Towns and Villages Can Live Without Political Parties, Cross-Endorsements

Thank you for convening this public hearing on New York State election laws. I have two major topics. One is cross-endorsements, and the second is about political parties in Towns and Villages. I am also proposing alternatives if these suggestions are not politically viable.

I read there are only six states that allow the practice of cross-endorsements and the Connecticut legislature is presently discussing eliminating the practice. In light of recent controversies centered on abuses of cross-endorsements in New York it is appropriate to make legislative changes.

Cross-endorsements benefit minor political parties as the two major political parties dominate winning elections. Cross-endorsements give third parties the opportunity to influence the outcome of an election in favor of a candidate that supports portions of their party platform. This may or may not be healthy for our democratic republic depending on your view.

Would we be addressing cross-endorsements if there were no third or minor political parties? I hope not as the major parties should be able to muster the resources to get their message out to the voters as well as find good party members to nominate. However on the local government level, in Rockland County, there are many cases of cross-endorsements between the two major parties.

Several historical examples: a Clarkstown Town Supervisor candidate was on the ballot line for both the Republican and Democratic parties, as was the Town Clerk candidate in Orangetown. The party platforms were not the same yet they support the same candidate. One would think the Republican brand is different from the Democrat brand.

Assuming the main purpose of cross-endorsements is to benefit small political parties it appears to be a misuse when the major parties do so. Thus the state should consider banning both the Republican and Democratic Parties from cross-endorsing each other. 

Please consider for several minutes if election ballots did not allow political parties be listed by candidate names for Town and Village elections, just like they do for School District Board Elections. This is what they do in California for small cities. It works very well. Why is that? And if this is logical, what does that imply about cross-endorsements?

Political party affiliation as an ideological identity that becomes guidance for creating public policy is not relevant for towns and villages. What defines a Republican or a Democrat generally does not apply to small government. Small governments provide services such as policing, recreation and parks, highway, public works, parking, justice court, building code compliance, zoning, and sewer.

Qualifications for elected office should include if an individual is capable of doing a good job as Superintendent of Highways, Town Clerk, Receiver of Taxes, Board Member, Mayor and even Town Supervisor. These elected positions are more administrative and management oriented, not policy formation that trumps state control over local government or the federal government.

It does not matter practically if a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice, pro-union or believes in right to work. Irrelevant criteria are required for being nominated for office by a political party.

Given it is the Town Board’s responsibility to negotiate labor agreements and not the Highways Superintendent, the Town Clerk or the Receiver of Taxes, being pro-union is not relevant in the context of their job duties. Given if the Town Board cannot agree with the police union on a labor contract an arbitrator makes the decision. The issues of the day that separate Republicans from Democrats nationally or in the state are generally not relevant in Town Hall.

When Republicans and Democrats agree on the same candidate like in Clarkstown or Orangetown, we have evidence that political party affiliation is not relevant in small government. What is relevant is finding qualified residents that have the confidence of the community and the abilities to lead and provide services effectively. This is the case with School Boards. Individuals get a minimum number of signatures on petitions and they are placed on the ballot. Community groups campaign on their behalf. Political parties can endorse individuals.

Town and village elections should only have individuals on the ballot without listing political party association. Cities, Counties, State and Federal elections would be exempt. 

Given that political parties are not relevant in local government cross-endorsements should be banned in Town and Village elections. Third parties can have candidates of their own. It provides a forum for debate over ideas and opportunity for party building.

What if the State Senate does not choose to prohibit cross-endorsements at the Town and Village levels or between the major parties? It should be made more difficult to do so.

The proposed method by the Governor removing decision making of cross-endorsements by party chairperson and replacing it with a petition of 5% or so of the party members may not be effective though out the state. One size does not fit all.

A small political party is empowered to present candidates on an election ballot by its success in a state election. Their candidate may receive 200,000 votes however much smaller numbers may be actually registered with that party. There may be few registered third party members in Towns and Villages, and smaller electoral districts. Thus proportionally the influence of a few can affect the many in a positive as well as negative sense.

The governor is proposing 5% of registered party members sign a petition in favor of a cross-endorsement candidate. Outside of cities and many counties that could mean single digits. For example having only 100 registered voters requires only 5 signatures to qualify a petition. What if there are only 10? 2 signatures. There is still potential for abuse by a Chairperson of the local third party.

Cross-endorsements should then only be allowed when a third party reaches a certain number of registered voters, such as one thousand. Otherwise the Chairperson has too much control and power that can be bartered, and the system itself remains corrupted.

What happens if there are two petitions both meeting the 5% signature number? How is the decision made? The law should state what happens after one or more successful petitions are filed, along with time frames and defined conflict resolution and decision making processes. 

In summary regarding cross-endorsements please consider:

Prohibiting the two major parties from doing so,

Prohibiting all parties from doing so for small local government such as Town and Village elections,

Allow only for county, state and federal elections,

Otherwise establish minimum numbers of third party registered voters to qualify petitions for cross-endorsements.