New York City Campaign Finance Board
 
NYC Ballot proposals: question 3        
 

Question 3: City Elections
Official Text

This proposal would amend the City Charter to establish a new system of city elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and Council member. The September primary election would be open to all voters and all candidates, regardless of party membership or independent status. The top two vote getters would compete in the November general election. In both elections, candidates could indicate their party membership or independent status on the ballot. Candidates participating in the voluntary campaign finance program, which provides public campaign funding, could not accept contributions from political parties or party committees. The new system would replace the current system of political party nominations through primary elections in which only party members may vote. The changes would take effect after the 2005 Citywide election. Shall this proposal be adopted?

Official Summary (prepared by the Charter Revision Commission)

This proposal would make changes to the way the City conducts its elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council Member. The proposal would provide for a single September primary election open to all eligible voters and candidates, and the top two vote getters in that election would compete in the November general election. The changes would take effect after the 2005 citywide election and apply to all elections, including special elections to fill vacancies in office.

How it Works - Currently, candidates who are running for elected office compete against each other in party primary elections (followed in certain instances by runoff primaries). In these elections, which are held in September, each party’s members cast ballots to decide the general election nominee of that party. Candidates may also be nominated for the general election through an independent nominating petition process. Under the proposed system, all candidates for an office would run against each other in the September primary election. Voters would be eligible to vote for any candidate, including a candidate who belongs to a different political party or is registered as an independent. Only the top two finishers in the primary election, regardless of their party or independent registration status, would compete in the November general election.

Who is Eligible to Vote - Currently, only registered voters who are enrolled in political parties may vote in primary elections. Voters registered as independents cannot participate until the general election. Under the proposed system, all voters, including independent voters not enrolled in any party, would be eligible to participate in the primary election.

Ballot Access - Currently, registered voters who carry or sign a petition to place a candidate on the ballot generally must be enrolled in the same party as the candidate petitioning to get on the ballot. Under the proposed system, all eligible registered voters, regardless of their party enrollment or independent status, would be permitted to carry and sign a petition to place a candidate on the ballot. In addition, the maximum number of petition signatures required would generally be the same maximum number that is currently provided for candidates to be placed on the primary election ballot. The new signature requirements would also apply to candidates in special elections to fill vacancies.

The Ballot - Currently, the ballot lists a candidate’s party affiliation. Under the proposed system, candidates would be permitted, but not required, to list their party registration or independent status on the ballot.

Political Party Campaign Contributions - Currently, all candidates, including those who participate in the City’s voluntary campaign finance program, which provides money from the City treasury to help fund candidates’ campaigns, are permitted to accept campaign contributions from political parties, up to specified limits, but candidates may not accept contributions from corporations or unregistered political committees. Under the proposed system, candidates who participate in the campaign finance program would also be prohibited from accepting campaign contributions from political parties. In addition, the Campaign Finance Board would have the authority to address party expenditures in relation to candidates participating in the City’s campaign finance program in order to protect the contribution and spending limits of the program under the new system of elections.

Voter Guide - Currently, all candidates may place biographical summaries, campaign information, and a picture of themselves in the printed Voter Guide. This proposal would create a video Voter Guide that broadcasts candidates making brief statements on a municipal cable television channel.

Vacancies in Nominations - Currently, if a candidate dies or a nomination otherwise becomes vacant, the candidate’s committee to fill vacancies generally chooses a successor to run in his or her place, if time allows. Under the new system, the next eligible top vote getter in the primary election could fill the vacancy and advance to the general election accordingly. If the vacancy could not be filled in that manner, then a committee to fill vacancies would fill it.

TOP





 

Pro and Con Arguments (prepared by the Campaign Finance Board)

PRO: The Charter Revision Commission conducted an open and thorough review. It held several public meetings in each borough, had among its members highly qualified civic leaders representing varied backgrounds, and operated in a fair and independent manner to come up with a proposal to increase voter and candidate participation in the electoral process, especially among racial and political groups whose participation has been limited.

CON: The Commission, as chosen by the Mayor, did not fairly or independently study the issues. The Chair of the Commission announced that certain changes to the City’s election process would be placed on the ballot before the Commission members had a chance to study the issues. The Commission has failed to demonstrate that the current system is inadequate, and in fact, the proposal might decrease voter turnout, decrease opportunities for minorities and small party candidates, and increase the role of money and celebrity in elections.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: Most major U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago, hold nonpartisan elections. New York City already provides for nonpartisan special elections to fill vacancies in the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council Member. Although the Commission’s proposal permits party labels for candidates on the ballot and is therefore not the same as a strictly “nonpartisan” election, it is similar in that it eliminates party primaries.

