To the editor:

“Keep Pelham Manor Elections Local: Ensure a Distinct Divide Between National Politics and Local Issues!” If you dropped anyone into Pelham Manor with no context and asked them to identify the cause behind this rallying cry, they would invariably guess, “nonpartisan elections.” But they’d be wrong. As we all know, the “Keep Pelham Manor Elections Local” is the rallying cry of the Prop 3 “no” campaign (quotations throughout from “no” campaign flyer).

But the very same leadership urging their constituents to ““Keep Pelham Manor Elections Local” has rejected calls for nonpartisan elections (or at the very least, does not support them). Why?

If the disease is national politics unduly influencing local politics—or, as the “no” campaign puts it, “Village candidates and local topics [being] conflated with national issues”—surely the cure is nonpartisan elections, not continuing to vote in March.  Partisans will be partisans in March, just as much as they will be in November.

Former President Donald J. Trump is a massive problem for down-ballot Republicans in blue states across the country. Village of Pelham Manor Republicans have good reason to fear that Trump’s continued leadership (or domination) of the Republican Party, coupled with their continued sharing of the “Republican” label with him, could be problematic in future elections. So, what to do?

Drop national party labels in local elections, of course! After all, there is minimal overlap between why someone chooses to be a Democrat or a Republican at the national level and what they support or would do at the local level. Simply put, national political labels and platforms translate poorly to the local level, so we shouldn’t insist on using them. Inherent in the argument that November elections would cause local issues to be overlooked is (1) the notion that people vote solely according to national party affiliations in local elections, and (2) that is a bad thing. I agree on both fronts, but both are equally true in March and November, and November has meaningful benefits over March.

I am voting “yes” on Prop 3 for the reasons previous writers have shared: better turnout, convenience and administration, to name a few. But, I’m voting “yes” for an additional reason: Pelham Manor leadership says to vote “no” because March elections purportedly keep local elections local, but they spurn nonpartisan elections, which would actually keep local elections local. My takeaway? The real reason leadership is urging us to vote “no” is for some other reason that they’re not willing to say out loud. And that gives me pause.

So, I urge my fellow Village of Pelham Manor residents to vote “yes” because November elections just make sense. But then, when the dust settles, let’s also come together to “Keep Pelham Manor Elections Local” and institute nonpartisan elections (it’s possible, just ask Scarsdale!).  I think we all agree with the “no” campaign that overseeing “essential police, fire & DPW services” should be “community-based and managerial, not political.” So, let’s make sure it is that way!

Ryan Kurtz

2 Elm Place