The LuLac Edition #4,522, May 19th, 2021

 

WRITE ON WEDNESDAY

 

Our “Write On Wednesday” logo

Yesterday we had an election where candidates for the Judiciary on the State, County and Magisterial level could cross file.  At the NAACP Forum, I asked the candidates if they were for Merit Selection or for facing the electorate. All indicated that they preferred the latter.

Last week the Times Tribune Editorial staff said that cross filing for the Judiciary should come to an end.  Here’s their take on it.

END CROSS-FILING

Different political parties have different political philosophies and approaches to governance, so a candidate’s affiliation with one of them at least indicates to voters how that individual might address important matters while in office.

In the state Legislature, for example, the questions of funding and regulating public education often break along party lines and often are the focus of annual battles over the state budget.

Yet state election law pretends that party affiliation is irrelevant for candidates to several important offices, by allowing them to “cross-file” to seek the nominations of both major parties in primary elections. Candidates for school board and local court seats are allowed to do so.

Cross-filing is based on the idea that school governance and the courts should be apolitical, which is a noble idea. But in practice, cross-filing is a disservice to voters and the electoral process, especially regarding school board seats.

It deprives voters of an important piece of information — a cross-filed candidate’s actual party affiliation. And it enables some candidates to skate into office by winning both nominations in primaries, evading the greater scrutiny that typically attends general elections.

 The purpose of elections is not only to select officeholders, but in that process to air out the issues and ideas affecting the office in question. Cross-filing vastly diminishes that.

And despite the use of cross-filing as a means to diminish party influence, third-party and independent voters still are not allowed to vote in primaries for cross-filed candidates.

On the judicial side, there is a stronger argument for cross-filing because judges, even though they conduct political campaigns, are required to be apolitical on the bench. Yet, cross-filing applies only to local judicial races.

 Candidates in statewide appellate races run in their parties’ primaries and then, as their parties’ nominee in the general election.

Often, party affiliation is all voters know about many appellate candidates.

Appellate judges have no less an obligation than trial court judges to be apolitical in office.

Cross-filing is a disservice to the electoral process. It deprives voters of information or confuses them. The Legislature should eliminate it.