The Party’s Over?

State Sen. Jonathan Paton was delighted to hear on Monday, July 13,
that Gov. Jan Brewer had signed a bill eliminating partisan elections
in the city of Tucson.

“I am very happy, because I feel like in 2011, candidates, for the
first time, are going to have to appeal to everyone in their wards
instead of just a narrow minority,” Paton says.

Paton, a Republican lawmaker, may have succeeded in eliminating one
of the barriers that GOP candidates have in winning in the city of
Tucson, where Democrats hold a commanding voter-registration
advantage.

But Ward 3 City Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, a Democrat who may harbor
2011 mayoral ambitions, says she believes the city should challenge the
new law in court if it has solid legal footing.

“Local control is an important issue in Tucson, and one that I think
the people will expect us to fight to hold on to,” Uhlich says. “I
think the whole thing is a Republican Party-driven grab for Tucson’s
autonomy.”

Uhlich believes partisan elections work better for Tucson, because
nonpartisan elections tend to have lower turnout, and party
identification gives voters an idea of the political philosophies of
the candidates.

“Nonpartisan elections provide that much less information to voters
on each candidate,” Uhlich says. “While I wouldn’t say that the party
affiliation is the defining characteristic of any particular candidate,
it is an indication of their orientation.” (See “Who Gives a Crap?”
June 25.)

Paton says he’s surprised to learn that members of the City Council
object to the new law, given that no city representatives fought it in
the Legislature.

“I find it amusing, because they never even opposed the bill when it
was in the Legislature,” Paton says. “Where were they for the last six
months? The silence from the city was deafening.”

City Attorney Mike Rankin says he believes the city may have grounds
for a legal fight. Back in 1951, the Arizona Supreme Court faced what
was the flip side of Tucson’s case in Strode v. Sullivan. The
Legislature had tried to prevent the city of Phoenix from adopting
nonpartisan elections, but the court said the state had no authority
over the city’s elections.

The justices ruled that “the method and manner of conducting
elections in the city of Phoenix is peculiarly the subject of local
interest and is not a matter of statewide concern. We further hold that
the provisions of the charter of the city (of Phoenix) relating to
elections to be conducted by the city are controlling.”

The court emphasized the point by noting, “(W)e can conceive of no
essentials more inherently of local interest or concern to the electors
of a city than who shall be its governing officers and how they shall
be selected.”

Asked if she would support putting the question of nonpartisan
elections before Tucson voters, Uhlich suggested the city should have a
public process to consider a number of charter changes, including a
strong-mayor form of government, which would essentially transfer the
powers of the city manager to an elected mayor.

“It has been some time since we’ve had charter changes referred to
the voters,” Uhlich says.

Paton’s legislation also requires candidates to run within their own
wards. Under the current system, candidates now run within their wards
for the primary election and then citywide in the general election.

We’ll have a full roundup of the legislative session next week,
but for those who can’t wait until then, here’s a sampling of the bills
that Brewer signed:

• Pima County voters will be able to decide whether to hike a
range of sales taxes to build a baseball stadium for spring training
teams. (For details, see “Batter Up?” on Page 14.)

• People with concealed-weapon permits will be able to carry
guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

• Women—and particularly minors—will face a host of
new restrictions before they will be allowed to have abortions.

• The Department of Environmental Quality will remain in
business.

• Emergency-room doctors have new protections against
malpractice suits.

• Arizona has a new Homeland Security Council.

Brewer vetoed a total of 22 bills, most of which were
budget-related. Brewer also rejected legislation that would have
created new solar-energy tax credits and a bill that would have
legalized sparklers.

This article appears in Jul 16-22, 2009.