplishments in business,
community and professional life.
The New York City proposal also deserves support because it takes the lessons
learned in other cities and improves on the concept. The New York City model
will not do away with political identification, if a candidate chooses to use
this option. This clearly satisfies the concern of those who believe this type
of identification aids in determining a candidate’s philosophy.
The sum of these findings makes it clear that the future leadership of New
York City will be better served by the institution of a nonpartisan municipal
election system. Only through the fair and open electoral process prescribed by
this reform will our City’s political landscape be restored to an equitable
state and will greater voter participation take hold.
TOP
Richard E. Green (President, New York City Community Youth Worker)
In our great city as we contemplate the necessity to improve upon the most
precious element of our democracy, (our vote), I offer my support and
recognition. As a private citizen and an executive I lend my obligatory poison
to this most important moment in our history. Ultimately the wise voters of this
our great city will choose to improve their access to governing while preserving
the stability of our great democracy. On the national, Non-partisan elections
are working optimally in the overwhelming majority of municipalities across the
nation including Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston. Of the Sixteen Major metro
areas with populations of over ½ million, Nonpartisan becomes the working rule.
In our city it will improve voting participation and make one’s exercise of
their franchise more meaningful. Today candidates are winning important
governing seats with less than 18% of their electorate participating. If one wins
the primary then November becomes an ‘anointing’ of the candidate approved by
the local party officials. A change of this magnitude should of course be
reviewed thoroughly by the Justice Department to ensure compliance with the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other constitutional safeguards.
Further as we see our cities in more austere fiscal times, the prudent
conservation of public’s matching funds will enable candidates to still receive
their share, while the voting public’s interest is considered. As one who shares
in the vision of this city and has been an active participant in electoral
politics, I strongly support the voters chartering their political course with
pure purpose in November.
TOP
Harry Kresky (Counsel, New York State Independence Party)
Five Charter Revision Commissions have studied this important reform.
Thousands have testified at scores of hearings. Nonpartisan municipal elections
are favored by those who do not benefit from the existing partisan political
status quo - independents, insurgent Democrats, members of minor parties, and
other people interested in public service who are not professional politicians.
This is a reform whose time has come.
Most of those testifying against nonpartisan municipal elections are Democrats
who hold public office. They are the main beneficiaries of the current system, a
Democratic Party monopoly in which the winner of the Democratic primary almost
always wins in the general election - and few general elections are competitive.
In the 2001 general election only 1 of 51 City Council races was classified as
“highly competitive” where the margin of victory was less than 5%. The vast
majority (82%) were won by landslides - there margins of victory averaged 64%.
Nonpartisan municipal elections would change that. The 1.5 million New Yorkers
who cannot now vote in the critical first round, because they are not enrolled
Democrats, will be able to fully participate in the entire process of choosing
our public officials. The top two vote-getters in round one would compete in a
runoff.
TOP
Lawrence D. Littlefield
If non-partisan elections are added to term limits and public campaign
financing, the City of New York will hit the trifecta of democratic
government. It will have what incumbent politicians everywhere, but
especially here in New York State, try to deny the citizenry - an open
election with a variety of real choices.
In New York City the Democratic primary is usually the only real
election. Not only is it an election that non-Democrats don’t have a
vote in, it is also an election most Democrats don’t have a real vote in
either. New York’s corrupt election laws are used to keep challengers
off the ballot. And even if they get on, the majority of those who show
up on primary day fall into the “fleece and flee” category of special
interests, not Democrats or citizens in general.
Non-partisan elections could produce the nightmare that machine
politicians most fear. On Election Day, the “appointed” candidate could
face another Democrat, one who isn’t in on the deal, in an election
where everyone shows up, including voters who aren’t in on the deal
either. This proposal is not a conspiracy against the Democratic Party
in New York; it could, in fact, revitalize it.
TOP
Randy Mastro
I write in support of the Charter Revision Commission’s proposal to create
non-partisan elections. As a former New York City Deputy Mayor and chair of two
such commissions, I had the opportunity to study this very issue. The
Commission’s ballot proposal largely tracks that which the prior commissions
that I chaired viewed positively and urged for future consideration. Well, the
future is now.
I enthusiastically endorse this proposal and urge New Yorkers to join the
national trend of cities embracing non-partisan elections for local offices.
