Centerfield

To be honest, I think it's loony. You can't legislate political affiliations. Sure, you can take the label off the official rosters, you can not provide office space to the majority and minority leadership. But you can't stop somebody from running for office as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or Communist. And you can't tell legislators that they can't vote for Speaker of the House or other officers based on party considerations.

Now, I'm all for less partisanship in state legislatures. In my own state, we had Republican leaders in the House and Senate for many years because we had a Republican governor, even though a large majority of legislators are nominally Democrat (but our Democrats resemble Zell Miller much more than John Kerry). For a wide variety of reasons, but largely from our history as a functionally single-party state (Democrat) for many decades, our voting patterns in the legislature rarely split on party lines alone. There is rural versus urban, black versus white, populist versus educated, you name it.

If they really want to do something, they could start by switching to open primaries, like Louisiana has. All candidates compete in the primary for an office, and the 2 highest vote getters (even if both are in the same party) compete in the runoff. If any candidate gets a majority in the primary, he or she wins the race outright.

I have to agree with Pat. I think it's a crazy idea. Locally, our schoolboard is non-partisan, but that sure hasn't stopped the two major parties from "spreading the word" about which candidates they prefer. In a few cases, they've actually become heavily involved in the races via fundraising, volunteers, etc.

I'm not saying that non-partisan is always a bad idea, I just don't think it would serve a state well to have their constitutional offices designated as such.

Now the open primary idea is intruiging...

We have non-partisan municipal elections here, and it's not unusual for the top two primary placers to be of the same party. They're not allowed to use party names or endorsements in their advertising. Naturally this does not stop party members from working for candidates, but it does cut down on some fo the BS rhetoric and the large chunks o' campaign money.

How it would work above the local level, I don't know. It would be nteresting to see. You go first. ;-)

Tully,

How is it constitutional for them to forbid references to party names in advertising materials? I seem to recall a Supreme Court case that struck down rules prohibiting judicial candidates from referencing political parties on their election materials. Are the local elections publicly funded?

Are the local elections publicly funded?

No, they are not. How is it constitutional? Got me, I'm not an attorney. It may not be. Kansas is a "home rule" state, and municipalities have very broad latitude in self-rule. The county elections are the usual closed-primary partisan affairs, but Wichita municipal elections and Wichita school board elections are open and non-partisan. Top two in the primary advance to the general.

"Allowed" may be too broad a word, as it has occured infrequently in minor ways over the years. But I've never seen it become a court action. I've also never seen any of the few candidates who violated the prohibition win their election. And the parties don't argue about it. At least, not that I've seen. They seem content with nudge-nudge-wink-wink personal and business endorsements.

That's how it works here in School Board races. I don't think that a candidate can specifically mention a party, but what they do is purchase fundraising lists from their preferred party. Also, when the GOP Party Chairman endorses a candidate and the party's largest local donor holds a fundraiser for the "non-partisan" candidate at their home, you kind of get the idea. (Not to single out the GOP here...both parties do it.)

Exactly, Abel. Though there's a surprising amount of cross-party support when you take the party tags off. At least at the local level, where everybody knows everybody.

If Louisianna is any indication, things would boil down to a Republican-Democrat fight most times, although in Oregon, there is a chance of a centrist breaking through

In many states, the person who oversees elections is an elected, partisan politician. Is it just me, or is that absolutely bizarre?