On September 13, political parties across the state will hold primary elections. In theory, these events let registered voters choose who will be on their party's ballot in the November general election. (And in New York State, you can vote in a party primary only if you're registered in that party.) But in the City of Rochester, Democratic Party primaries have more significance. Given Democrats' heavy enrollment advantage in the city - and low voter interest in general -Republican Party leaders have all but given up on city races. No Republicans are running for school board, and only two are running for the four City Council seats on the ballot.
That should leave an opening for third-party candidates, but the political system is blatantly, deliberately, stacked against them. That's not good for democracy; the public may think of third parties as fringe groups, irrelevant, but this is where new ideas and "speak truth to power" messages often come from. It's hard to emphasize the importance of third parties, locally and nationally.
But these parties often don't have the resources and the clout to recruit and run good candidates. Too often they endorse major-party candidates (which at least helps keep the parties on the ballot) or run candidates who have some good ideas but nowhere near the experience to serve in the office they seek.
In the City of Rochester, this year's Democratic primary election has contests for four seats on the school board, two City Council district seats, and two County Legislature district seats. This week, we're endorsing in all of those except one legislature race, and in the accompanying articles, we tell you why, and what we know about the candidates. (Democrats in the heavily Democratic Town of Brighton also have an important primary, for town supervisor. Long-time supervisor Sandy Frankel is not seeking re-election, running instead for county executive. Hoping to win their party's nomination are town attorney Bill Moehle and town clerk Susan Kramarsky. The winner will face Republican candidate Brian Callahan in the November election.)
![ENDORSEMENTS: [UPDATED] Campos, Evans, Powell for city school board](uploads/articles/12317-thumb_wi100_he100_cr1:1.1314798070.gif)
Opinion
For city school board: Campos, Evans, Powell Nine people are running for the four seats up for election on the Rochester school board. And as with the other city races, the September 13 primary will likely determine who takes office in...
Opinion
It's been a relatively low-key election cycle this summer in terms of City Council. The Paetec sale and controversy surrounding the police department have overshadowed pretty much everything else going on in the city. The district Council...
Opinion
There will be two County Legislature seats on the Democratic primary ballot. In the 25th District in southwest Rochester, where incumbent Calvin Lee is term-limited and not seeking reelection, John Lightfoot is challenging the party's endorsed...
Comments for "ELECTIONS: Our 2011 Primary Endorsements" (10)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
James Spount said on Aug. 31, 2011 at 12:14pm
This may be the most thoughtful and thorough presentation of Rochester School Board candidates we are likely to see. Given the importance of the school board's job, it is critical that rigorous and objective examinations are presented to the public. This one out-shines anything I've seen so far. Well done City Newspaper!
Gary Marshall said on Aug. 31, 2011 at 5:46pm
Hear hear James! I'd say City hit it right on the head. Now let's hope voters do too...!!
Drew Beeman said on Aug. 31, 2011 at 8:25pm
This had a couple of great paragraphs about the potential for third parties, but no mention of third party candidates. I am a third party candidate for the 25 LD in which you made no endorsement. I hope you take the time to write about or interview me as well as all of the other third party candidates!
City editorial staff said on Sep. 01, 2011 at 9:30am
To Drew Beeman: we will be writing about the third-party candidates in our coverage before the November general election. This week's endorsements were for candidates in the September Democratic primary.
Mitch Rowe said on Sep. 01, 2011 at 1:07pm
I just looked at the image asscociated with this article (the blured faces of non-endorsed candidates). It is reminiscent of negative campaigning flyers I have seen over the years and myself was the recipient of in my 2001 run for the County Legislature.
It was likely not your intent to offend theose indivuduals you did not endorse but I find your use of the image as highly offensive.
Mitch Rowe said on Sep. 01, 2011 at 6:44pm
Dear City Newspaper:
Please help me understand the altered photo thing and let me know if the following is a fair and accurate understanding of your endorsement process for 2011 primary races:
1. You invite candidates to participate in your endorsement process.
2. You require considerable time and energy from candidates to answer questions and be interviwed.
3. You either take a photograph of candidates or ask that they provide one as a part of the endorsement process.
4. You make your endorsement decision.
5. In the process of making your endorsement deciisons known, you created a photo montage that alters photographs taken of or provided by candidates you did not endorse.
If this is a reasonable characterization of your process and a part of its results, I would suggest a lack of journalistic integrity.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Mary Anna Towler, City editor said on Sep. 02, 2011 at 10:51am
To Mitch Rowe: We've been hard-pressed to know how to respond to your concern. Our excellent photographer took photos of every candidate we interviewed. None of the photographs were designed to make the candidates look bad. Fading out the photos of the candidates we did not endorse was a design decision made by our talented art department and was most certainly not intended to be disrespectful.
tom janowski said on Sep. 04, 2011 at 9:29am
If you keep doing the same things, you will keep getting the same results. Incumbents, especially on the school board, who have not helped improve anything should not be endorsed to continue to be part of the problem. Your thoughtful and reasoned choices don't really address the real issue--the need for truly radical change. You mention the passion and commitment and anger of the CETF candidates and you disqualify them for their anger. There have been plenty of school board members who have shown anger in the past, so I'm not sure that should ever be a deal breaker.
In all politics, "we the people" have been displaced by candidates who have an interest in maintaining their own status quo. We, as citizens, need to be open minded enough to give others a chance to bring their visions of change to all elected offices. We are at a point where drastic change is needed and that will not come with the candidates you have endorsed.
hiwayman17 said on Sep. 04, 2011 at 2:56pm
I had the opportunity to hear the CETF candidates speak and I was nothing but impressed. Certainly there was passion in their voices. But more importantly, there was intelligence. I sensed no anger. What I sensed was that they felt a true obligation to carry a mandate from the people to make changes.
Pat Mannix said on Sep. 05, 2011 at 4:27pm
It is really hard to understand the disconnect between the editorials written by Ms. Towler week after week decrying the conditions on many fronts in our fair city and the candidate endorsements recently published. It seems that CITY has an "incumbants only need apply" philosophy. How, Ms. Towler, will we ever have change if we just go with the status quo? Change means different.
It is also interesting how many candidates were dismissed due to the fact that they often are prickly, harsh, emotional or angry. With the state of things in Rochester, I would be suspicious of any candidate who did not exhibit these qualities. Too bad more citizens are not up in arms about these things.
Particularly upsetting was your condesending rejection of Diane Watkins. Your piece portrayed her as naive at best, stupid at worst. She is neither of these things. Diane is a dynamic, tremendously energetic, astute, reflective woman who would bring a much needed fresh perspective to City Council. And she fights her fights without resorting to the other qualities you find so threatening. She has taught about government for years and is also active in the Democratic Party and was a delegate to the last national convention.
I would venture to guess that none of the incumbents were especially savvy about the positions they hold before they were elected either. So please, stop complaining about the state of things or support people who really can bring about change.
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.