More than 80% of America’s 50 largest cities now have non-partisan elections for
mayor. In Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit and so many other major cities across this country,
non-partisan elections are now the law. These cities have chosen to put partisan politics
aside in favor of open voting in a non-partisan format. New York City should do the same.
Non-partisan elections are about good government. As one of our greatest
mayors, Fiorello LaGuardia, once said, there is no Republican or Democrat way to
pick up the garbage. Partisan primaries have disenfranchised hundreds of
thousands of independent voters who cannot vote in party primaries, which are
often the only truly competitive races in a city still dominated by one
political party. This initiative is not an attack on partisan politics. It is a
recognition that the City’s interests have to come first, that voter inclusion
is preferable to partisan exclusion, and that municipalities benefit most from
an open electoral process that encourages voter participation and candidate
diversity.
The proof of this initiative’s worth is that so many other cities have tried
it and kept it. The national trend is in favor of non-partisan elections. We
fancy ourselves trendsetters here in New York, yet in this instance, we are
behind the curve. Now, this ballot proposition affords us the opportunity to
make a major advance, and we should embrace it.
Non-partisan elections are a better way to conduct municipal elections than
the partisan system we have now. Therefore, I urge all New Yorkers to vote "yes"
in favor of non-partisan elections and then use their newfound electoral power
to improve the governance of New York City.
TOP
Olga Mendez (NY State Senator)
Thanks to the Charter Revision Commission all voters in the City will be
empowered to select their representatives in government, including in free
elections.
For too long the voters have been denied the power that is inherently theirs.
As it was appropriated by the leadership of the Democratic Party; as soon as the
City became a one party town.
The same would hold true if the one party town in total control were the
Republican Party. Thus, the usual rhetoric of Democrats vs. Republicans is a
false argument used to oppose nonpartisan elections.
I support nonpartisan elections wholeheartedly. It is quite distressing to
hear arguments which I believe are rationalizations in an effort to block free
election. For example, it is argued that minority voting will suffer. To me that
is a very big joke. After the Democratic Party has taken the votes of minorities
for granted and after President Clinton moved the party to a centrist position
calling it “New Democrats”, the interest of the poor and the working poor were
put aside.
Now suddenly they are showing concern about the possibility that minorities
will stay home and not vote in numbers. Who are they trying to kid? The fact is
that in many Boroughs, such as Brooklyn, The Bronx, and Queens you just have to
look at the turn out in elections. For example in Brooklyn candidates for the
Assembly get elected with just 2,000-3,000 votes in districts with population
over 100,000, and this includes minority districts.
The Democratic Party and its bosses have always made it their business to
prevent large turn out of voters. What they actually have always worked for is
to just pull out the votes they control and that’s it. Everybody knows that.
For your information I am a Puerto Rican, what the Democratic Party in the
City of New York did to us in the 60’s was unconscionable. They came out with a
policy that we Puerto Ricans could not register to vote unless we took a
literacy test in English with a reading level of 6th grade. Democrats did that to us in
the same fashion done in the South, by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from
registering to vote by imposing poll taxes.
I would like to know what position on this issue “Good Government Groups”
will be publicly forthcoming. If they go against nonpartisan elections, then it
is easy to believe that this well known previous position on good government and
empowerment of the people was a sheer act of hypocrisy.
The same goes for the previous Democrats who called themselves Reformed
Democrats. This is the time for this group which also controls the Democratic
Party to define themselves.
True reform is giving the power back to the people. Nonpartisan elections in
an overwhelming number of cities in the country have worked very well, why?
Because it has prevented whichever party from denying one of the most sacred
rights we Americans have, and that is the right to vote.
In the final analysis, the people with their votes are committed to our
system of government, the best one ever designed. The people should have the
power in free election. Nonpartisan elections will make true democracy in the
greatest city on the planet Earth - New York City.
TOP
John Mooney (Vice Chairman, Station Agent Section, Transport Workers Union, Local 100)
The best and most significant history of the union movement is when unions
stand up for all workers and for the community.
In the case of the ballot Proposal to change City Elections, the union
bureaucracy is lining up with the Democratic Party bosses to oppose this
important change. That might be best for their own narrow interests but it does
not serve rank and file members or the community.
The question for the rank and file is -- what side are we on? Are we are the
side of the ordinary working people of the city or on the side of the union
bosses?
