How Nonpartisan Ballots Conceal Partisanship: A Survey Experiment in Two States

• In Event: The Effects of Electoral System Rules

Abstract

Studies suggest that between one fourth and one third of localities elect their leaders on partisan ballots. Does the presence of a party label on the ballot affect the level of partisanship in office? I leverage the fact that within select states school boards vary as to whether or not their members are elected on partisan or nonpartisan ballots. Do the differences in policy preferences between Democrats and Republicans differ across these ballot contexts? Does a party cue treatment, where respondents are reminded of the policy positions of both parties, differentially affect elected officials from different ballot contexts?

In early 2016 I conducted a survey of school board members in Georgia and North Carolina to investigate these questions. To examine the effect of party cues on board members I embedded a three-question experiment within the survey. Respondents were asked whether they generally support or oppose the Common Core State Standards, school voucher programs, and school prayer, and were randomized into either a “party cue” or control condition. The respondents in the “party cue” condition were informed of the position each political party has taken on the issue and then asked for their level of support or opposition to the policy, whereas those in the control condition received the question without the party positions.

Somewhat surprisingly, evidence from the survey reveals a group of “polarized nonpartisans” —self-identified Democrats and Republicans elected on nonpartisan ballots— that tend to express more partisan views about public policy than their co-partisans elected on partisan ballots. In fact, among the control group, the gap in support between Democrats and Republicans from nonpartisan boards was statistically significant for each of the three policies. Among control group respondents from partisan-elected boards however, the difference in policy support between Democrats and Republicans was statistically indistinguishable. At the same time, providing party cues in policy debates disproportionately moves those elected on partisan ballots compared to non-partisan ones.

The oft-argued message of proponents of nonpartisan elections is that placing party labels on the ballot for an office such as school board will unnecessarily entangle local governance with partisan politics. The premise of this argument presumes that partisan elections yield officials who either behave in a partisan manner or who place the interest of party over that of local education (or local governance in general).

What then explains the results showing more polarized views among nonpartisan elected officials? I propose an explanation of “institutional cover.” This idea posits that the absence of party labels facilitates more covert and perhaps more intense party views. This would happen in two ways. First, it may be that nonpartisan elections allow for more extreme partisans to be elected. Candidates who run in nonpartisan elections are free to focus on issues salient to their local context without having to worry about negotiating the perceptions that come with party labels. Strong partisans could harbor Democratic or Republican views on a range of issues that are never discussed in a local campaign. Second, it may be that partisan elections force candidates to moderate their positions in an effort to appeal to voters of the opposing party to compensate for the fact that their party label will be on the ballot. If those same strong partisans who were free to ignore politically polarizing issues in nonpartisan races were forced to run in partisan elections, they may be compelled to give opinions on issues that are divisive, revealing their true partisan nature.

Variation in how local elections are conducted provides opportunities to test the effects of differing ballot contexts across a range of outcomes, including but not limited to voting behavior, campaign behavior, and policy views. I take advantage of a unique feature of local governance in North Carolina in Georgia—both states organize their school boards by county, yet some officials run in nonpartisan elections and some in partisan ones. This type of within-state variation, let alone the same type of within-state variation occurring in neighboring states, is rare. To my knowledge, the within-state research design provides the first evidence about whether partisanship in policy opinions results from the presence of party labels on the ballot.

My results help inform a growing debate about how best to structure local elections. This study indicates that the effects of ballot design are not as straightforward as either reformers or the defenders of parties have argued.

Author

• Evan Crawford, University of Wisconsin, Madison