
The Reorganization Plan’s Potential Negative Impact on Future Local Elections
By: Bill Jeffers, Vanderburgh County Surveyor
On January 11, 2011, the Evansville–Vanderburgh County Reorganization Committee delivered its final Plan of Organization to the Vanderburgh County Commissioners and the Evansville City Council. At the county commissioners meeting on the same day, Lloyd Winnecke, Commission President, suggested the three commissioners take a month to look over the plan, and then hold a joint meeting with the city council to have their concerns and questions about the plan addressed by members of the reorganization committee. Mr. Winnecke also suggested another joint meeting with the city council at which the public may give input, after which both legislative bodies can modify the plan based on the feedback from the public, elected officials, and committee members.
When one considers the vociferous and copious feedback heard at the reorganization committee’s many public hearings, the anticipated mass of public comments on the reorganization plan might exceed the endurance of county commissioners and city council members at a single public hearing. But since Commissioner Winnecke wants to initiate public discussion of the plan, and a full month has passed since the committee delivered it, let the discussions begin. After all, the more they hear up front, the less they must mull over later.
One part of the plan that should concern both voters and municipal officials is the chronology of elections for mayor and common council mandated by the plan. When invited by the reorganization committee to present specific recommendations for a model of consolidated city-county government, Mayor Jerry Abramson (Louisville, Ky.), gave impassioned and concise advice regarding the benefits of non-partisan elections of municipal officeholders. Yet after a modicum of initial enthusiasm for non-partisan elections, the reorganization committee opted instead for partisan elections of local officials, other than judges and school board members who already are non-partisan.
However, when one considers fact, there just is no reasonable argument for national partisan politics to influence municipal elections. And since Indiana laws specify the duties of elected officials, and each official swears to follow the law and carry out those duties, why should national party philosophies influence local elections or stain municipal offices? Moreover, unless they declare a political party on their campaign literature, it seems that the more successful and popular local officeholders are pretty much indistinguishable with regard to national party affiliations.
If the plan included Mayor Abramson’s recommendation for non-partisan elections, that also would remove the undesirable impact of straight ticket voting on municipal government, because then candidates more likely would win or lose on their own merit rather than blind allegiance to party politics. In fact, non-partisan elections might benefit municipal candidates by allowing them more freedom to attend a broader array of political and civic group functions as do the candidates for judge and school board. So, is Evansville truly not ready to outgrow its addiction to partisan municipal elections?
Now even if, and especially if, partisan elections remain part of the reorganization plan, the city council, the county commissioners, and the voters had better look long and hard at the plan’s mandated chronology of elections. As currently written, the plan requires the initial election of mayor and common council at the first general election following the voters’ approval of the referendum, with subsequent municipal elections every four years. Since the reorganization committee’s lawyer tells us the first possible spot for the merger referendum is on the 2012 ballot, that means the first election for mayor and council would be 2014, if the referendum passes. Thereby, the plan mandates a chronology of municipal elections coincidental with “off-presidential†years. So, think about what negative impact national politics had on local elections in 2006, and especially 2010.
Municipal elections should be held in odd-numbered years to promote a separation between national party politics and local government affairs. And municipal government should evolve away from national political influences by moving to non-partisan elections. When they hold their joint meetings, the county commissioners and city council hopefully will hear constructive input from the public and local officials on these and other issues, and will either modify the plan for the better or reject it altogether.
Bill Jeffers