Voting tonight because you have a gut feeling about something is that not. It is not research, it is not discussion.”

Leonard Katzman, chairman of the Democratic Town Committee

We want to know what the people of Portsmouth want, and that’s all we’re asking — not what Mr. Katzman wants, what the people want.”

Nancy Grieb, who served on the last Charter Review Committee

PORTSMOUTH — Now it’s official: Voters will decide whether they want the town to switch to nonpartisan elections for Town Council and School Committee.

In a 4-3 vote Monday night, the council decided to put the question on the ballot for the next general election in 2026, or perhaps sooner. If the town calls for a special election for any particular reason before then — such as a bond issue — the question will be on that ballot. If the ballot question were approved in the 2026 election (the more likely scenario, since officials say it’s doubtful a special election will be necessary before then), nonpartisan elections for the two boards would begin in 2028.

In nonpartisan elections, candidates’ political party designations (R, D, I) are not listed next to their names on the ballot. Candidates may still identify themselves during their campaigns as Republicans, Democrats or independents to voters, either in person or with lawn signs, etc., but residents don’t have that information when they cast their ballot. Tiverton, Middletown and Newport all run nonpartisan elections.

The idea was first floated in January by council member Mary McDowell, who proposed a special election to decide the matter. After some rigorous debate and concerns raised over the cost of conducting a special election, no action was taken then.

On Monday, McDowell put the matter on the agenda again as a way of pursuing nonpartisan elections “in the best way that makes sense for our community.”

McDowell’s main argument for switching to nonpartisan elections was the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from running for office. The purpose of the law is to ensure federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure federal employees are advanced based on merit and not political affiliation.

“The Hatch Act prohibits a lot of qualified people to run for office,” McDowell said, adding that Aquidneck Island has many federal employees. Switching to nonpartisan elections would attract a larger pool of candidates, she said.

In addition, nonpartisan elections are a “unifier,” she said. “Sometimes I think we vote party rather than politics.”

‘Gut feeling’ only

Leonard Katzman, who chairs the Democratic Town Committee, took issue with McDowell’s claims during a lengthy spiel in which he cited numerous studies he said contradicted her statements.

“There is no evidence locally that getting rid of partisan identifiers at the ballot would increase in any appreciably way the candidate pool,” Katzman said. “Voting tonight because you have a gut feeling about something is that not. It is not research, it is not discussion.” 

In any event, he said, candidates could still violate the Hatch Act after switching to nonpartisan elections. “If local parties endorse a slate of candidates, that may implicate the Hatch Act in and of itself,” he said.

Nonpartisan elections are certainly not needed in Portsmouth, he said. “Portsmouth has a long history of voting for Republicans, and voting for Democrats, and voting for independents. Our system is working,” said Katzman, who served on the previous council.

Nonpartisan elections withhold information from voters at the ballots, he charged. “We’re talking about the voters of Portsmouth who may, or may not, choose to never vote for a Republican or never vote for a Democrat. That’s their right. It’s the right of the voters to vote however they choose,” he said.

Katzman also refuted McDowell’s claim that candidates would feel less pressure to vote the party line in a nonpartisan election. “Having served as an elected official, I can tell you that most of the time, council members vote their conscious. If people think council members are voting because of some party edict, they’re dreaming that up,” he said.

Council member Juan Carlos Payero said he agreed with Katzman. “Nonpartisan elections don’t eliminate partisanship. They just eliminate the letter at the end of a name,” he said.

Larry Fitzmorris, president of Portsmouth Concerned Citizens, said that group voted to support McDowell’s proposal. 

“I’ve known two candidates who wanted to run for office in this town who could not run because they were employed in some fashion or another, under federal dollars or with the federal government,” he said. “We don’t deny people in any other way the right in this country the right to run for office unless they’re a felon. As long as they’re a citizen, they get to run. I guess in Rhode Island we can be a felon, can’t we? Sorry.”

What the people want

Nancy Grieb, of Thayer Drive, pointed out the last Charter Review Committee (CRC), of which she was a member, narrowly voted in favor of nonpartisan elections. (The CRC, an advisory board, first voted in 2020 in favor of nonpartisan elections for both council and School Committee. It later came back with a recommendation for nonpartisan school board elections only, which would have required a separate ballot. The council declined to put the question on the ballot.)

“We want to know what the people of Portsmouth want, and that’s all we’re asking — not what Mr. Katzman wants, what the people want,” Grieb said.

She also pointed out that Katzman spoke for “over 12 minutes” — it was in fact 16 — despite the fact he voted for a three-minute time limit on public comment when he was a member of the council. 

Mark Katzman, Katzman’s brother and a former secretary of the CRC, said that body should be recalled to debate the matter again. “Your knowing a lot of people who think this would be good is not exactly a scientific survey of the community,” he told McDowell.

The voters should decide the matter, but leaving it in the hands of just the Town Council goes against the process, he said.

Council President Keith Hamilton replied there was a process in 2020. “The Charter Review Committee came forward, and this council killed it. So the process failed last time,” he said, noting the council was controlled by Democrats at the time.

A GOP-controlled council could have done the same, Mark Katzman responded, adding that such a question should not appear on any special election ballot because voter turnout for such elections is historically abysmal. “If it’s going to be up to the people, it should be during a regular election, not some emergency-scheduled special election because there’s absolutely no catastrophe that compels us to do this now tonight,” he said.

Voting in favor of putting nonpartisan elections on the next ballot were Council Vice President David Gleason and McDowell, Sharlene Patton, and David Reise. Hamilton, Payero, and Sondra Blank voted against the motion. 

Hamilton said while he was in favor of nonpartisan elections, the question should be on a general election ballot only to ensure a more robust voter turnout.