||| FROM CINDY WOLF |||
There seems to be confusion about what it means that the County Charter says Council seats are non-partisan. It means disclosing party affiliation to run for that office is optional. It certainly does not mean disclosing a party affiliation is illegal or otherwise forbidden. You will notice in other jurisdictions Council members must disclose from the moment they become candidates. This is also true for candidates seeking State and Federal office. You can run as an “independent”, but you have to pick something.
When I ran, I proudly sought the endorsement of the San Juan County Democratic Committee. In part this was because a local party endorsement unlocks access to campaign resources like voter contact software and databases, and regional organizers who can help you get training to run a campaign, find assistance such as bookkeeping, and give all kinds of other practical advice. It also made sense for me because I had served as Vice Chair for three years and it would have felt awkward not to have the blessing of my political workmates with whom I share so many common values.
Local lore has it the “non-partisan” clause went into the County Charter at the point when the county was about to shift to a Democratic majority and local Republicans realized how difficult it would be to win elected office if they had to disclose their political affiliation. Many now publicly claim to be “Independent”. They have spent every election since I have been in San Juan County trying to shame candidates away from acknowledging Democratic ties or seeking endorsement, thus denying them access to the very support political parties are built to offer. Please note that people who want to disempower you generally don’t have your best interests at heart.
Another myth I would like to bust deals with endorsements and political activity engaged in by elected officials. The law says as long as a publicly elected official does not use any public resource, they are free to endorse candidates, advocate for or against issues, and engage in political activities. We may even use our titles, so long as it is clear we represent only our personal opinions and not those of the body to which we were elected. For those with concerns about ethics, consider why outgoing office holder endorsement is bipartisan common practice at all levels of government. Gov. Inslee endorsed Bob Ferguson, President G.W. Bush endorsed John McCain, and so forth. It makes a lot of sense. The outgoing office holder has been in the public eye long enough for people to understand their values and priorities. They have experience with the job and likely have an opinion on which candidate is best suited to the demands of the moment. A lot of people value that perspective.
As an elected official, my rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, just as yours are, for the time being. Please use your voice to strengthen our Constitution, empower truth and support democracy.
Note: Election Day is November 5th. Please consider using the ballot box in the Senior Center driveway to avoid postal delays!
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Thanks so much, Cindy, for clarifying what the “non-partisan” status of County Council seats amounts to, and for doing so in such a charming and witty manner. I also think you were generous to say that there is “confusion” about this. In fact, it is more likely that the misunderstanding of “non-partisan” was the product of a deliberate attempt by the supporters of one of the candidates to manipulate the electorate.
An excellent argument, Cindy, and from the point of view of the candidate, it should certainly prevail. But I suggest that there is more to consider.
I respectfully submit without seeking to manipulate the electorate, quite the reverse, that there is a distinction between a party and an individual. Your examples boil down to (1) the party can greatly support a candidate, and (2) individual politicians irrespective of party (Liz Cheney being a recent example) are free to personally support any candidate of their choice.
The dangerous implication is that an elected member of one party will prefer the concerns and interests of that party, an impression that party support confirms. There is a reason why both parties don’t support the same candidate. In a small community where unity, if gained, is a prime asset, the less said about the platforms that divide the parties, and the more said about the individual offering to serve at close engagement members of both parties, the better.
Thank you for an excellent argument, Cindy. I also appreciate the history you mention.
Thank you, Bill. Spoken like a New Englander! I know they love direct democracy out East in the little towns and don’t care much about political parties. However, I am sure you will concede your argument is an opinion, not law, not even in our Charter, because Political parties are private organizations and freedom of association is a Constitutional guarantee. You can’t tell someone not to be a Democrat and I don’t like people trying to shame them into silence about it.
