|
Bill Lynch (Charter Revision Commission)
As a member of the Charter Revision Commission, I strongly urge a NO vote on changing City Elections. This proposal would eliminate party primaries, a right that voters have had since 1911. The proposed system is a hybrid, free-for-all where multiple candidates from each party run together and optionally list their party affiliations even if they have not earned their party’s nomination. This system is only used in Jacksonville, Minneapolis, and Louisiana. It was not proven to increase voter participation. It tends to qualify extremist candidates for runoffs, ends fusion politics, and undermines the Campaign Finance Law.
This is a solution in search of a problem. I believe in party voters being able to nominate the candidates who reflect their views. We have an able and diverse City Council as a result of that process. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
To increase voter participation, we should implement Election Day voter registration, extend voting days, and let permanent resident non-federal citizens participate in our municipal elections. These proposals did not make the ballot.
I urge you to reject the proposal on City Elections. For more information, see my Minority Report to the Charter Revision Commission at www.nyc.gov/charter.
TOP
Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J. (Charter Revision Commission)
I decided to vote against putting on the ballot the
recommendations for changes in city elections.
It is not clear what kind of research could provide persuasive
evidence that the elimination of party primaries would promote the important
goals of greater voter participation and citizen engagement.
After considering the testimony from many citizens and groups
over the past several months, I remain concerned about the possible unintended
negative consequences of such a fundamental change. In particular, I am
concerned about the possible damage done to third parties and fusion tickets;
about the great irony that the elimination of party primaries could actually
increase the power of party bosses by stripping away the right of party rank and
file to vote in party primaries; and, most of all, about the dangers this
fundamental change poses for New York City’s Campaign Finance Program, dangers
which the staff of the Commission may not understand and certainly do not
appreciate.
While it is true that elected public officials and Democratic
Party leaders were vehement in their opposition to this proposal, it is also
true that every good government argued against this proposal.
For these reasons, I must vote against the changes in City
Elections.
TOP
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York opposes
the proposal to establish “nonpartisan” elections for City offices. There has
been no showing that such a dramatic change will produce the benefits its
proponents claim. While the proponents’ main argument is that independent voters
do not participate in party primaries, there is no evidence that independent
voters’ interests are being ignored (and they can register in a party if they
choose), nor that nonpartisan elections would increase voter participation. City
elections have been highly competitive; three of the last six mayors have been
Republicans. Also, our political system, while not without fault, has shown a
capacity for electoral reforms - such as public campaign financing and term
limits - which have expanded electoral choice.
We are concerned about the impact of nonpartisan elections on the City’s
excellent campaign financing system. A shift to nonpartisan elections may have
the unfortunate, anomalous result of allowing parties to spend far more on
candidates than they can presently. Furthermore, nonpartisan elections would
weaken political parties, affecting their important role in balancing various
interests, vetting government decisions and forging the compromises which are
important to City governance.
TOP
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law (Deborah Goldberg)
Every good government group that testified before the Charter Revision
Commission opposed placing electoral change on the ballot. Our top reasons to
vote “NO” on the ballot proposal on City elections are: (1) The Commission refused to do the careful study and analysis that should
precede such a major change to the City’s election system. The public now cannot
assess the impact of the system on communities protected under the Voting Rights
Act. (2) The proposed system is used in only two cities (Jacksonville, FL, and
Minneapolis, MN) and Louisiana. In Louisiana, it allowed former KKK leader David
Duke to become the Republican candidate for governor. Here, too, the proposed
system may help extremist candidates. (3) The proposed system denies political parties the right to place
endorsements on the ballot, while allowing candidates to list only their party
membership. The change would hurt minor parties (such as the Conservative Party
and Working Families Party), which are a vibrant part of New York’s political
system and provide useful information to voters. (4) The proposed system seriously threatens the City’s successful and
well-regarded campaign finance program, by separating candidates from their
parties and opening a loophole for huge party expenditures.
TOP
Citizen Action of New York City (Michele J. Maglione, Director)
Don’t be fooled by the claim that this proposal will clean up New York City
Elections. Let’s look at the arguments:
THEY SAY: New York City is a one-party town.
WE SAY: It is true that Democratic registrants outweigh Republican
registrants. This has not stopped Republicans from winning. Look at Gracie
Mansion: a Republican has been in residence there for more than a decade.
THEY SAY: Candidates will be able to list their party-affiliation on the
ballot.
