Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access news for this update of an issue that has been going on for awhile.
On the evening of April 6, the Greenville, South Carolina, city council tentatively voted 4-3 to switch to partisan elections for city office. Assuming the change is finalized, the Greenville County Republican Party will be free to again sue the state over the law that forces county parties to pay for the administration of partisan primaries in cities within that county. The party does not object to paying for the primary but it objects to being told that the party must let non-members vote in its city primaries.
The city council has four members elected by district, with two members elected at large, plus a mayor. Two of the four districts are black, and based on a highly gerrymandered district map are held by Democrats.
Greenville changed its method of election after ‘Shelby County’ eliminated direct interference by the federal government. Otherwise, Eric Holder would have denied preclearance just like he did in Kinston, NC, saying that black voters would lose their opportunity to elect a candidate of choice, unless they knew who to choose.
Meanwhile, the other two districts were more Republican, such that the council member would be elected in the Republican primary. In South Carolina, general elections can be cancelled if there is only one candidate. If the district tilted Republican, it would be less likely to have a Democratic candidate. So if a voter wanted to actually participate in who runs his city, he would have to vote in the Republican primary.
In the Monday night vote, City Councilman David Sudduth switched the vote he cast almost a year ago on the issue, opening the way for repeal of the controversial move to non-partisan elections.
The switch came after a petition was presented to the city, at a public hearing, in which 6,300 registered city voters asked for either repeal or an opportunity to vote on the issue in a referendum.
Mayor Knox White and councilwomen Lillian Brock Flemming and Jil Littlejohn held to their original vote against non-partisan elections, which passed last May in a split decision.
Councilwomen Amy Ryberg Doyle, Gaye Sprague and Susan Reynolds held to their original vote in favor of stripping party labels.
The repeal movement will require one more vote by City Council to be final.
The issue was an uncharacteristically divisive one for the city, uniting both sides of the political spectrum against the non-partisan move. At the hearing, only a few spoke in favor of nonpartisan elections. Carl Muller, an attorney in the West End, told the council that party labels have no place in local decisions.
The petition drive, which was launched last fall after concerns among the black community about disenfranchisement, was successful in earning more than the 15 percent required to have the matter put to a referendum if the council didn't repeal.
The movement united Republicans and Democrats, who said removing labels would limit turnout and leave voters ill-informed about candidates' basic ideals.
However, Doyle and Sprague said they believe the petition didn't necessarily reflect the will of the greater electorate, based on conversations they had with those who signed the petition. Doyle, a Republican, said she almost signed the petition because someone had vaguely asked her if she were "in favor of more transparency in government." The North Main area councilwoman said that opponents are sitting in "1960s rhetoric" and not considering a better way to elect future candidates than by what resembles the succession of a monarchy. Doyle said she supported having the issue go before the voters.
Sprague, a Democrat, said that she listened to those against the move but said that "no compelling case has been made for why non-partisan elections aren't good for Greenville."
Greenville attorney Eric Graben, who once ran against Doyle as a Democrat, said his party label cost him in his race because of an area of the district that includes Bob Jones, which he said doesn't typically vote for Democrats. Nevertheless, Graben said candidates shouldn't hide who they are by not claiming a party.
The mayor said that he has never seen such unified opposition across the political spectrum and that the issue was a "distraction" to other good things the city is doing, despite the best intentions of those who pushed non-partisan elections.
Council members on both sides of the issue expressed concern that the move to non-partisan elections included a provision that awarded the contest to the candidate with the most votes, instead of a system that requires a majority, even if a runoff were necessary.
Sudduth said that "plurality" method wasn't vetted well enough, a sentiment Doyle agreed with and said she would have reconsidered, though the only vote before the council was to repeal the ordinance or not.
If the city council does not repeal the ordinance providing for a non-partisan election, the referendum petition would force a special election for the referendum. If that were successful, then a partisan election would be held on a special schedule.
As it is, Greenville has missed the usual deadline for primary filing, and so may have belated filing, and a delayed primary.
The South Carolina legislature should let cities that use partisan nominations determine how parties qualify to make nominations, and how they make nominations.
Greenville might decide that nominations be made by convention. If that were the case, Greenville might be able to essentially do away with popular election of their city council.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
