Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Jeff Rogers tells The Range that a lawsuit has been filed to knock Green Party candidate Dave Croteau off the ballot in the Ward 6 Council race, where Republican Steve Kozachik is trying to unseat Democratic incumbent Nina Trasoff.
Croteau, who got about 28 percent of the vote in a campaign for mayor in 2007, only needed to file seven valid signatures to make the ballot. But Rogers says that of nine signatures that Croteau filed, five of them don’t live in Ward 6.
“If you can’t get seven valid signatures, you’re probably not somebody we want on the City Council,” Rogers says.
Croteau wouldn’t be likely to win the council race, but he could play a spoiler role and/or give Trasoff headaches by siphoning off votes from the left as Kozachik picks up votes on the right.
A hearing has been set for next Wednesday, June 24, according to Rogers.
This article appears in Jun 11-17, 2009.
Why do you think that someone who won 28% of the vote for mayor has no chance to win a city council seat? Democrats can try to spin this however they want, but it really seems that they think the only way they can win here is to deny the voters a choice.
Well, I would suggest that the reason Dave got 28 percent of the vote had more to do with the fact that there was no Democratic candidate on the ballot, so people who didn’t want to vote for a Republican incumbent in a Democratic town cast a vote for Dave as a protest vote. In a normal contest with a Democrat and a Republican on the ballot, he would have drawn 2 to 4 percent.
Please take a look at some of the assumptions behind your statement. Why does 28% of the vote for mayor automatically become a “protest vote” when the candidate is Green? Why is it “normal” to have only a choice between Democrats and Republicans, while other parties get thrown off the ballot in our alleged democracy?
Why, when Greens have won small local races like this all over the country, does the author of the article predict that the Green candidate will only be a “spoiler” and a “headache”? I’ve never seen such disrespect for Democrats or Republicans in an ostensible news story.
Why don’t Democrats push for instant runoff voting, instead of trying to deny voters the chance to vote for the candidate of their choice? Instant runoff voting ensures that every vote counts while eliminating the “spoiler effect”. Wouldn’t that be a better, more democratic solution?
Well, in this case, if Dave does get thrown off the ballot, it will be because he couldn’t produce seven valid signatures on a nominating petition. Which, if true, says more about Dave’s organizing abilities than it does about how the Greens get hassled by The Man.
As far as why it is “normal” to only have a choice between Democrats and Republicans: Because that’s how the system works in these parts. I’m not saying the system is good or bad; I’m simply pointing out the fact that in races that feature a Democrat, a Republican and a third-party candidate in Pima County, the candidates from the two major parties tend to get roughly 95 percent of the vote and the third-party candidate gets less than 5 percent of the vote. Perhaps you can remind me of a race where the numbers worked out differently; none come to my mind immediately.
You’re talking about how you wish the system would work; I’m talking about how it does work.
Stay tuned for next week’s cover story, where I explore the impacts of non-partisan elections and explain why most Tucsonans won’t give a crap about who’s on the ballot in November.
Mr Nintzel, you write that “that is how the system works”. Well, if Mr Croteau did not get the required number of valid signatures, the Democrats are within the “system” to remove the Green from the race, but the “system” should not be set up to limit voter choices. You imply that the voters do not have the *right* to vote for the candidate they prefer, as if the Democratic and Republicans are the only parties with the right to reach out.
While it is certainly not a big task to get seven valid signatures, we have seen the Democrats use this tactic against Greens and independents across the nation, even when the bar was set much higher. Google “Carl Romanelli” to get just a taste of what I mean.
If the Republican wins a seat, beating out a Democrat, blaming the Green voters for that loss is stupid and dishonest. The Green voters would have voted for the person they *prefer*. Just because party hacks and their corporate/developer buddies want to control the voters doesn’t mean that is American, even if it is what you call “the system”.
Those hoping for more coverage of the Green Party and it’s candidates may want to visit Green Party Watch.
Let’s examine this City Council Race a little shall we?
The primaries are by Ward. Ok, that makes sense. Then we can get representation on the CC that reflects the makeup of (rather gerrymandered) Wards.
But the General election is City wide (thus the confusion about the residence requirement for signatures). This makes sure that the primary picks are homogenized down to the lowest common denominator…and, voila!
We get the kind of Council we’ve got…
As for you, Mr. Rogers, way to play “politics as usual” with your egregious logic error. Equating a mistaken interpretation of an overly complex election procedure doesn’t equal “can’t get 9 signatures” and you know it.
Way to play Dirty Pool, Jeff…
I’m curious: You seem critical of the current system. Do any of you think that going to non-partisan elections will improve it? Will going to ward-only elections improve it?
Mr Nintzel asks us if we believe that going to non-partisan elections will improve the system, or if going to ward only elections would improve the situation. I take him at his word that he really wants to know, so here is my opinion.
Non-partisan elections are, by and large, bad for voters. Being in a political party *should* mean something. The fact that the incumbent Democrats were happy to attend a fundraiser held by land developers looking to buy city land to the tune of 4 million dollars and the Republicans say they would not have done so sort of turns typical thinking on it’s head. Even so, most voters, right or wrong, believe party labels mean something, and in the case of the Green Party, they actually do.
Secondly, I believe that ward only voting would certainly improve the election process. By allowing voters across the city to decide who represents a particular ward the “system” allows the most active wards to get the lion’s share of political attention. Since all the elected officials must drink from the same trough the voters in the lower turn out wards get short shrift.
Take a look at what Portland, Maine is doing. They have elected a body, with two Greens serving, to examine the city’s charter to see where improvements can be made anf the people better served. Perhaps the time has come for Tuscon to consider such a move.
“Perhaps you can remind me of a race where the numbers worked out differently; none come to my mind immediately.”
If you mean in your county, that’s not my area of expertise. If you want examples of candidates who are neither D nor R winning 3 way races, there are plenty.
“You’re talking about how you wish the system would work; I’m talking about how it does work.”
What you’re doing, willfully or not, is perpetuating a system of conditioning that is no longer relevant in the 21st century. Almost any European country has more electoral freedom than the ‘birthplace of democracy’. I expect those in power to tell us that only Democrats and Republicans are worthy to run for office, but not journalists. And yes, I do believe that in an alleged democracy, regular folks should have the right to get on the ballot and participate in debates without being attacked by lawyers and party hacks.
“As for you, Mr. Rogers, way to play “politics as usual” with your egregious logic error. Equating a mistaken interpretation of an overly complex election procedure doesn’t equal “can’t get 9 signatures” and you know it.”
The last instance I heard of where a Green got thrown off the ballot by a Democrat legal challenge, the candidate had gone to the proper officials to inquire how many signatures would be needed. He gathered the requested amount, and got thrown off the ballot because the officials had given him incorrect information (or to use the vernacular, they lied). These officials then told the Green candidate “you should have read the law.” What can I say? The Democratic Party’s contempt for democracy is astounding.
Croteau has voluntarily requested that the City of Tucson remove him from the ballot without forcing a hearing on the matter. I think that reflects that he is a stand up guy who came forward to admit his mistake. In my book that is to be congratulated. By the way, I voted for him for mayor when he ran.