WE SAY: Party registration does not mean commitment to a party’s platform.
There is no truth-in-advertising provision- BUYER BEWARE!
THEY SAY: This will increase voter participation.
WE SAY: This hasn’t been proven. There are proven methods to increase voter
participation. Publicly financed elections are one of them. This proposal would
dilute the NYC Campaign Finance program, amongst the finest in the country.
Father O’Hare, the former Chair of the NYC CFB, voted against this proposal.
Want to increase voter participation? Implement programs proven to do that: same
day voter registration; extended voting days; and non-federal citizen voting.
THEY SAY: Voting Rights Act issues.
WE SAY: Voting rights experts did not testify about the program we will be
voting on. It’s anybody’s guess as to how this system would impact communities
of color.
TOP
Citizens Union
Citizens Union urges New Yorkers to Vote “No” on eliminating party primaries
for office in New York City for the following reasons:
Eliminating party primaries deprives voters of important information about
candidates’ platforms and policy intentions. In a fast-paced, ethnically diverse
city like New York, the ability of voters to effectively recognize the
affiliation of candidates with the parties that support them provides critically
important information about candidates’ political frame of reference.
No convincing evidence has been presented that the elimination of party
primaries increases voter participation. Though the data is not conclusive, studies indicate that voter participation, especially in minority and
lower-income communities, decreased in cities that eliminated party primaries.
Elimination of party primaries is likely to remove an important avenue for
minority and less affluent candidates to run for office, and open the door for
fractured races that favor wealthy candidates.
No convincing evidence has been presented that the elimination of party
primaries reduces the influence of party organizations in election outcomes.
Because party organizations continue to exist in cities that have eliminated
party primaries, the organizations remain in a position to choose candidates
behind closed doors, proceeding to place their organizational and financial
resources behind those candidates.
TOP
Common Cause/NY (Rachel Leon, Executive Director)
Common Cause/NY joins the chorus of civic organizations in New York City urging a no vote on the
proposal to prohibit New Yorkers from voting in political party primaries. This
change which would be a dramatic shift for city voters, has been rushed to the
polls by an undemocratic charter revision commission whose Chair stated his
intention to put this question on the ballot before holding a single meeting.
There has not been enough vigorous public debate on the impact of such a
fundamental change or of the serious unintended consequences that may result.
First, there is a fear that non-partisan elections could open the door to
unregulated soft money spending by political parties that would no longer be
constrained by the provisions of state law or city rules. As an organization
that has fought the abuses of soft money spending, we share a deep concern that
this proposal could exacerbate this problem.
Second, voting rights groups have raised questions that ending party primaries
could lower voter turnout, decrease information to voters, and advantage wealthy
candidates, making elections more about name recognition than issues. For more
information on the proposal, please visit
www.commoncause.org
TOP
Leroy Comrie (City Council Member)
While the intent is laudatory, the effect of this proposal could prove
counter-productive. Testimony before the Commission indicated that voter turnout
could decrease; voters could lose the right to play an important role in party
governance and third parties like the Working Families and Independent Parties
as well as fusion tickets would be harmed. The democratic process will be
curtailed-not expanded. This proposal is being challenged by almost every group
that have, themselves, long supported an open and free democracy.
TOP
Bill de Blasio (City Council Member)
This proposal calls for the elimination of party primaries. Eliminating party
primaries from city elections would be a step in the wrong direction.
New York City has already made historic changes to its election system with the
adoption of term limits and the best municipal campaign finance program in the
country. These reforms have opened up our election system and made it possible
for hundreds of candidates to run for public office. In 2001, there were
approximately 250 candidates who ran for office. In my primary race alone I
faced five other challengers. Throughout the city we saw dynamic and competitive
campaigns that energized voters and brought more New Yorkers into the political
process.
Whatever is wrong with our politics will not be fixed by eliminating party
primaries.
This is especially true given that the elimination of party primaries could
undermine everything we’ve achieved up to now as a result of city’s landmark
campaign finance program. The elimination of party primaries would favor
millionaires and billionaires who run for office by enhancing the role money and
special interests play in elections. Why change the system to favor the wealthy?
I urge New Yorkers to vote NO on this ballot proposal.
TOP
David N. Dinkins (Former Mayor)
I am opposed to the proposal to change city elections because it would require
the elimination of party primaries, and I urge New Yorkers to vote against it.
