How Nonpartisan Ballot Design Conceals Partisanship: A Survey Experiment of School Board Members in Two States

• Date: 01 March 2018
• Author: Evan Crawford
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912917725405
• Published date: 01 March 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

725405PRQXXX10.1177/1065912917725405Political Research QuarterlyCrawford
research-article2017
Article
Political Research Quarterly
2018, Vol. 71(1) 143 –156
How Nonpartisan Ballot Design Conceals © 2017 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Partisanship: A Survey Experiment of
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917725405
DOI: 10.1177/1065912917725405
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
School Board Members in Two States
Evan Crawford1
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 local office? I leverage the fact that within
select states, school boards vary as to whether 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 general policy positions of both parties, differentially affect
elected officials in different ballot contexts? Evidence from the survey reveals a group of “polarized nonpartisans” who
tend to express more partisan views about public policy than their co-partisans elected in an explicitly partisan system.
At the same time, providing party cues in policy debates disproportionately moves those elected on partisan ballots as
opposed to nonpartisan ones. That partisan-elected officials are more influenced by party cues appears to validate the
motivations of nonpartisan reformers, yet the “polarized nonpartisans” found in the control group should give those
reformers pause and reveals the need for continued research into the behavioral consequences of nonpartisan ballots.
Keywords
elections, partisan, nonpartisan, local government, polarization, survey experiment
There is no Republican way to collect garbage.
To examine how ballot design affects the level of parti-
sanship in office, I leverage the fact that within select
—Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia
states, school boards vary as to whether their members are
elected on partisan ballots, a condition I refer to as the “bal-
A hallmark of local governance in the United States has
lot context.” This feature provides a unique opportunity to
been the use of nonpartisan elections. County and munic-
study differences between elected officials within the same
ipal offices provide basic services to residents and are
state and serving in the same type of office. With this
thus believed to function best when partisanship is not a
research design, I address two questions: Do the differ-
consideration. Yet studies suggest that between one-
ences in policy preferences between Democrats and
fourth and one-third of localities elect their leaders on
Republicans differ across ballot contexts? Does a party cue
partisan ballots, where the candidates’ party affiliation is
treatment, where respondents are reminded of the general
listed next to their name (Meier and Rutherford 2014;
policy positions of both parties, differentially affect elected
Northup 1987; Oliver and Ha 2007; Wood 2002).1 This
officials in different ballot contexts? I first discuss existing
would seem to violate the reformist idea expressed by
scholarship on nonpartisan elections in the United States,
LaGuardia that local government ought to be insulated
revealing a need for research on the behavior of partisan-
from party politics. But is the presence of a party label on
versus nonpartisan-elected officials and a research design
the ballot really consequential? It has been difficult to
that leverages within-state variation in ballot context. I
tell because offices with officially partisan elections
next introduce an original survey of school board members
often differ from de jure nonpartisan offices. In short, the
type of ballot and type of office usually go together,
1University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA
making it difficult to know which is important. I attempt
to resolve this methodological hurdle by examining elec-
Corresponding Author:
tions for a ubiquitous local office—school board—where
Evan Crawford, Department of Political Science, University of
Wisconsin–Madison, 110 North Hall, 1050 Bascom Mall, Madison,
the office is held fixed but ballots vary in whether they
WI 53706, USA.
are partisan or not.
Email: crawford3@wisc.edu

---

144
Political Research Quarterly 71(1)
in North Carolina and Georgia, two states where the ballot
elections, and even referenda support Adrian’s concern
context varies. I next place the three public policies I ask
that partisanship remains a significant factor throughout
board members to respond to—Common Core standards,
de jure nonpartisan elections (Boudreau and Mackenzie
school vouchers, and school prayer—in context with
2013; Meier and Rutherford 2016; Rock and Baum 2010).
respect to their partisan dynamics in North Carolina and
Although voting behavior and the electoral conse-
Georgia. This is followed by analysis and discussion of an
quences of nonpartisan elections have been the subject of
experiment embedded within the survey designed to test
scrutiny, less examined have been any differences that
whether or not (1) partisan gaps in policy preference differ
might exist between officials elected on nonpartisan bal-
across ballot contexts, and (2) party cues disproportion-
lots compared with their otherwise similar counterparts
ately affect members elected on partisan ballots compared
elected on partisan ballots. This lack of scholarship is sur-
with nonpartisan ones.
prising, especially considering not only the variation that
Evidence from the survey suggests that, among a con-
exists in how local governments operate, but also the
trol group, members chosen in nonpartisan elections tend
extent to which state legislatures continue to debate these
to express more partisan views about public policy than
electoral reforms. Between 2012 and 2016, legislation to
their co-partisans elected in an explicitly partisan system.
change the partisan nature of local school board elections
At the same time, providing party cues in policy debates
was proposed in the Kansas, Tennessee, Indiana, Florida,
disproportionately moves those elected on partisan bal-
and Pennsylvania legislatures.2
lots as opposed to nonpartisan ones. That partisan-elected
Until recently, the studies of local elections often
officials are more influenced by party cues appears to
focused on a handful of large cities, complicating the
validate the motivations of nonpartisan reformers, yet the
generalizability of their findings (Marschall, Shah, and
“polarized nonpartisans” found in the control group
Ruhil 2011; Oliver 2012). Fortunately, efforts have been
should give those reformers pause. Although a rigorous
made to systematically gather data on local elections,
examination of the causes of this result lies outside the
enabling scholars to conduct analysis that speaks to a
scope of this study, I offer two theories to explain these
wide range of governing institutions (Marschall, Ruhil,
divergent results: Nonpartisan board members may and Shah 2010; Marschall and Shah 2013). Aggregate
exhibit polarized views due to “institutional cover,”
studies of school boards, suburban elections, and city
where the de jure nonpartisans feign independence.
councils are evidence of insights into political participa-
Separately, although not mutually exclusive, is the idea
tion and representation that can be gained from leverag-
that nonpartisan board members disproportionately “sig-
ing electoral variation after the costs of gathering and
nal” their preferences to demonstrate their partisan affini-
analyzing data from the local level are overcome (Cassel
ties when party labels are not available to do it for them.
1985; Meier and Rutherford 2016; Oliver and Ha 2007).
I make the case for continued research into the behavioral
Local elections are characterized in the literature as
consequences of nonpartisan ballots to explore these
low-turnout affairs that are often off-cycle and nonparti-
mechanisms and other pressing questions.
san (Anzia 2011; Hajnal and Lewis 2003; Moe 2005;
Wood 2002). The prevalence of these shared character-
Nonpartisan Elections in the United
istics has led to the tendency for the literature to treat all
States
local elections as monolithic and has largely ignored the
smaller (though recently growing) number of local elec-
A key element of progressive reforms was a move toward
tions that are de jure partisan, on-cycle, or both. To
nonpartisan local elections. The idea was noble: local
answer outstanding questions, a research design is
government should be removed from the partisan fray
needed that holds office constant but allows the partisan
and isolated from political machines, making it better
structure of the ballot to vary, and moves from the study
able to operate efficiently and attract open-minded candi-
of voters to the study of the politicians who actually
dates who might shy away from parties (Cassel 1987;
hold local office.
Howell 2005).
Charles Adrian (1952, 1959) offered the first critique,
Ballot Context and Behavior
alleging that nonpartisan elections resulted in a greater
incumbency advantage and the recruitment of fewer qual-
Do officials elected under a partisan system differ in their
ity candidates. Adrian also...