Both Place 1 Candidates' Political Contributions History 100% Democratic

There shouldn't be litmus tests (0.00 / 0)

I didn't care about Cid Galindo's voting and contribution history, and Laura Morrison was wrong to make it an issue. I did care that Galindo was dead wrong on the issues, and I certainly supported Laura, but municipal elections are non-partisan for a reason. Somebody who has a history of civic involvement but isn't strongly associated with either party shouldn't be shut out of the process for not being a "good Democrat".

There's a place for ideology and party. Knowing that a Texas House candidate is a good Dem tells me a lot about how he'll vote in the Lege, and I want to know that before casting my vote. But most city council decisions are managerial, and requiring candidates to meet party purity tests robs us of a lot of very good talent.

There are a lot of very competent moderates and conservatives our there. They may have different views about Iraq, about Guantanamo, about abortion and about tax cuts than we do, but they care just as much as we do about taking care of Austinites. They belong on our citizen boards, they belong on our city staff, and yes, they sometimes belong on the City Council.

We can't stop candidates from pointing out each other's partisan history, but we can cry "foul" when they do, and we can refuse to join in the feeding frenzy.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 17:54:49 PM CST

couple of points... (0.00 / 0)

Not sure what you mean by "most council decisions are managerial."  Managerial decisions are made by the City Manager, not the Council.  The Council is the legislative body of the City, like the Lege is for the state.  The number of hiring decisions made by the Council is small: the City Manager him or her self, the auditor, etc.  Sure they have input and influence on other major hires, but so do members of the Lege, presumably.

The Council is responsible for setting policy decisions for the City, much as the Lege is for the state.  Why would political history be important for one and not the other?  The Council makes decisions on many of the same issues - the environment, subsidies for poor families, transportation, etc.  Granted, the vast majority of voting Austinites are Ds, so we don't see quite as much of a divergence of opinion from candidates, but whenever a Wes Benedict or Carol Strayhorn runs, you'll see some differences in opinion.  And since candidates all tend to say the same thing when appealing to Austin voters, a close reading of their history can sometimes illuminate who is sincere and who is just talking the talk (see Galindo last year).

Perhaps I'm misreading your post, but it seems to me like your saying policy doesn't matter at the city level, only competence.  I strongly disagree.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 16:36:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Counter argument... (0.00 / 0)

It says a hell of a lot about a candidate's core values and beliefs when you look at what political Party or candidates they have abetted or affiliated themselves with through voting or donations.

While nothing should ever be totally black and white in these decisions, it certainly is an indicator of the direction an elected official will go.

So I think knowing donor history or primary or General election voting proclivites is a very good marker.

It's probably a better indicator than any campaign mailer, brochure or rhetoric you'll find.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 18:18:03 PM CST

Partisan Non Partisan Elections (0.00 / 0)

Only in Austin's At-Large voting system. Former Rep. Maxey has helped promote Single Member District legislation in the past, much to his credit, to change the system by legislation rather than a charter change election.

The same litmus tests could also be applied to any proposed non partisan State School Board or Judical Races legislation being talked about. So let's just be honest about it and keep the partisan races we currently have.

---

by: ssuits @ Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 21:36:16 PM CST

Even with a litmus test there's a huge difference (0.00 / 0)

In a partisan election, candidates have to get through a primary dominated by the political extremes. In a non-partisan election, even with lots of partisan hype, the electorate is everybody and it's possible to play to the middle and make a pitch for non-ideological virtues.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:37:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]