Party primaries and strong campaign finance guidelines have helped to produce a
representative government, one that includes the City’s first African American
Comptroller, a Latino President of the Borough of The Bronx, two African
American women as Presidents of the Boroughs of Manhattan and Queens, and a City
Council that seats 25 people of color among its 51 members - including the first
Asian American elected City official.
We can, and we will, achieve even greater diversity in the years to come, but
eliminating party primaries is not a step in that direction. It would, instead,
be a step backward.
Join me in voting ‘No’ on this ballot proposal on November 4th!
TOP
Herman “Denny” Farrell, Jr. (NY State Democratic Committee Chair)
This proposal would eliminate Democratic primary elections entirely.
Vote NO because:
Party Primaries Empower Voters
Party primaries are open to all voters who choose to register with a party and
who choose to participate. Party primaries give voters the opportunity to come
together and directly choose their own party’s candidates for the general
election. The elimination of party primaries would take that power away from 2.7
million Democrats.
Proposed Election System is Flawed
The proposed system would:
Create confusion by replacing party primaries with “free-for-all”
September elections that pit candidates from all parties or no parties against
each other. In this system, Democrats would no longer compete against other
Democrats in the September election. Instead, Democrats would compete against
Republican, Independence, Conservative and Democratic Party candidates to try
and make it into a November run-off election. All of these candidates running in
the September election would be lumped on a unified ballot, just like in the
California recall election.
Allow stealth candidates on the ballot. Party labels may or may not
appear on the ballot next to any given candidate’s name–it all depends on
whether a candidate wants to let voters know what he or she stands for.
TOP
Eric Gioia (City Council Member)
I urge you to vote no on the City Charter amendment regarding eliminating
primary elections.
This referendum will actually magnify the effect of big money in elections, turn
voters away from the issues and towards candidates’ ethnicities, and even
increase the power of political parties.
Today, ballots list candidates’ party affiliation. By eliminating primaries,
there could be a long list of candidates to choose from, like the California
fiasco, and with no requirement to list party affiliation, voters may rely more
on the kind of last name candidates have rather than the issues they stand for.
In addition, parties can’t spend money in primaries, but under the proposed
system, nothing would prevent a party from spending on one candidate, giving him
or her a huge advantage-and giving voters even less choice in choosing what
candidates they want on the ballot.
Lastly, right now, you can’t spend your way onto the ballot-you have to be
affiliated with a party. But with “non-partisan” elections, if you spend enough,
you’re virtually assured a place on the ballot.
Non-partisan elections are a step backwards for New York City. Vote no!
TOP
Betsy Gotbaum (Public Advocate)
The charter revision proposal to eliminate party primaries by moving to a
nonpartisan election system would drastically alter the way we elect our
government representatives.
Party primaries play a vital role in our electoral system. Primaries allow for
citizens to engage with important civic issues early in the political process,
and ensure that candidates develop policy platforms that matter to voters.
Doing away with party primaries would diminish the role of ideas, ideals, and
ideology in campaigning. Instead, campaigns would focus on promotional
advertisements that lack substance. This would give an unfair advantage to
wealthy candidates, who would be able to outspend their competitors and raise
their visibility among voters, regardless of their past experience and work in
serving the public or the public good.
From personal experience I know how difficult it is for a woman to get elected
to city-wide office. The elimination of primaries would jeopardize the very
diversity that we have achieved, making it more difficult for women and people
of color to get elected.
Without the political engagement and selection process afforded by primaries,
voters would be more confused at the polls when faced with potentially dozens of
candidates (as is the case now in California). This could have a devastating
effect on voter turnout. For all of these reasons, I say no to the elimination
of party primaries.
TOP
A. Gifford Miller (Speaker, City Council)
The Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission has proposed three ballot questions.
I believe that each proposal is ill advised and I urge you to vote no on all
three.
The proposal to eliminate party primaries alters dramatically the manner in
which you elect your local representatives. Political parties, be they Democrat,
Republican, Working Families, Independent, or other, serve a vital function in
our democratic process. Without party labels, you will not be able to identify
what a candidate’s beliefs are, which is extremely dangerous. There will be
confusion, manipulation and undue influence by wealthy candidates and candidates
with hidden and extremist views.
The elimination of party primaries may also violate the federal voting rights
act. Party primary elections are one place that minority combined votes can have
an impact, and help overcome electoral obstacles and barriers. Thus, the
proposal may directly dilute the voting strengths of people of color.
