By JIM GENARO

Strong opinions and sometimes-heated words clashed last Thursday at a forum on whether Asheville should switch to a partisan election system.

Supporters of the change said it would encourage voter turnout and make the role of political parties more transparent, while opponents said it would disenfranchise independent candidates and lead to a less-informed electorate.

About 100 people attended the panel discussion at UNC Ashevilleís Reuter Center, which was sponsored by Leadership Asheville.

The debate centered on an upcoming referendum that will ask voters whether they want to reverse Asheville City Councilís 4-3 decision in June to start holding municipal elections by political party primaries.

Under the system adopted by council, the Democratic and Republican Parties would each hold a primary election to select three candidates to compete in the general election. Meanwhile, any third-party or independent candidates would have to gather more than 2,300 signatures to get on the general-election ballot.

In the wake of the decision by council, a grassroots organization called Let Asheville Vote organized a petition drive to have the issue decided by referendum on the November ballot. The group successfully gathered 5,022 valid signatures ó just over the 5,000 needed ó forcing a referendum.

Last Thursdayís discussion featured presentations by Councilman Brownie Newman, who proposed the switch to partisan elections; Councilman Jan Davis, who was one of the three council members opposing the change; UNCA political science professor Bill Sabo; and Charlie Hume, the main organizer of Let Asheville Vote.

Hume said that while direct democracy ó in which every decision is made by general election ó is ideal, it is impractical.

Therefore, he noted, citizens must trust leaders to make decisions that are in their best interests. But when those interests conflict with a leaderís personal interests, ìa referendum is warranted,î Hume told the audience.

Hume added that the way the city holds elections is a ìfoundational issueî that should only be decided by a general vote.

He noted that the people who signed the petitions calling for a referendum spanned the political spectrum.
ìIt was really a mirror image of the demographic of the City of Asheville,î he said, with roughly half the petitioners registered as Democrats and the remaining half split between Republicans and independent voters.
Hume also urged voters to educate themselves about the issue so they can ìmake an informed decision.î

Sabo addressed the forum next.

He gave some context to the debate, noting that the move to non-partisan elections began with the progressive movement of the early 20th century, whose advocates sought to wrestle power away from the political party machines of the day.

The reforms achieved by the progressives included insitutions such as referendum voting, labor laws and direct election of U.S. Senators.

Prior to that time, the political parties had dominated muncipal elections by rallying the urban poor.

They also provided a measure of accountability, Sabo said, because if they failed to achieve their goals, voters could elect a different party. This was useful, he argued, as long as candidates were ìroughly committed to a set of principles enshrined in the partyís platform.î

The successes of the progressives led to a movement away from party politics toward a ìprofessional administrationî view of municipal governments, Sabo said.

ìThere was no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the trash,î he explained.

However, the reforms also led to a decline in voter turnout, as the political parties no longer focused their efforts on mobilizing voters.

As a result, he said, partisan elections generally have higher turnout, while non-partisan elections have fewer, better-informed voters participating.

Non-partisan elections also have a tendency to be influenced by special-interest groups with specific agendas, he added.

Newman then presented his reasons why he supports partisan elections.

He noted that most dictionary definitions of the term ìpartisanî imply bias. For that reason, he predicted that the referendum, which uses the term ìpartisan,î will succeed, overturning councilís decision.

However, he argued that identifying candidates by party affiliation would lend transparency to the role that parties currently play in elections.

Political parties, Newman said, ìare central institutions to our democratic process and, in fact, democracy cannot exist without them.î

He noted that in the recent primary election, which was non-partisan, only 13 percent of voters turned out to cast their ballots.

Davis said that while he was initially open to switching to a partisan system, after studying it further, he ìfelt it was exclusive.î

One benefit of allowing anyone to run in the primaries, he said, is that unviable candidates who are running on specific issues can gain access to a public forum in which to raise those issues.

As an example, he gave the case of Donna Bateman, who, he said, never thought she could win.

Bateman uses a wheelchair, and used her campaign to raise the issue of deficiencies in the cityís compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Davis said.

Other candidates, whom Davis termed ìalternative lifestyle folks,î also ìspent a couple of months with their issues being aired.î

He said that when political parties have an official role in elections, it paves the way for powerful ìparty bossesî to gain undue influence.

ìItís a way of forwarding agendas, and quite frankly, if thatís your purpose, itís a good way to do it,î Davis concluded.

After each panelist had spoken, audience members asked them questions.

Tim Peck asked Newman about the state requirement that independent and third-party candidates in partisan elections must get signatures from four percent of registered voters to get on the ballot.

ìWould you support placing on City Councilís legislative agendaî a measure† eliminating this requirement? he asked.

Newman replied that there ìshould be some sort of threshold,î but agreed that four percent is too high. He suggested that perhaps 500 signatures would be more appropriate.

A man asked Newman and Davis, ìWould it be cheaper for you (to run) if you had partisan elections, as opposed to non-partisan elections?î

Both councilmen responded that it probably would be cheaper, a sentiment that later was echoed by Sabo, who said partisan elections are, on average, 30 to 40 percent cheaper than non-partisan elections.

A man said that it is unfair to hold partisan elections in a state where the two major parties have officially excluded all other parties.

About the cityís election system, he asked, ìIf it wasnít broken ... what were you trying to fix?î

ìWhen you have an election where 87 percent donít vote, I donít think itís working that great,î Newman answered.

Council candidate Dwight Butner asked Sabo ìwhat the barriers are to being an independent candidateî in a partisan election.

ìA partisan system does restrict access ó thereís no doubt about it,î Sabo replied.

He said that partisan elections only are beneficial when political parties are strong.

ìIím a strong believer in multi-party systems,î Sabo added.

Rebecca Manning asked ìwhy instant-runoff voting was voted down when it came before City Council.î

Newman replied that it wasnít voted down ó council members simply did not take action on it because they did not have enough information about it.

ìIn hindsight ... I would have tried to move that issue forward,î he said. ìWhen it came to City Council, there was no one there to articulate how it worked.î

He added that he was very open to looking into the issue again.

A man who said he is a Republican asked why council made the change so close to the election.

ìI wish we had (not),î Newman said. ìClearly, it would have not been as suspicious-looking.î