by Pete Talbot
Some ruminations on last week’s Democratic Central Committee meeting here in Missoula. I’m posting a little past deadline. I’m blaming my lethargy on the heat.
First of all, there was unanimous consent for supporting the troop withdrawal resolution that will be on November’s ballot.
(Granted, there were only about twenty people at the meeting, which is usually the case for mid-summer Democratic Party meetings held on a hot July evening. I was still surprised, though, that there was nary a nay to be heard in opposition to the resolution.)
Second, the Dems will hold a forum, sometime in early August, for all the city council candidates.
Here’s the zinger: after the forum, the central committee will actually endorse candidates! This has been a controversial issue ever since the city adopted nonpartisan elections about a dozen years ago. Over the past twelve years or so, the central committee endorsements have ranged from none at all, to endorsing some candidates, to endorsing any candidate who claims to be a Democrat.
The details have yet to be worked out on the exact endorsement process but apparently forum questions will come from the Montana Democratic Party platform, and Missoula’s platform (which local Democrats crafted last spring).
In a city that votes mostly Democratic, an endorsement from the party means something to the candidates – especially in nonpartisan elections when there isn’t a ‘D’ or ‘R’ (or ‘I’ or ‘C’ or ‘G,’ etc.) after a candidate’s name.
Which is why there’s such a controversy around endorsing. Turnout in city primaries can be hideously low, so a Democratic Party endorsement can tilt the tide, especially in those Democratic leaning wards – which are most of them.
Those opposed to endorsements say it’s divisive to pit one Democrat against another. These “big tent” Democrats question whether there’s really a litmus test as to who’s more Democrat. They say it’s important to stay “one big, happy family.”
Those advocating for the endorsement process say it’s important to let the voters know which candidate really supports the Democratic Party platform. They add that it’s important to winnow out candidates who may call themselves Democrats because there’s no way in the world they’d get elected in certain wards as a Republican.
I’ve vacillated on the subject of endorsements. The state party insists on not endorsing in primary elections that are partisan – that is elections where a Democrat is running against another Democrat to see who’s going to be on the general election ballot. Individuals can and do endorse, and work and raise money for the candidate of their choice, but the local central committee is supposed to stay out of it. I guess this makes sense. I believe this rule holds true for the Republican Party as well.
But what to do in nonpartisan elections, especially primaries? Take Ward 4, for example, where there are five candidates vying for two slots on the November ballot. Do we trust the local media to give us the information we need to make an informed decision? I think not.
As to the divisiveness claim that it shows party favoritism to one Democratic candidate over another – well I suppose that’s true. It’s called accountability. And as long as the process is transparent, that strict guidelines are followed, that the questions asked are based on established party platforms and issues, I say go for it.
I like to think that Missoula Democrats are mature enough to look beyond some of the controversial, parochial issues and support the best candidate for the job. And if for some reason their candidate doesn’t get endorsed that they don’t flee the party or refuse to get involved in other Democratic campaigns – say Senate, House, governor or even presidential campaigns. Lord knows that over the years not all the Democratic candidates I’ve supported have received a helping hand from the party, but I keep plugging away.
And who knows, in some wards, a Democratic endorsement might be the kiss of death. We’ll see who shows up for the forum and what they have to say.
-
Recent Comments
Big Swede on Whose Economy??? Lizard on Whose Economy??? Anon on Whose Economy??? Anon on Whose Economy??? lewis kelley on Whose Economy???
July 17, 2007 at 7:29 am
I was afraid that Billings was the only large city in Montana with poor voter turnout (Apathy) at city elections.
Ward 3 runs about 10% turnout.
I think that if they want partisan elections again that they should go to the voters, because, if the GOP steps in and does endorsements also, then your elections will no longer be non-partisan.
July 17, 2007 at 8:40 am
Eric, it did go to the voters last year but got shot down. The 2006 Study Commission could not give back what the 1996 Study Commision took away.
Or vice versa, depending how you look at it.
July 17, 2007 at 3:50 pm
So let me understand this Carol, the voters decided not to go back to partisan elections, but the Dems are going to put forth party candidates anyway?
It’ll be interesting to see if the voter interest is higher.
