By Evelyn Pyburn

To declare an election to be “nonpartisan” is a farce and everyone knows it.

The declaration isn’t made to claim that the candidate has no opinions or political views  – it is to declare that the voters have no right to know what they are.

It is an orchestrated scheme to favor those whose views are contrary to what is perhaps the views of the majority of voters.

It is NOT a neutral strategy. It does, very much, favor one side over the other.

The puzzling thing is why some go along with it. I have encountered candidates who said that they have been hesitant to speak their minds when talking to voters because they are supposed to be “nonpartisan.” Why?

What a gambit for those who have faulty ideas!

How would a politician expect to defend their ideas and fight for what they believe is right should they be elected, if they are going to be so easily intimidated by those who don’t want to be forthright?

There is a good reason why some politicians refuse interviews that don’t provide questions in advance, or who do not attend town hall meetings, or steer clear of talk shows that field questions from phone callers. They do not have winning answers – or perhaps any answers.

Of course, it is implied that to be nonpartisan means to be neutral or impartial, which it is not. Nonpartisan, especially as it applies to political candidates, is but a very concerted effort to keep information from voters. After all, a party affiliation has to do with political ideas – if a candidate chooses to identify with one or the other, it’s meant as a signal about ideas with which they align themselves — at least that’s what it should be about.

Someone who actually has no opinions is pretty much brain dead, and certainly a poor candidate to do anything.

Can a person strive to be neutral in presenting an idea? Sure they can and there are times it is the right thing for which to strive. But not in the voting booth. Voting is a contest about ideas. Who has the best ideas? If campaigns are required to leave issues or political philosophies unspoken, upon what are voters supposed to base their decisions? How tall they are? Who they are related to? Where they were born? What their hobbies are? On what should voters base decisions if the first rule of the contest is not to discuss ideas?

No political contest displays that more than the nonsensical, non-partisan city council elections. Often there are novice candidates who have very little or no visibility in the community. As a city council election approaches the most common question among locals in any conversation becomes, “Do you know anything about this person?” 

Voting for judges is no different. Do nonpartisan advocates really think that the ability to be able to interpret the law impartially means not to have personal opinions or the integrity to hold to basic principles? Indeed, as we have all clearly seen, judges do have biases that sometimes prompt them to ignore the law and decree a new twist to it – and those most prone to those kinds of decisions are those who most benefit from nonpartisan elections. To hold true to the mandate to interpret the law is indeed a difficult challenge, especially when it seems to contradict common sense or a person’s strongly held philosophical beliefs. Judges who can do that are indeed unique individuals.  Shouldn’t voters have all the information they can possibly have to identify which candidates seem to have that kind of integrity?

A judge who might be criticized for imposing a bad law because of its consequences, should freely state, “If you don’t like the law, then change it the appropriate way.”

If a law is really not a good law, how will it ever be changed if its true impact isn’t revealed in its application? That is really the role of judges – not to rewrite it. How can bad laws ever be identified and changed if not accurately applied? Voters must be able to identify who is truly capable of interpreting laws accurately and which candidates have the character and integrity to do so.

All I can suggest is, if someone believes nonpartisan elections are a good idea, don’t vote for them.