Vote for people, not parties, and approve Question 7 and keep national politics out of our local election.”

Theodore Pietz, Glen Road

The reality is that elected officials will still bring their politics to the town council but voters won’t have the benefit of knowing the officials’ party.”

Wendi Lewis, Dexter Street

What else did they say?

The debate over nonpartisan elections drew a wide range of opinions during Tuesday's nearly 80-minute public hearing before the town council. Here are additional comments from residents and officials, including several who weren't quoted in the main story.

Wendi Lewis, Dexter Street: In a statement read by Council President Keith Hamilton because she was suffering from laryngitis, Lewis questioned whether nonpartisan elections would actually attract more candidates. She cited Middletown's experience, saying the town continues to struggle with civic engagement despite eliminating party labels.

“The reality is that elected officials will still bring their politics to the town council but voters won’t have the benefit of knowing the officials’ party,” she wrote. Lewis warned that removing party affiliations would benefit incumbents and lead to less diversity on the council.

Nancy Zitka, Schaefer Drive: Zitka challenged the notion that national politics should be kept out of local elections, arguing that the two are interconnected.

“Party identity has its place, especially today,” she said, noting that not every voter has time to thoroughly research each candidate. She also expressed concern about national political pressure on local election officials.

Leslie Yates, Windstone Drive: Yates questioned whether the entire electorate should change how it votes to accommodate federal employees restricted from running in partisan elections.

“Is it fair to ask all voters to accommodate those few who may have a desire to run for office but who have chosen a line of work that excludes them from doing so?” she asked. “Their choice should not impede upon my right to clearly see party affiliation.”

Kathy Poremski, Long Meadow Road: A retired federal employee, Poremski said she was familiar with strict workplace restrictions on political activities. She questioned who would be responsible for ensuring candidates complied with the federal Hatch Act.

“If somebody’s breaking the federal law, whether or not there’s a complaint, that’s a problem,” she said.

Tom Grieb, Thayer Drive: Grieb argued that voters could easily determine a candidate's political affiliation through a quick internet search. A member of the Portsmouth Water and Fire District's governing board, he noted that its elections are nonpartisan.

Sal Carceller, Lepes Road: Carceller said he arrived undecided about Question 7 but raised a procedural concern. He noted that the town charter requires a public hearing no fewer than 10 and no more than 15 days before an election, while Tuesday's hearing was held three weeks before Election Day.

“We’re not meeting that portion of the charter,” he said. “I caution that somebody could take legal action after they see the results.”

Council member Juan Carlos Payero: A Democrat seeking reelection, Payero said political parties have a responsibility to provide voters with information about their candidates. He also questioned whether eliminating party labels would give incumbents an advantage over newcomers.

Council member Sandra Blank: The Democrat, who is not seeking reelection, said voters should thoroughly research candidates regardless of party affiliation.

“If there is a letter next to a name or not, I still feel people should be educated on each individual who’s running, especially on the local level,” she said.

Blank also expressed disappointment that a recent League of Women Voters candidates forum had not been recorded, preventing residents who couldn't attend from watching it afterward.

Council Vice President David Gleason: Gleason said he would accept whatever voters decided, but hoped the ballot question would encourage more people to examine candidates individually.

“Whatever the voters choose is fine by me,” he said. “Maybe this will force more people to learn more about the candidates.”

— Jim McGaw

PORTSMOUTH — Would removing the letters “D” and “R” from local election ballots encourage more people to run for office, or simply leave voters with less information about the candidates?

That question sparked nearly 80 minutes of debate Tuesday night, Oct. 13, as residents, elected officials and candidates weighed the merits of Question 7, a proposed amendment to the Portsmouth Home Rule Charter that would make town council and school committee elections nonpartisan.

The issue drew a good crowd to Town Hall, where speakers were sharply divided over whether political party labels help or hinder voters.

Supporters argued the change would put candidates on equal footing, encourage greater participation and allow federal employees who are restricted from running in partisan elections to seek local office.

Opponents countered that party affiliations provide valuable information, particularly for voters unfamiliar with local candidates. Several also questioned whether removing party labels would actually increase participation, while potentially benefiting incumbents with greater name recognition.

For voters, the immediate question is straightforward. If Question 7 is approved Nov. 3, future ballots for town council and school committee would no longer identify candidates as Democrats, Republicans or independents. The amendment would also establish a lottery to determine ballot order for school committee candidates.

Political parties would still exist, and candidates could continue to identify with them. The number of seats and length of terms would remain unchanged.

Council President Keith Hamilton, a Republican seeking reelection, reminded the audience the question was already on the ballot and the hearing was required by the charter. He added the issue had been debated extensively.

“So we’re not really plowing new ground here,” he said.

Party labels: Helpful or harmful?