The working people of New York have diverse political affiliations and many of
us are independents who are locked out of meaningful participation in our city
elections.
As a union leader I believe we must do what is right and most noble. We must
stand for the rights of all working people and all the communities of New York.
That’s why I’m supporting the Proposal to change City Elections.
TOP
National Latino Officers Association (Anthony Miranda, Executive Chairman)
As someone who has run for public office and experienced firsthand the unfair
and wasteful aspects of our current partisan election system, I strongly support
a “yes” vote on the Proposal on City Elections.
Nonpartisan elections can eliminate the most important “entry barriers” that
candidates face when they try to run for office without the help of (or in
active opposition to) the party machine.
In partisan elections, access to the ballot is tightly controlled by this
machine, which uses New York’s outdated ballot access laws to knock competition
off the ballot. The Proposal on City Elections makes getting on the ballot
simpler and more democratic. This means the voters will have more choices.
The Proposal on City Elections also allows all registered voters, in every party
and those unaffiliated with a party, to participate in the September and
November elections. This means more voters have a say in who is elected, and
also means candidates will have to reach out to all constituents, not just
“primary” voters. A nonpartisan system makes elections more competitive, and
thus encourages more voter participation. A “yes” vote is how we Make Every Vote
Count!
TOP
New Era Democrats (John R. Orlando, Vice-President)
As most New Yorkers have seen with the scandalous process of electing county
judges, the system gives too much power to the parties and not enough to the
people. Citywide, there are over 830,000 voters not registered in the two
primary parties. Voting “YES” on nonpartisan elections would permit all voters
to select candidates in primaries as well as the general election. At least, the
new election process would force candidates to contact new constituencies and
meet with a diverse voter.
The opponents argue a nonpartisan system reduces voter turnout, splinters
minority voting power and eliminates parties. Studies of cities with an elected
mayor, using nonpartisan elections, prove these accusations wrong. In fact,
cities with a nonpartisan system have increased voter turnout and elected
minorities in greater percentages. Nonpartisan elections would not eliminate
parties, since candidates can opt to place party affiliation on the ballot.
Nonpartisan elections are not a cure for our political woes, but it is one step
closer to establishing an honest and more effective election process. Franklin
Roosevelt said “the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is
common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try
another. But above all, try something.”
TOP
100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care (Eric Adams, Co-Founder)
New York City is embarking upon an opportunity for voters to decide on how
elections are held in New York City. I believe it is important that each one of
us become knowledgeable to the facts surrounding this proposed charter revision.
As it currently stands, the system of choosing candidates is not open to all New
Yorkers. The proposed charter revisions are attempting to change that. In
contrast to the opposition propaganda, a non-partisan election process is not an
attempt to disenfranchise minorities or any particular party. It is in fact an
opportunity to open up the electoral process so all New Yorkers could
participate. Our system of elections cannot continue to lock out legal
registrants who decided that they do not want to be affiliated with any party,
but rather want to vote based on the issues.
The men and woman who fit into this group are registered as having no party
affiliation. Just because they chose this designation they are not allowed to
carry petitions, vote in primaries, or have a decision in shaping who will be on
the ballot during the general election. Please do not believe that this
population of “non-party affiliates” are a group of fringe New Yorkers. They are
your friends and neighbors. In some elections they vote for a democratic
candidate and other times they vote for one of the various other party lines
based on their individual preference for another candidate’s position.
Non-Party affiliates cross all demographics. Each year a steadily increasing
number of New Yorkers are adding their names to the ranks of non-party
affiliated. In 1990 12% of registered voters were considered as non-party
affiliates. That number has grown to 25% in the year 2002. Blacks and Hispanics
have followed this pace at the same rate as other groups, considering the fact
that in New York, 1/3 of the Asian voting population is non-party affiliated.
The proposed model by the Charter Review Commission addresses these concerns and
allow New York to join those other progressive cities that realize that the best
election system is that which includes all registrants’ participation in the
governmental decision making process.
TOP
People’s Coalition for Nonpartisan Municipal Elections (Lenora B. Fulani, Chair)
I strongly support a “Yes” vote on the Proposal on City Elections. I’ve been
traveling across the city debating Black and Latino elected officials on this
proposition, a reform which opens up elections to more voters and more
candidates. The debate always boils down to this: Are the interests of the
communities of color equivalent to the interests of the Democratic Party? The
Democratic machine and the party bosses say, “Yes.” My answer is “No”!
