Why Does Searcy Have Nonpartisan Elections?

In the 2010 general election, all Searcy city elections are "nonpartisan."

What is a nonpartisan election?
The two differences between Searcy's 2008 partisan election and the 2010 nonpartisan election are:

• The candidates did not compete in party primaries
• The candidates will not have their party affiliation listed on the November ballot

However, the candidates still retain their party affiliation, and they are still likely to behave in the future the way they have in the past.

Partisan vs Nonpartisan Elections
The National League of Cities (NLC), the U.S.-wide equivalent of the Arkansas Municipal League, lists the key arguments against nonpartisan elections:

• "Absence of party labels confuses voters; a voter who must choose from among a group of candidates who he or she knows nothing about will have no meaningful basis in casting a ballot;
• In absence of party ballot, voters will turn to whatever cue is available, and often this cue turns out to be the ethnicity of a candidate's name;
• Non-partisanship tends to produce elected officials more representative of the upper socioeconomic strata than of the general populace and aggravate the class bias in voting turnout, namely because in true non-partisan systems there are no organizations of local party workers to bring lower-class citizens to the polls on election day; and
• Non-partisanship destroys resources important to coalition building and effective governance."

NLC says the main argument for nonpartisan elections is "political parties are irrelevant to providing services; experts and professionals should determine the service needs of the constituents."

New York City has periodically considered the merits of nonpartisan elections. As nonpartisan elections were debated again this past June, the Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog had a news story citing the work of David Schleicher, who has researched nonpartisan elections. His conclusions echo the arguments against nonpartisan elections listed by NLC. They make it harder for voters to learn the facts about candidates, they lead to the election of social or economic elites, and they reduce voter turnout.

Why Does Searcy Have Nonpartisan Elections?
In the November 2009 City Council meeting, the Searcy City Council passed Resolution 2009-15. According to the meeting minutes, the aldermen voting for it were "Arnett, Dixon, Sterling, English and Chalenburg." Those voting against were "Nutter, Liles and Brewer." This resolution made all city elections nonpartisan.

Why would Alderman Mary Ann Arnett, and four other aldermen (Dixon, Sterling, English, and Chalenburg) vote for nonpartisan elections? By voting for nonpartisan elections, Alderman Sterling, Alderman Dixon, Alderman Arnett, and Alderman Chalenburg, who all ran as Republicans in 2008, avoided their party primaries. Instead, they are each facing off against their Republican challengers in the general election.

Regardless of their reasons, which were not mentioned in the November 2009 Council meeting minutes, nonpartisan elections are known to cause voter confusion, to reduce the motivation to vote, to obscure where a candidate stands on issues important to voters, and to lead to the election of social or economic elites who believe they "should determine the service needs of the constituents" rather than asking for and incorporating our feedback in governing our city. Is this what Alderman Mary Ann Arnett wants for Searcy?