John McDaid, a Democratic candidate for town council, offered perhaps the evening’s most colorful argument against the proposal. Holding up a can of Coca-Cola, he explained the importance of recognizable brands.

“A brand is a promise; it doesn’t tell you what to think, it doesn’t tell you what to buy. You’re still choosing,” McDaid said.

He then displayed an unlabeled white can. “What could be in this bad boy? Could be anything,” he said, suggesting it might contain Pepsi, seltzer, brake fluid or a Ragged Island IPA.

“The problem is, until you drink it, you don’t know. You’re going to walk into the voting booth and take a two-year swig of this without knowing what’s inside.”

Removing party labels, he argued, doesn’t change candidates’ political beliefs. “You just make the voter find out the hard way.”

Hamilton challenged the analogy, arguing that national political divisions have made party labels less meaningful in local elections. He noted that while he has an “R” next to his name, that doesn’t necessarily make him a MAGA Republican, just as Democrat Juan Carlos Payero shouldn’t automatically be associated with the party’s more progressive wing.

“I don’t think an R and a D gives you the best information for local candidates,” Hamilton said.

Kate Keelty of Water Street disagreed, saying reliable information about local candidates can be difficult to find. “You try to follow the breadcrumbs and you may get a paragraph on a website, but it doesn’t really tell you much,” she said.

Although she has voted across party lines, Keelty said party affiliation provides a useful starting point. “There is importance and meaning to that label.”

Federal employees at center of debate

One of the strongest arguments for Question 7 involves the federal Hatch Act, which restricts certain political activities by federal employees, including candidacy in partisan elections.

Theodore Pietz of Glen Road, a federal employee, said the proposal was hardly a recent attempt by politicians to distance themselves from unpopular national party positions. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.

Pietz traced the debate back several years, including an unsuccessful effort to advance nonpartisan elections through the town’s 2020 charter review process. “That meant that we, the voters, were not even allowed to vote whether we would like nonpartisan elections for our school committee (and) town council,” he said.

He pointed to Newport, where federal employees have successfully sought local office, and urged residents “to vote for people, not parties, and approve Question 7 and keep national politics out of our local election.”

But Leonard Katzman, a Democrat running for council, warned that removing party designations does not necessarily make an election nonpartisan under federal law. Citing an advisory opinion from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Katzman said party endorsements could still trigger Hatch Act restrictions, even when no party affiliation appears on the ballot.

“Just removing the label off the ballot does not make this a nonpartisan election,” he said.

Katzman warned that federal employees could face disciplinary consequences if they misunderstood the rules. “All it takes is a complaint,” he said.

Hamilton responded that individual federal employees would be responsible for seeking guidance on their eligibility.

Conni Harding of Union Street, a former independent council candidate, took a different view. “If one person runs for council because we take the Ds and Rs off the ballot, that makes it worthwhile,” she said.

Would incumbents benefit?

Several opponents argued that removing party affiliations could make it harder for challengers to defeat established officeholders.

State Sen. Linda Ujifusa, a Democrat, said incumbents such as herself would benefit from greater name recognition. She also questioned potential election costs and whether enough research had been conducted before the proposal reached voters.

“How much is this going to cost the taxpayers?” she asked.

Nancy Grieb of Thayer Drive, however, said the existing partisan system unfairly disadvantages independent candidates, who appear below party-affiliated candidates on the ballot. “Portsmouth has more registered unaffiliated voters than registered Republicans and Democrats combined,” she said.

“Why should unaffiliated, independent voters and the candidates who represent them be treated differently simply because they are not affiliated with one of the two Rhode Island-sanctioned political parties?”

Nonpartisan elections, she argued, “would eliminate that inequity.”

Questions about the process

Registrar of Voters Jacqueline Schulz criticized the council for advancing the proposal without a comprehensive charter review or sufficient examination of other communities’ experiences. “You had a year, and I stood here and I begged you in April of 2025 to do this, to be thoughtful about it,” she said.

Schulz expressed concern that voters and election officials could face confusion without adequate guidance. “Voting is not an easy task for anybody. Getting information is not easy for anybody. But let’s not make it harder for them.”

Council member Mary McDowell, an independent seeking reelection, defended the process, noting that the issue had appeared on council agendas three times in 2025. She also recounted the 2020 charter review committee’s shifting votes on nonpartisan elections, which she described as “questionable.”

“For me, this is too important an issue to play games with,” McDowell said.

Don Clukies, a member of that committee, similarly criticized the earlier process, saying an initial vote favoring nonpartisan elections was reversed after additional members arrived.

Council Vice President David Gleason, a Republican seeking reelection, said the important thing was allowing residents to decide.

“This will at least give the voters … an opportunity to actually vote on this,” he said.