Black, Latino and Asian people are seeking more diverse political options
than ever before. 44% of Black young adults consider themselves independents,
not Democrats, but they are shut out under the current system. Growing numbers
of Latinos and Asians are becoming independents, too. We must include all
independent New Yorkers - there are nearly a million of us - if our political
system is to develop along with the actual changes taking place in our
communities. This is not a time to lock people out!
Nonpartisan elections open the door to greater minority empowerment. 41% of
the 50 largest U.S. cities with nonpartisan elections have elected Black or
Latino mayors. All New Yorkers can take advantage of this new system in creative
and empowering ways!
TOP
Gary Popkin
By eliminating partisan primary elections, this proposal uses tax money
more fairly by ending its use to help parties choose their candidates. It is not
right to ask enrolled Democrats to have their tax money used to help the
Republican Party pick its candidates; it is not right to ask enrolled
Republicans to have their tax money spent helping the Democrat Party pick
its candidates. The small parties select their candidates according to
party rules at their own expense--the Natural Law Party, the Constitution
Party, the Libertarian Party, the Marijuana Party, and even the Green Party,
now that it has lost its taxpayer subsidy, select their candidates according
to party rules, and the big parties can do it, too.
TOP
Pat Russo (City Council Candidate)
I strongly support a “yes” vote on the Proposal on City Elections. I am the
Republican, Independence and Conservative parties’ city council candidate in
the 43rd district. First, I believe non-partisan municipal elections are
the best step to have an issues-oriented campaign. As a first time city
council candidate, I see the system where party leaders decided which
candidates are on the ballot without much input from people in the district.
As a life-long Brooklyn resident and a prosecutor for New York State, I
believe the recent arrests and scandals involving our borough’s judiciary
demonstrate the need for changes to the current candidate selection process
in New York City for judges, in particular, and elected representatives, in
general.
This new election system would allow candidates to get on the ballot without
the support of party leadership. Individual candidates, free from party
control, will do the best job, I believe, to create an issue-oriented
campaign. As a result of forcing candidates to come forward and present
their individual positions on individual subjects, without just the blanket
approval or disapproval of a party, the electorate then has the choice to
make for the candidate who on balance represents his or her position. There
could be no better goal than to have a well-informed electorate and this
would be the best result on voting “yes” on the Proposal on City Elections.
TOP
George N. Spitz (Former Mayoral Candidate)
A Charter Revision Commission chaired by Dr. Frank J. Macchiarola, President
of St. Francis College has placed on the ballot three meritorious propositions.
The proposal on City Elections opens up the candidate nominating process to
several hundred thousand voters not registered in any political party. The
portion on City Purchasing provides for citywide coordination to enhance
opportunities for small businesses and minority and women-owned businesses.
The Section dealing with Government Administration is especially deserving of
voter support, particularly because it enhances the enforcement authority of the
Conflicts of Interest Board by allowing increased penalties for violations of
the City’s ethics laws. A strong vote for this section sends a message that
citizens of New York City desire clean government.
Passage of one or more Charter Revision proposals encourages a much needed
ongoing process of improving how the city functions, New York City has a history
of providing better government and enhanced public services when the Charter is
reformed by referendum either at the initiative of the Mayor or civic groups.
The Campaign Finance Law, including this very Voter Guide, is the product of a
1988 Charter Revision Commission chaired by Fredrick A. O. Schwarz, currently
Campaign Finance Board Chairman.
TOP
Christopher B. Spuches
I am writing this letter in enthusiastic support of non-partisan municipal
elections for New York City.
Last year I ran for State Assembly. I’d been a member of the Democratic Party
since I registered to vote. When I attempted to challenge an incumbent in the
Democratic Party primary, however, I faced the wrath of the party machine.
First, the Democratic Party summoned me to a loyalty hearing. At this pre-trial
procedure, I was found not to be “in sympathy with the principles of the
Party”-even though I supported the Party’s platform on key issues. Next, the
courts, upon the Democratic Party’s recommendation, formally expelled me from
the Democratic Party.
I became the first person to be expelled from a party in New York County.
