History
The concept of nonpartisan 'basis' elections was born of an erroneous opinion regarding the best way to run a popular government, and based on the mistaken idea that you can simply wish away the nature of humanity.
The Founders understood that the division of the people into "factions" or groups was a natural development in a free society.
In the Federalist Papers, Madison defines a faction as a number of citizens...united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Madison explains that there are only two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: by removing its causes, or by controlling its effects.
He further states that it is impossible to remove the causes of faction without either destroying liberty, which is unthinkable; or by giving to every citizen the same opinions, passions and interests, which is impracticable.
Therefore, in order to protect liberty, the Founders chose NOT to try to remove the causes of factions, but to control their effects. So, rather than establishing a "Pure Democracy," they created a "Republic" where factions and/or parties exist, but are held in check by constitutional law.
Nonpartisan elections are in direct conflict with the constitutional principles under which our nation was founded.
What Happened in Minnesota?
In 1913, the Minnesota legislature was designated as nonpartisan by historical accident when a bill to provide for no-party (nonpartisan) election of judges and county officers was amended to include the legislature in the belief that it would kill the bill, but the bill still passed.
We can only suppose that those who originally proposed the arcane idea of nonpartisan elections thought they could take politics out of politics and eliminate the animosity associated with the word 'partisanship.'
This did not happen, in fact, it only weakened the electoral process by concealing the party designations of the candidates from the voters, restricting choices, stifling debate and limiting accountability.
1973, the Minnesota legislature finally realized these adverse effects and re-adopted partisan designations for the legislature, as well as for the mayoral and city council offices of all Cities of the First Class.
Bill of Goods in St. Paul?
The City of St. Paul, a home rule charter city since 1972, took a backward step in 1978 by re-adopting nonpartisan elections for its mayor and city council offices, just five years after such offices were designated as partisan by the legislature.
Prior to being foisted on the unsuspecting voters as simply a "no party designation" amendment, the nonpartisan elections idea was sold to the city council and Mayor George Latimer (by the charter commission) under the pretense that it was "easily understood by all the electorate." (see 1978 charter commission letter)
We believe this was a completely inaccurate assumption as very few people understood the amendment at that time, and still don’t today!
It is our contention that most (if not all) of the people who voted in favor of the amendment did not understand the meaning of the words ‘nonpartisan basis’ or their adverse effects.
In fact, our research clearly shows that voters supported the amendment only because they believed that the candidates would be nonpartisan, and free from party affiliation, bias & influence, and they are not!
A rational, thinking person simply would not have knowingly supported an amendment that concealed the party designations of candidates, restricted choices, stifled debate, and limited accountability.
A prime example of this widespread misunderstanding is the recent effort to recall former St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly in which the partisan group claimed that the mayor had not acted in a nonpartisan manner and that he had changed his mind.
The St. Paul Charter DOES NOT require the Mayor to "be" or "act" nonpartisan, nor does it prohibit the mayor from changing his/her mind, it only requires that mayoral candidates run in nonpartisan 'basis' elections. (see St. Paul Charter )
With a twist?
In 1983, the City of Minneapolis also took a backwards step by adopting nonpartisan 'basis' elections for its mayor and city council offices.
Ironically, the Minneapolis nonpartisan 'basis' elections which were foisted on their unsuspecting voters actually REQUIRE party designations or political philosophies to be printed on the ballot! (see 2001 primary and general ballots, and 1983 Charter)
When you consider some of the so-called "political philosophies" listed on their primary ballot such as "Old Skool", "No snow emergencies", and "White Working Mans", it quickly becomes obvious that this election format is not only a mockery of itself, but also of the voters.
The Minneapolis nonpartisan elections clearly illustrate the absurdity of the entire concept of nonpartisan elections and nonpartisan designations.
The 2006 proposal by the Minneapolis City Council to institute “Run-Off” elections and give voters multiple choices is yet another ill-conceived idea that will further remove voters from the electoral process. (see Instant Runoff)
Partisan
‘basis’ elections offer
voters stronger, more open
elections and the only real
opportunity to cast an
informed, meaningful vote!
Catch - 22
In 2003, the voters of New York City soundly rejected a nonpartisan charter amendment for its city elections. In contrast, their amendment included a provision banning political party support as well as contributions from political action committees and special interest groups.
We believe that if this 'truly nonpartisan' amendment had passed, it would have violated the guaranteed First Amendment rights of the citizens to gather and speak freely as members of identifiable political groups.
In Central Florida, the Department of State recently issued an opinion prohibiting candidates (in so-called nonpartisan elections) from advertising or promoting their party affiliations. (see Orlando Weekly article 3/18/04)
While this further illustrates the absurdity of nonpartisan elections, it also violates the First Amendment rights of the candidates and severely impacts the voters' ability to influence the political process.
Make History!
Nonpartisan elections, in any form, are unconstitutional and must be abolished!
You can help eliminate the underhanded politics of nonpartisan elections and restore true democratic principles to our electoral process.
Contact us today for more information!
