Correcting the Record on Partisan Elections

A letter from WW for Transparency & Representation on the truth of what partisan elections do and don't do—and what their merits are.

On October 14, a letter was published in Planet Princeton concerning the public question in West Windsor Township and opposing the proposition of switching to partisan municipal elections. It, however, contains several inaccuracies that warrant correction.

First, the claim that there is currently no "typical partisan politics" in West Windsor is misleading. Local governance does not exist in a bubble isolated from the rest of the country; even "nonpartisan" towns are influenced by broader political dynamics. Candidates' party affiliations often reflect their political ideologies and indicate their values, which then significantly affect their positions on local issues, such as budgeting, land use, and public safety, should they win election. Studies further show that removing party labels from ballots does not automatically foster greater collaboration or bipartisanship in policymaking, and may produce misalignment with voters' preferences. Indeed, voters deserve to know who they are really supporting when they go to the polls. It is puzzling, for instance, that our Township—which overwhelmingly favors Democrats in higher-level county, state, and federal races by double-digit margins—has a Mayor who is a registered Republican and helped launch a group endorsing ex-President Donald Trump. Yet many residents remain unaware of this discrepancy.

Second, the assertion that partisan primary elections would "exclude independent voters" is not true. Under state law, political independents, called "unaffiliated" voters, can participate in primary elections, including on the day of, by simply declaring a temporary affiliation with either the Democratic or Republican party at the polls. And once they finish voting, independents can easily revert to their previous status, if they wish, and resume being a registered "unaffiliated" by filling out a short form. Records obtained through an OPRA request, which only highlights the present difficulty of reliably discerning party affiliations, demonstrate that said author of the October 14 letter, himself a registered "unaffiliated," has taken advantage of this opportunity before. There are thus no barriers to participating in primaries, and nothing prevents people from freely exercising their right to—it is merely a matter of personal choice. Complaining about not being able to select party leaders while refusing to engage or join in the process is contradictory.

Third, the argument that voters would start to "blindly vote on party lines" with the introduction of partisan elections dismisses the integrity and intellect of the voting constituency. Do we not have faith in our fellow residents' ability to make the best and most careful decisions, regardless of party affiliation? West Windsor is a highly educated community, and its residents are capable of critical thinking. The notion that attaching party labels to ballots will suddenly turn voters into mindless followers is unfounded (and perhaps deeply cynical). Access to more information, including the political affiliations of those running for Township Mayor and Council, is always beneficial—especially because of the very limited media coverage of our local elections and the backgrounds/platforms of candidates. Voters should have the context that they need to conduct more research and make informed choices when performing their civic duty, and partisan elections assist in offering a major piece of that.

Lastly, there is a fear that adopting partisan elections might make West Windsor akin to "neighboring partisan towns," with the implication that it would lead to domination by an alleged shadowy party machine. This perspective is unsubstantiated and exaggerates the role of county party organizations. Primary elections are public, use secret ballots, and the results are ultimately determined by voters, not party "insiders." And while county chairs may endorse candidates, their power is rapidly diminishing. Voters—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—are the ones who retain control and can directly hold candidates accountable. It is also worth noting here, too, given the forum the author wrote in, that Princeton, which operates under a partisan system, has thrived. Does anyone believe that its residents vote "blindly" or are suffering because of its method of elections? If so, we challenge them to provide specific examples where Princeton's officials prioritized party loyalty over municipal well-being. Much evidence suggests otherwise, as observed by a longtime West Windsor resident and Trentonian columnist, who points out the exemplary local governance in many Mercer County communities with partisan elections.

We encourage all West Windsor residents to vote "yes" on November 5 for more accountable and transparent municipal elections.

West Windsor Voters for Transparency and Representation