This could have been the time for changing New York’s incumbent protection election system. During the last council election in 2005, almost two thirds (28 out of 34) of the incumbents running had no primary. Four of the other six incumbents being challenged won with more than 80% of the vote. The controversial term limits vote is the only opportunity to negotiate with enough councilmember to get the votes needed for Charter change that will insure real competitive elections in this one party town. It is a failure of the Citizen Union and other good government groups as well as the newspaper editorial boards and the reform clubs of this city not to demand changes that could have been used as a bargaining chip by both sides in this forced debate.
Changes needed to give challenges a better chance against incumbents include: a reduction in the number of petition signatures required to get on the ballot; non partisan redistricting; reductions in constituent mailings and office staff; equal time on the city’s cable TV stations and council web sites for challengers and opposition voices and an end to member items.
Petitions
The current petitioning system favors incumbents by making it easy for them to knock their opponents off the ballot (for an insufficient amount of signatures), tying them up in court for the purpose of draining precious campaign time and resources. In 2005 David Galarza who challenged Councilmember Gonzalez was tied up in court until a week before his primary and only received his matching funds that week. It is also time to end the unofficial campaign subsidy elected officials receive from the city’s budget in their ability to offer poll inspector jobs to their petition collectors.
Redistricting
Bloomberg contends that under the redistricting system, elected leaders create districts with voters who are expected to support them, all but guaranteeing their re-election and encouraging partisan leadership that appeals only to narrow groups of constituents. That is why he donated $250,000 of his own money to back a proposition in California to put a panel of independent citizens in charge of that state’s redistricting. He should do that here.
Member Items
You’d have to look long and hard to find a senior citizen in the city that does not feel that if they vote against their local legislature, their senior center will be closed. That same feeling goes for every interest group funded by member items. Most of the local federal money is distributed by panels made up of distinguished leaders in fields such as: The Arts, Health Care, and Education. A similar type of system should be set up in the city to replace member items.
It is a disgrace to democracy to watch these elected officials say that if the public does not like their support for legislative change to term limits, they can vote them out of office at election time knowing full well they won’t be challenged. Wake up good government advocates; it is time for the public to be educated on the realities of campaigns and it is time to make supporters of term limits extensions pay for their vote with reforms that they normally never would otherwise pass.