CON: Most major cities are not comparable to New York City and have different political cultures and political histories. Jacksonville, Minneapolis, and New Orleans are the only major U.S. cities that have election systems comparable to the Commission’s proposal. Even in cities that have experience with nonpartisan elections, evidence is inconclusive about achieving the stated goals of the Commission.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: The Democratic Party dominates New York City politics, so the Democratic Party primary often determines who wins the general election. Voters not enrolled in this party currently are disenfranchised because they cannot vote in the Democratic primary elections. The Commission’s proposal, by permitting all voters to vote in the primary elections, will enfranchise these voters and increase voter turnout.

CON: No New York City voter is “disenfranchised.” Any voter can choose to be enrolled in a party and exercise the right to participate in that party’s primary. There is no evidence that voter turnout will increase in New York City because of the proposed change.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: Partisan primaries need to be eliminated to open up the political system to candidates who are not enrolled in the dominant party, which will result in more competitive primary elections and a better crop of candidates.

CON: Party primaries are already competitive and yield good candidates, and are open to any candidate who wants to compete as long as the candidate is enrolled in the party. Moreover, third parties will have less impact on elections because third party candidates will not likely make it to the general election and will not be able to participate in “fusion” tickets.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: The system proposed will open up the process in ways that will involve more minority voters and candidates in local elections. Many minority voters are not enrolled in a party.

CON: Minorities are established forces within the parties, and benefit from the current system. Changing the role of parties will negatively affect the ability of minorities and the less affluent to have their voices heard.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: The Commission’s proposal will dilute the power of party bosses by putting the focus on the candidate, not the party. This will foster a diversity of viewpoints, giving voters more choices.

CON: The proposal will increase the power of party bosses by depriving party members of the ability to choose the party’s candidate. The proposal will also produce fewer well-defined candidates.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: The Commission’s proposal, by reducing the role of parties and forcing candidates to appeal to the broad spectrum of voters–as opposed to the party leadership–will moderate the political positions of candidates, reward coalition builders as opposed to party regulars, and make candidates more accountable to the voters.

CON: Parties are important. They put forward agendas; recruit, train, and support candidates; and mobilize voters. They also force candidates to take stands, serve as a moderating force against extremism, and build coalitions.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: The Commission’s proposal bans contributions from parties to candidates and would effectively control “soft” party spending by mandating that the Campaign Finance Board adopt new rules linking party spending to specific candidates. The Campaign Finance Program would be protected.

CON: The proposal could impair New York City’s successful campaign finance reform program by allowing parties to spend unlimited amounts of “soft” party money on preferred candidates. There is no Constitutional way to control “soft” money in the context of nonpartisan elections.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: Most municipal functions, such as garbage collection or mass transit, are not partisan issues, so the City’s elected officials who make these policies should not be elected in a partisan manner.

CON: All issues of municipal government can involve judgments that reflect policy considerations, including political issues that are addressed in different ways by the different parties.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: Because candidates will not necessarily indicate their party affiliation on the ballot, voters will be forced to pay more attention to candidates and issues, creating a more informed electorate.

CON: If candidates do not indicate their party on the ballot, some voters will be confused, and others may base their decisions on race, ethnicity, or name recognition alone. Increasing the importance of name recognition benefits incumbents and wealthy or celebrity candidates.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: More competitive elections will reduce cases of “voter roll-off.” Voters who cast votes for candidates for the offices at the top of the ballot (such as Governor or Mayor) would be more likely to vote for candidates for local offices (such as City Council).

CON: If candidates do not list party affiliation on the ballot, “voter roll-off” will increase because voters will have less information about the candidates and will only vote for candidates (such as Governor) who will continue to be listed by party.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: Nonpartisan elections, in general, have been the subject of public debate for many years, including reviews by the 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002 Commissions. The Commission members had ample time and opportunity to study the issues, and crafted a unique new system of city elections, reflecting concerns about adopting a strictly “nonpartisan” system.

CON: The likely impact of the Commission’s proposal is uncertain, and may have significant negative consequences. The changes proposed by the Commission are significant and complex, and the Commission did not conduct sufficient research on them. The academic research on the effects of eliminating party primaries is inconclusive.

---------------------------------------------------------

PRO: The voters have had adequate opportunity to study the issues, and no additional research would offer new, relevant information.

CON: The process was rushed. The Commission did little research on the potential impact of its final proposal on changes to the City’s electoral system, which was adopted late in the process, giving inadequate time to witnesses to comment on them and to voters to study them.

TOP
 
NYC Ballot Proposals

   Question 3: City Elections
   Question 4: City Purchasing
   Question 5: Government
   Administration
Ballot Proposals
Find Your Candidates
About Voting