With regard to so-called procurement reforms and agency reorganization, a few
may be arguably of merit, but others are confused, ill thought and ill prepared.
For example the proposed changes to city’s campaign finance law could lead many
candidates to opt out of the program, which is why Rev. Joseph O’Hare, former
chair of the CFB and member of the Commission, opposed the changes. Eliminating
the Preliminary Management Report would remove an important tool for monitoring
agency spending. The Charter Commission was the wrong place for these
recommendations since the entire menu of proposed changes could be accomplished
by local law after public hearings and testimony. This is how laws are passed
and enacted - thoughtfully and with due deliberation.
I urge no votes on all three proposals.
TOP
Douglas Muzzio (Professor, Baruch College, CUNY)
The proposed election system is a rarely used and never studied hybrid: a two
stage election with the first round open to all candidates irrespective of party
affiliation and a general election with the top two vote getters (with party
affiliation on the ballot, if desired). The commission
studied none of the 10 cities with such runoffs and only one of the three cities
(and Louisiana) which allow party affiliation on both ballots. Worse, the
commission did not examine this system as it might interact with New York’s
unique demography, geography, and politics, particularly the synergistic effects
with term limits and campaign finance.
Among the questions unaddressed, let
alone unanswered are: What’s the politics and governance that result from such a
system? What replaces parties? How’s the quality of government going to improve? Will services get
better?
Commissioners O’Hare and Lynch, in their dissents, pointed to unintended,
unwanted, negative consequences, that might arise, noting the dangers posed to
the campaign finance law, the possible perverse strengthening of party leaders,
and the fostering of extremist candidacies.
These unintended negative consequences will result from the failure of the
commission to produce objective, rigorous, methodologically sound analyses. The
commission’s reports are replete with omissions, errors in logic and fact,
questionable assumptions, and unsupported projections.
TOP
New York Public Interest Research Group (Gene Russianoff)
The New York Public Interest Research Group urges a no vote on the proposal
to prohibit New Yorkers from voting in political party primaries. The proposal:
- would be a dangerous risk for the city, greatly changing our voting rights
in ways no one can now fairly predict. That’s because the Charter Revision
Commission didn’t do its homework. Opponents raised serious questions, including
whether killing party primaries would lower voter turnout, advantage wealthy
candidates, and make elections less about issues and more about celebrity. But
the commission didn’t fully address these issues, instead racing to
get on the ballot.
-
would undermine the city’s campaign finance law, which is designed
to reduce the influence of special interests. That’s because party spending
in a party primary is now constrained by state law and city rules, but would
not under the proposal.
- is the product of a bad process. The commission had a closed mind.
Its chairman announced the outcome in advance and top staff served simultaneously
in jobs on the payroll of Mayor Bloomberg, the proposal’s chief
proponent.
- is opposed by the city’s leading non-partisan civic groups. For
more information on the proposal, go to
www.nypirg.org.
TOP
New York State Democratic Committee
Vote NO because:
Party Primaries Empower Voters
This proposal would eliminate Democratic primary elections entirely and would deny 2.7 million Democrats a collective voice in city elections. Party primaries have long been our way of ensuring that voters get to choose their own party’s candidates. The elimination of party primaries would take power away from voters and return it to “party bosses.”
Negative Consequences of New System
The elimination of party primaries would likely:
Favor millionaires and billionaires running for office;
Undermine the city’s landmark campaign finance program, which has helped
hundreds of candidates, including minorities, women and immigrants, run for
office;
Create confusion;
Undermine the political impact of minorities;
Benefit extremist candidates;
Deprive voters of information gained from cross-endorsements; and
Limit voters’ choices in November elections to two candidates who may be
from the same party.
Tainted Process, Tainted Outcome
Mayor Bloomberg handpicked the Charter Commission to put this proposal on the ballot. Before the full Commission was appointed or the public was heard from, the Charter Commission’s Chair said a proposal to eliminate party primaries would be put on the ballot. Despite inconclusive evidence on the impacts of eliminating party primaries, the Commission rubber stamped the Mayor’s proposal.
TOP
Charles B. Rangel (Congressman)
I take this opportunity to state my strong opposition to this ballot proposal
that would eliminate party primaries. Political parties were developed based on
core philosophical beliefs and principles that appeal to the electorate and to
candidates who share in those beliefs and principles. There are many political
parties and persons eligible to vote may enroll in any of them or be
unaffiliated. In a democracy, majority rules and 2.7 million Democrats should
not be denied the opportunity to come together in a primary to choose their
party’s nominee to run in the General Election. While there are changes that
could improve our electoral process, this proposal is not one of them. Given the
importance of money in seeking high public office, adopting this proposal will
place the working class and people of color at a disadvantage while creating
advantages and opportunities for those of great personal wealth. If adopted,
this proposal will create confusion and provide elections similar to the “circus
like” California recall election now taking place.
