Update: Bill to require nonpartisan elections in Tucson is a “do pass” in Senate

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

According to ALIS SB1123, the bill to to require Tucson to conduct nonpartisan elections, and elections by ward ward only, is a "do pass" in the Senate Committee of the Whole (COW) today. It will now move over to the House.

Earlier this week, the Arizona Daily Star weighed in on this issue. Nonpartisan city elections are needed Readers should note that the misleading headline is not really the main point the editorial makes, as the sub-headline reads "Our view: But lawmakers should not impose reform on the people of Tucson." (There has long been a problem at the Daily Star with misleading headline captions that contradict the body of the article).

The Star's Daniel Scarpinato reported Tuesday that Tucson's system has been in place since 1929. It has withstood several public votes, as recently as 1993. Recent petition drives and campaigns to put the issue on the ballot have failed.

While we agree that the city should have nonpartisan elections, the movement should come from the citizens of the city, not from a paternal state government.

* * *

The bill needs to pass the full Senate and the House, and the signature of Republican Gov. Jan Brewer before it becomes law. It would not effect this fall's city election.

Our potholes and city elections should be nonpartisan, but Big Daddy shouldn't need to tell us that.

The language and tone of this editorial is not nearly as clear and unambiguous as the Daily Star editorial on this same subject back in December 2008, which I previously reported in Tucson to Jonathan Paton: Don't Tread on Me! (12/18/2008):

The Arizona Daily Star editorialized on Tuesday Tucsonans should decide how city is run:

[P]aton, a Republican, is planning to introduce legislation in the Legislature to to impose a nonpartisan City Council system on Tucson, according to a story Monday by O'Dell. Please note: In January, this body will be dominated by Maricopa County and by highly partisan Republicans.

Well, don't tread on us, Phoenix.

If Tucson's City Council system is to be reformed, the changes must flow up to the ballot from local citizens and must be accepted or rejected by Tucson voters. Our local governance choices are none of the Legislature's business, nor Paton's.

The editors concluded that we "see it purely as a matter of local autonomy. Tucson voters should run Tucson city government."

Rep. Phil Lopes (D-Dist. 27) weighed in with a guest opinion at that time as well Republicans imposing their will on Tucson in which he wryly noted that:

State Sen.-elect Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican who is slated to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to use his power in Phoenix to mandate ward elections. Apparently he doesn't care that Tucson has repeatedly rejected the idea. Democracy, it seems, is a messy process that must be discarded when it gets in the way.

Lopes pointed out that Paton claims the current system, in which candidates are nominated at the ward level but are elected citywide, disenfranchises certain segments of the city's populace.

And who would that be? Would it be minorities?

Currently there are two Hispanics serving on the council. This level of Hispanic representation is on the low side. Previous councils have had three or more Hispanic members. For eight years we had an African-American council member.

Are women disenfranchised? Currently four of the seven members are female.

Business owners? Several current members have small-business backgrounds, and Mayor Bob Walkup once was a manager for one of Tucson's largest employers.

Just about the only group that lacks much representation is the Republican Party. In 2005, city voters removed two GOP council members from office, leaving Walkup as the sole Republican. In 2007, voters rejected all the Republican candidates.

If people wanted more Republicans on the council, they could elect them, but apparently they're happy with the current ratio.

Now Paton and his fellow Republicans have several ways to address this inequity. They could nominate candidates who are capable of winning city elections. They've done it in the past, and presumably they can do it again. Walkup, after all, has won three elections in a row.

Or if they truly believe that the City Charter needs to be changed, they can refer the question to voters again, and let the political process decide.

* * *

If Paton believes his own party's rhetoric, he should leave the issue up to the people. If he wants to argue for ward elections, he ought to present his case to city voters, and let them decide.

Even long-time "ward only" elections advocate Jim Sinex of FairElect.org agrees that "The problem with Paton's call for nonpartisan elections is that he hides his partisan proposal under the ideal of fair elections. Removing information from a ballot does not improve an election and allows ideologues to hide behind a veneer of nonpartisanship." Tucson's election system is unfair, but Phoenix should back down Sinex correctly notes that "The state… gives power over local elections to chartered municipalities; so he should therefore concentrate on state elections. There is much to be done there."

So let's put an end to Sen. Paton's dictatorial nonsense in the Arizona House. How Tucson conducts its elections is a local issue for the residents of Tucson to decide. We must preserve our local autonomy against the machinations of our Maricopa County overlords and our own Southern Arizona Benedict Arnold Republicans.