July 18, 2007 at 8:23 am
Yup
July 18, 2007 at 9:41 am
The voters disallowed candidates from running under a party banner — appending a “D” after their name on the ballots. And the Democratic party isn’t “putting forth” candidates, and it’s likely that many of the candidates who could recieve endorsement by the party won’t even be members of the party. In a sense, if the MCDs endorse the candidates, it’ll be out of the candidates’ hands — they could be endorsed even if they don’t want to be a member of the party or want the party’s endorsement.
In effect, the MCDs would be endorsing candidates the same way any other group would. I can’t see how you could forbid it: it’d be like saying I couldn’t endorse candidates here on this blog.
Whether they should do it is another matter. I’m on the fence, myself.
On one hand, I like that partisan politics are out of the picture. That way issues have to inform. On the other hand, there usually isn’t that much known about the candidates by the general public by the time the election swings around. An endorsement by the party would let folks know in general how the candidate looks at the world.
July 22, 2007 at 8:07 am
The (past) Gallatin County Democratic Central Committee with Jim Walseth’s leadership decided to “recommend” candidates rather than endorse them to maintain some recognition of the nonpartisan label for city commission races in a deeply conservative county that has elected comic regulars like Roger Koopman, Sinrud & Sales et al
the county is changing its political face but slowly—the current Gallatin Democratic CC is a mess-and who knows what incompetent policies and actions will come from the new leadership.
July 25, 2007 at 11:53 am
The democrats completely ignored the requirement that Bozeman city commissioner races be non partisan, and assisted with websites and yes, vetted candidates, and even discouraged candidates from running.
Now, with the new charter, the rules that say, “NON PARTISAN RACES” are incontrovertible, and yet, still, I expect to see the democratic committee actively campaigning on their website as they did in the last race.
It’s not that “some recognition should be maintained”. NO, its the law and it “should be obeyed”.
July 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm
The only power the city has in non-partisan elections is the ability to print ballots without a party designation after the candidate’s name. It can request that candidates refrain from party affiliation on things like yard signs and literature but it can’t enforce it — it’s that pesky 1st Amendment thing about “freedom of speech.”
The same holds true for political parties. They can recruit, endorse, run campaigns, etc. It’s one of the (many) reasons I think non-partisan elections are bogus.
I can tell you this, Missoula’s City Council isn’t any less contentious or more efficient since we went to non-partisan elections.
July 25, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Pete, you do think, however, that the people have spoken on the subject, and their wishes should be honored? Or should they be controverted by any means available?
July 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm
And what’s the Party supposed to do, sit on its hands during all municipal elections?
I agree, noodly, it would be great if all the voters studied the issues and selected candidates accordingly. Doesn’t always happen. Parties play a key role in dropping literature, pounding in signs, getting out the vote, recruiting candidates, holding forums…
It should also be noted that voter turnout in municipal elections has decreased since they went non-partisan.
July 25, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Yes.
“The Party”, and it’s only one, as you’ve succinctly expressed, that wishes to controvert the desires of the communities, should abide by the law.
July 26, 2007 at 6:29 am
“And what’s the Party supposed to do?”
I just love that. Had to comment again. Only one. “The Party”, eh, comrade?
Oh, and turnout? It will be better with mail ballot elections.
July 26, 2007 at 8:30 am
Comrade Noodly,
I can only speak to the Democratic Party’s intentions. The Republicans don’t invite me to their gigs. I’ll bet they would support Republican endorsements for candidates in wards that are heavily Republican. There aren’t too many of those in Missoula, though.
As to an earlier post of yours, the Democrats do abide by the law. There’s no law that says the party can’t endorse.
Finally, I hope you’re right about higher turnout with mail-in ballots.
August 4, 2007 at 8:19 am
I really ought to follow the ‘birds more closely… maybe someone’s mentioned this already.
Regarding voter turnout: acknowledging that sub-10% turnout is horrible, we (the City Council) chose to do mail ballots for this year’s city elections. Registered voters will receive their ballots on the 22nd of August. They have until election day, 9/11, to vote. Ballots have to be received in the elections office by 9/11, so don’t wait ’til the last minute to put it in the mail. There’s more info on the County Elections website.
August 4, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Thanks for the info, Ed.