As readers are casting their ballots, here is an editorial by William Marshak from November 1, 2016 on the effect of partisan politics in local elections.
As the local election scene heats up, mailboxes are overflowing with candidate and proposition material that is long on hyperbole and, at times, lacking facts. A sure sign that our area has grown to major city status is the influx of professionals who can be found across the nation running campaigns. Confusion is often the greatest ally of such folks and stretching the truth is no stranger in their armamentarium.
At the local level where the electorate and elected are often well known to each other, the nonpartisan nature of office should remove consideration of party politics. A few political party insiders may promote or discourage potential candidates, but voters work and shop side-by-side with those running for office and know their work ethic and substance. Votes can be cast based on at least passing knowledge of the candidates. Civic issues should be in the forefront of such votes and personal attacks rare. It is an unwelcome sign of growth when factual campaigns give way to slick, negative mailers. Large financial contributions can skew the tenor of political campaigns leading to alienation and divisiveness. Lines are drawn leading to an aftermath of resentment that is not promising when crazy politics end and the business of governing returns.
We are starting to see such harmful campaign tactics at the local level in Fremont. It is a shame when citizens are asked to vote based on negatives rather than positive accomplishments. Hopefully, candidates will be motivated to review their campaign materials and minimize or remove offensive statements before release to the general public. After all, they are the ones who will have to live with friends and neighbors following the election.
It is also interesting to watch the escalation of costs to underwrite local political campaigns. While reports speak of millions spent on national elections, when local contests climb into six figures, it creates questions of why and who supports such exorbitant costs. If large contracts for products or services are at stake, it is understandable that politicians favorable to certain individuals or industries are supported, but those elected to public office have a responsibility to weigh their decisions against the health and welfare of constituents. This is difficult when large sums are required for campaigns and funds for them may come with strings attached.
A strong tie to community is a profound difference in local elections and can act as a check to balance the lure of lucrative contracts that may offer future benefits. Politicians, who decide to pursue public office for larger constituencies, become farther removed from individual concerns and make decisions based on a macro view of effects rather than significant but singular consequences. These contests are usually partisan and openly controlled by party politics. As such, the internal machinations of each political party are assumed to be part of the mechanism driving choices. Can this effect be avoided at the local level?
Expecting party politics to avoid local elections is probably naive and their intrusion inevitable, but voters should be aware that as cities grow and contracts for construction, services and maintenance become more lucrative, outside pressure to retain or remove elected officials is invasive and detrimental to optimal growth patterns and citizen welfare. In Fremont, outside pressures are mounting to continue rapid growth. Voters need to weigh the advantages and consequences of this pattern to determine whether that is a healthy path for their city without regard to partisan politics. The terms Democrat, Republican or any other party preference has no place in local, nonpartisan contests. Voters need to rely on knowledge of candidates, their statements and accomplishments rather than political labels.
