Wisconsin voters will not find party identification next to candidates’ names when they cast their ballots in local elections this April. Additionally, newly elected city council members will not form partisan coalitions or vote as a bloc. While Wisconsin has upheld nonpartisan local elections for over a century, it is worth considering whether this practice still serves its intended purpose.
Advocates for the existing system claim that city matters are not influenced by partisan politics and that nonpartisan elections enable voters to select the most competent candidates. However, after closely examining close to 1,000 nonpartisan local elections and extensively observing numerous city council meetings throughout the state, it is evident that nonpartisanship does not prevent partisan conflicts in local governance. In fact, it may even give rise to new challenges.
Wisconsin’s nonpartisan local elections were implemented in 1912 as a solution to address several issues that are no longer relevant today. Governor Francis McGovern and a group of progressive reformers championed the idea of nonpartisanship to combat corruption and ensure that local decisions were not influenced by party bosses. Back then, political parties served as avenues to gain local power, with party bosses exerting their influence over city hiring, engaging in corrupt practices, and manipulating investments and voter mobilization in exchange for personal benefits. At that time, nonpartisan local elections were a means to prevent parties from buying the allegiance of local officials. However, the landscape has significantly changed since then.
Nonpartisan elections don’t work for today’s tribal politics
Partisanship in today’s political landscape has become more than just a matter of affiliation. It has evolved into an ideology deeply intertwined with personal beliefs and a sense of belonging. This type of politics goes beyond mere organizational ties, making it difficult for nonpartisan elections to fully encapsulate its influence.
What voters need to know: Understanding the significance of the MPS referendum for Milwaukee.
Partisanship plays a crucial role in today’s local government, according to my research. Approximately half of the individuals elected to city council have a partisan background. The debates and votes on local policy frequently result in city councils being divided along partisan lines. However, despite this partisan nature, local leaders publicly express their dedication to nonpartisan local government.
Local candidates often find themselves in a challenging situation. They, like many of us, have their own political leanings and want to convey that to the voters. However, they also have the responsibility to uphold the idea of nonpartisan local governance. This can result in candidates struggling to articulate their beliefs and intentions clearly, often sending mixed messages. Moreover, it can lead to fiercely contested local elections, where the focus becomes who can project the image of being the most nonpartisan and who is seemingly violating the norms of local politics.
Wisconsin’s nonpartisan elections actually confuse and anger voters
Our politics, which are not completely nonpartisan, can also leave voters feeling confused and angry. They may question whether true nonpartisanship is even possible. Some voters go to great lengths to investigate candidates’ records in an attempt to uncover their “true” partisan affiliation. During city council meetings, members of the public often criticize leaders for either violating the principles of nonpartisanship or not adhering to the expected partisan norms. Given the current political climate, it is important to recognize that our political system could potentially fuel more distrust, suspicion, and resentment among the public.
Tired of schools pushing agendas? Here’s how parents can take a stand.
More partisanship might be a tough sell, but it doesn’t have to turn local elections into another battlefield of partisan dysfunction. There are alternative reforms that can provide voters with a clearer understanding of where candidates stand without resorting to a fully partisan local ballot. Some of these reforms could include:
-
- Each candidate to choose a short label to accompany their name on the ballot.
- Both partisan and nonpartisan candidates to run in one primary where the top two advance.
- Parties and other local leaders to make formal endorsements that could be filed and publicized along with nomination papers and campaign finance disclosures
Reforms like these have been implemented in various periods of Wisconsin’s history and in different locations throughout the country. When executed successfully, these reforms enhance voters’ understanding of local candidates, facilitate the formation of local coalitions around important matters, and boost participation and accountability. Ideally, these reforms strike a balance by allowing parties to play a transparent role in local elections without exerting excessive control.
In 1912, McGovern made a case for nonpartisan election reform, stating that the focus should shift from whether Milwaukee should have nonpartisan elections to how these elections should be conducted – openly or clandestinely. However, the present scenario has flipped the question around. Now, it is no longer about the presence of parties and partisanship in local elections, but rather about whether their influence will be transparent to everyone or limited to a select few who are in the know.
Benny Witkovsky, a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, is currently working on his dissertation. His research focuses on exploring nonpartisan politics and polarization in small cities in Wisconsin.
