There is much to be said for keeping national party politics out of local government. Fixing roads, maintaining schools and managing taxpayers’ money should not be Republican or Democratic issues. They should be Portsmouth issues.

That is the strongest argument for Question 7, which asks voters on Nov. 3 whether town council and school committee elections should become nonpartisan.

Supporters believe removing party affiliations from ballots would encourage voters to judge candidates on their qualifications rather than political labels. They also argue it would help independent candidates and allow more federal employees to seek local office.

Those are reasonable goals. But we’re not convinced Question 7 will accomplish them. We are certain, however, that it would remove useful information from voters.

Party affiliation doesn’t tell voters everything about a candidate. Portsmouth has Republicans who disagree with other Republicans and Democrats who disagree with other Democrats. Independents may hold views that cross party lines.

Still, party affiliation provides a starting point for understanding a candidate’s political philosophy and priorities. Not everyone attends candidates’ forums or researches every name on the ballot. For those voters, party affiliation may be one of the few pieces of information available.

Removing party labels won’t make political affiliations disappear. Candidates will still have their beliefs, and political parties will still endorse candidates. Voters will simply have less information.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for Question 7 concerns the federal Hatch Act, which generally prohibits federal employees from running in partisan elections. But there’s an important distinction between calling an election nonpartisan and having it qualify as such under federal law.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel has advised that even elections officially designated nonpartisan may be considered partisan if candidates receive political party endorsements or coordinate with political parties. Question 7 would remove party labels, but not necessarily party endorsements. Where is the assurance that federal employees could run without risking violations of the Hatch Act?

Supporters also raise a legitimate concern about ballot placement. Independent candidates currently appear below party-affiliated candidates, potentially putting them at a disadvantage.

But consider councilor Mary McDowell, an independent who supports Question 7. She ran under the existing system in 2024 and finished second among 12 candidates, receiving 4,744 votes — just 41 fewer than the top vote-getter.

Her success doesn’t prove ballot placement is irrelevant. It does demonstrate that independents can overcome that disadvantage. If ballot order is the problem, why not address it without eliminating party information?

There is nothing inherently wrong with nonpartisan elections. Many communities use them successfully. But Portsmouth voters deserve stronger evidence that this change would improve participation, attract more candidates or make local government better.

Question 7 asks voters to surrender something tangible — information about candidates — in exchange for benefits that remain uncertain.

We should encourage voters to look beyond party labels, not take those labels away.

Portsmouth voters deserve more information, not less. We urge a no vote on Question 7.