Your concern about party identification taking focus from local issues deserves some thought. I do believe voters seek a basic level of philosophical agreement, but I didn’t find that anyone was overly concerned about my party affiliation so long as they understood my stance on Vacation Rental permits. Right at the moment, it does seem relevant to know if the locally elected officials who control the Sheriffs budget are politically allied to the would be fascist dictator who may be elected POTUS. Stances on gay rights, abortion access, and cooperation with mass deportation on a local level will come into much sharper focus should he win. It may be far more dangerous at this point in history NOT to know your Council member’s political affiliation.
I do understand and respect the idea of non-partisanship in small communities, to a point, but we are now a county of 20,000 people. In the case of candidates for Districts 2&3, more than half the electorate does not live in the same community as the candidate. If you know I am a Democrat and you live on Lopez, you can ask a PCO what they know about me from the endorsement process.
I always do enjoy discussions with you!
My comment is indeed opinion, Cindy, and I grant that the law is as you say. But the fact that you can do something doesn’t mean that you should, or even that it’s a good idea in every case.
In our case, we are a small (yes, 20,000 or a little under is small) community where idealism must in many cases bow to pragmatism in that we cannot always do what we would like to do because there are things that we must do and they come first: necessities. These are not party-related matters, and a party inserting itself into, or being invited into a nonpartisan election attracts division where it is counterproductive.
As a member of the second Charter Review Commission, we discussed this topic, perhaps too generally, but what I’m expressing as my opinion is my understanding of discussion of that long-ago time. I have no doubt that others on that body have different memories.
You’ve served, and I thank you for your service. I am speaking hopefully for the future.
I want to know who the candidates that I’m voting for are. Political affiliations show their mindset and their values. We’ve seen it over and over throughout time… republicans run as independents and then they get into office and they put profit over all else… ALL ELSE! You can talk all all you want about not having an endorsement, and not having to disclose your party affiliation, and that it’s a non-partisan office. BS!
Political parties should be able to endorse whoever they want, or not, without having top have the candidates permission.
Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking.
There is right and there is wrong, it is wrong to introduce partisanship into a non-partisan issue, not illegal but unethical i.e., wrong. Rationalizing the matter with fine words will not make it right.
Hopefully our future council will embody integrity.
Thank you Cindy for clarifying the situation. Personally I wouldn’t bother voting for a candidate who hadn’t been endorsed by the San Juan County Dems, unless a careful reading of their platform indicated something exceptional. But as Cindy mentions, the party apparatus and the access that it provides makes a good candidate much more likely to win, so an endorsement is not a bad thing.
In this election cycle we see candidates like Stephanie O’Day who are what I like to call “crypto conservatives.” They masquerade as independents or moderates because being an “out and proud” conservative would be too honest. It would also be politically untenable in San Juan County, whose voting history shows that we are even more liberal than King County. When a candidate or their proxies show up to whine about “non partisan” offices and complain about endorsements, take a close look at what they want to do to this county and you will find all the typical indicators of an anti-government, pro-growth conservative agenda.
Well, David, all I can say is that you’ve sure got me wrong. I happen to be a Democrat, am not anti-government and do not support unrestrained growth. I also know, like and respect some Republicans who are not anti-government and do not support unrestrained growth. I think that your oversimplified characterization perfectly posits the problem and why “non-partisan” should at the county level, mean “non-partisan.”
There’s a difference between disclosing one’s political affiliation, and serving in a partisan manner. Revealing one’s political affiliation does not in any way mean they cannot serve while in office in an apolitical manner.
I want to know who I’m voting for. If you cannot willfully, or honestly divulge that information to the public when you’re running for the highest political office in the county… I will not vote for you.
Mr. Bowman: Outstanding! “crypto conservatives” for those masquerading as moderates, an oblique, nimble caricature of your opponent – well done!
In the same spirit how shall we characterize the Marxists posing as democrats, liberals and progressives? May I suggest “Crypto Commies”. Come on now let’s be loud and proud.
And how shall we deal with those deplorable, dithering namely-pamby’s in the middle masquerading as libertarians and moderates? Oh yeah, I remember they’re in the middle of the road. we can call them “Road Kill”
Oh that was fun, we should do it again sometime.