Consequently, I was barred from running or even voting in the Democratic Party
primary.
I’m not alone; each year, both parties bounce challengers off primary ballots to
protect their preferred candidate. This chilling effect stifles new ideas and
leads to stagnant thinking and an inefficient government.
With non-partisan municipal elections, this will no longer happen. The power to
nominate candidates will be returned to the people, where it belongs, and away
from the backroom politics of political parties. That’s a big win for all New
Yorkers.
TOP
Staten Island Independence Party (Steven K. Isler)
Is it an election when everyone knows in advance who’s going to win every
seat on the City Council, before even one vote is cast?
Oh sure, you can vote for a Council candidate if you want, but it won’t make
any difference.
Politicians call that democracy. Do you? Or would you prefer a system where
every candidate has an exactly equal chance to get on the ballot and your vote
might actually make a difference.
Independent candidates need 2,700 signatures to get on the ballot (Democrats
need 900), and then they are relegated to the sixth column of the voting
machine. Is that fair? And is it any wonder that most sensible people don’t even
bother trying? The problem is not that the best candidate doesn’t win; it’s that
the best candidates don’t even get on the playing field.
We must restore the power of democracy to the people of New York, as most
other cities have done. It’s a matter of fairness, of equal access to the ballot
for every citizen, not just the politicians’ favorites.
Your vote for City Council is a wasted vote. But your vote for open elections
will count for years to come.
TOP
Robert A. Straniere (New York State Assembly)
I am writing to reiterate my support for the Charter revision to authorize
non-partisan elections in New York City. In May of this year I submitted
testimony in support of the revision at Commission hearings held in Staten
Island.
Fourteen years ago, I first urged the New York City Charter Revision
Commission to seriously consider non-partisan city elections, as well as the
decentralization of certain municipal functions to restore certain local
decision-making power back to the boroughs.
As with school board elections, candidates for all city offices should be
allowed to run on their own qualifications, not some arbitrary political party
label. Running city government depends more on one’s ability to effectively
manage the delivery of municipal services than on one’s political ideology.
In my judgement, non-partisan elections will increase the pool of qualified
candidates who might not otherwise run because of their own personal political
party affiliation. It will also save the city form the high cost of expensive,
publicly financed primary elections.
I believe that the switch to this non-partisan selection method will
stimulate the electoral process in a positive way, as more diverse ideas and
points of view will be allowed to come to the surface for public debate and
scrutiny. Such action can only benefit the public policy-making process, and for
this and the above reasons I strongly urge that you support Charter revision in
favor on non-partisan City elections.
TOP
J. Phillip Thompson (Associate Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
I write to urge that voters support amendments to the City Charter that will
establish a new system of elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate,
Comptroller, Borough President, and Council member.
I offer three reasons in support of Charter reform. First, electoral reform
is needed to increase citizen participation in elections. Currently, political
incumbents find it easy to use the difficult ballot access process as a way of
limiting political competition. The result is political stagnation in the
communities most in need of political mobilization and activism. Arguments that
electoral reform will weaken the power of historically disadvantaged communities
of color are not supported by evidence from other cities using non-partisan
voting systems similar to the Charter Revision Commission’s proposed electoral
reform.
Second, it is noteworthy that advances in minority representation in New York
in recent decades has consistently followed on the heels of electoral reform.
This was true of lawsuits brought against legislative redistricting plans
brought under the Voting Rights Act that helped elect minority representatives
in Brooklyn. It was true of the lawsuit eliminating the Board of Estimate that
led a weakening of political machine power and the election of David Dinkins,
the City’s only minority mayor. It was true of reform expanding the size of the
City Council in 1991 that resulted in more minority representation, and more
diverse representation among minorities, on the City Council. It was true of
term limits that also resulted in a more lively and diverse City Council. In
each case, electoral reform was vigorously opposed by political incumbents. It
is no different today.
Third, supporting the Charter Revision Commission’s proposed changes in
electoral procedures does not preclude the pursuit of other important electoral
reform proposals--such as same day voter registration and voting rights for
non-citizen taxpayers--in the near future. The proposed reform is a helpful step
in addressing a growing disjunction between the rapidly changing city
population--in terms of political orientation and ethnicity--and electoral
bodies that resist change and incorporation of these new voices.
TOP
|