On November 4th, join with me and thousands of others in voting NO on this
proposal to eliminate party primaries.
TOP
Helen Sears (City Council Member)
I do not support the Charter Revision’s Proposal to change the way New York
City elections are conducted. People identify political parties with a set of
ideals and values. Many people who want to participate in an election, but do
not know a lot about the candidates still go to the polls because they trust
their political party to nominate an individual who aligns him or herself with
the party platform. Ultimately, I believe that this will lower voter turnout.
TOP
Stonewall Democratic Club NYC (Tom Smith, President)
My name is Tom Smith and I am the President of the Stonewall Democratic Club
NYC. At a meeting in June we co-hosted a forum at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Community Services Center on 13th St. with members of both sides of
the issue many from the Charter Commission. In August our members voted against
this hybrid primary system that is being placed on the ballot as a violation of
our freedom of speech and our party’s right to raise money for the candidate of
our choice, an issue that the Federal Supreme Court has ruled on many times.
The ballot proposal would eliminate party primaries, a reform instituted in
1911, this was done so that it would help rid the power of the party Bosses.
Party primaries give the party members the say in who the nominee of their party
is. It will remove the very heart of the system that created reforms in this
city for the poor, people of color and for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender communities. Under the proposed system, a smaller group of people,
perhaps only party leaders, will designate their endorsements increasing the
influence of big money on an already burdened system, and destroying a well
balanced public campaign finance system.
People of color have more representation in the Democratic Party in New York
than they have in the general population. The new proposal would dilute the
voting strength of people of color and we believe is a clear violation of The
Federal Voting Rights Act. If this passes we can look forward to the years of
court battles it will take to reverse this ill thought plan.
Almost every good government group in New York is opposed to this proposal,
including the Brennan Center, Demos, NYPIRG, and Citizens Union. Leaders of most
of the major parties are against it, also (Democrats, Republicans, Working
Families, and Conservatives). It is a rare moment in the history of this city
that I can remember so many groups that never liked each other speaking out
against one bad piece of bad public policy.
In summary we of the Stonewall Democratic Club NYC are very much opposed to
this revision of the New York City Charter.
TOP
Women’s City Club of New York
The Women’s City Club of New York opposes the proposed change to nonpartisan
elections for New York City Mayor, Comptroller, Public Advocate and City Council
and urges voters to VOTE NO!
We are an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded by
suffragists in 1915. For 88 years we have encouraged greater public
participation in the electoral process, but we have found no evidence that the
proposed change would increase voter turnout, help voters to make well-informed
choices or increase the representation of under-represented groups, including
women, in elected office.
The more compelling arguments point to the fact that party designations
help voters to understand who they are voting for and increase voter turnout.
The many cities throughout the United States with nonpartisan elections
are just as prone to low voter turnout as cities with partisan elections.
Voters have a choice. If they wish to participate in a political
party’s primaries, they are free to register in that party.
We can find no valid reason to experiment with the way New York City elections
are conducted.
TOP
Working Families Party (Dan Cantor, Chair)
The Mayor’s proposal is good for wealthy candidates who can buy their way
into public life. It’s good for candidates who want to disguise what they stand
for. But that doesn’t mean it’s good for the rest of us.
A “non-partisan” system is like TEAMS WITHOUT UNIFORMS. Imagine a football
game with all players wearing identical jerseys. No team name, no number, no
logo, just the player’s name. It would be hard to know who to root for.
Same goes for voting. When a party says “So-and-So is our candidate,” voters
get a sense of what that candidate stands for. Few people have the time to
research every candidate’s positions and qualifications. You need a signal.
That’s what a party label and party primary are about.
When a candidate runs Republican-Conservative, that means one thing. When
they run Democrat-Working Families, that means another. Voters can make up their
own minds if they have good information, and this proposal - by wiping out this
kind of major party/minor party “fusion” ticket - will make good information
harder to come by.
We have both Giants and Jets fans in the WFP. And we like the fact that they
wear different uniforms. Vote NO.
TOP
| 
