Iowa City Democrats push partisan loyalty pledge in nonpartisan city council race

Iowa City’s supposedly nonpartisan city council race feels pretty partisan this year.

Three of the four candidates — Bruce Teague and Megan Alter for at-large and Shawn Harmsen for District B — are mutually supporting each other in one way or another.

The other at-large candidate, Jason Glass, is the odd man out. He is not supporting any other candidates and he didn’t seek their support. Not coincidentally, Glass is a former Republican while the other three are active Democrats.

It’s a bit of a throwback to 2015, when the progressive “Core Four” swept Iowa City elections over moderate opponents. Candidates said they weren’t a slate but supporters and the media saw them that way. The left-leaning alternative magazine Little Village captured the vibe nicely — its postelection cover depicted the four candidates as some kind of medieval warriors.

I think candidates on the same ballot supporting each other is unhealthy for our form of local government.

This year’s cadre of cozy candidates isn’t coordinating to the same extent as the “Core Four“ but they have variously appeared at events together, hoisted each other’s signs and exchanged endorsements. Alter’s website lists Harmsen as an endorser and also listed Teague until it was recently updated.

The backdrop of all this is that local elections increasingly are divided along national partisan lines. Local parties have become involved with nonpartisan races.

They’re just friends backing friends. But maybe city government should not be made up of a group of friends rotating in and out of various community and party positions.

More than two dozen Johnson County Democrats, including Harmsen, recently signed a party loyalty pledge endorsing Alter and Teague, “Democrats in good standing who have spent years supporting local, state, and national level Democratic candidates.”

I explained the gist of this column to Harmsen and Alter and they each explained their reasoning for backing fellow candidates.

“If I wasn’t running, I would be out there saying the same things. These are two people [Alter and Teague] I've known for a long time, who I trust,” Harmsen said.

He also said, “We are our own individual people. There's no quid pro quo. It's a matter of values.”

“People look for shortcuts for values. People look for who’s supporting whom and so it’s one more piece of input for voters to decide on,” Alter said.

She also said, “There’s an artificiality in all of a sudden, in a community that already knows my views, to say I will not endorse anyone or support anyone since that’s already out there and known. That seems disingenuous.”

Teague, on the other hand, didn’t want to talk about it. He told me part way through our conversation that he didn’t think it was on the record, even though I told him ahead of time it was an interview for my column. I told him he could think about it and email me a comment instead but he didn’t take me up on it.

Alter and Harmsen both mentioned values, but it’s hard to see what form that takes in city government. All four candidates are more alike on the big issues than they are different. Glass backs the same progressive policy agenda as his opponents — restructuring the police department, expanding affordable housing, funding excluded workers, mandating masks by local order, the city’s climate action plan.

Local elected bodies already are susceptible to groupthink — they get the same presentations from city staff and they are overwhelmingly inclined to agree with them. I worry that’s made worse in a partisanized environment.

By exchanging political support, politicians are hitching their wagons together. They may be reluctant to speak out against their friends or to agree with their campaign foes. Partisans are known to protect their own.

I acknowledge, as Alter and Harmsen pointed out, that the candidates’ personal and political connections predate their recent runs for office. They’re just friends backing friends. But maybe city government should not be made up of a group of friends rotating in and out of various community and party positions.

I have known Glass for several years through politics. We have similar backgrounds in the libertarian-Republican movement but we’ve both grown disillusioned at partisan politics. He eventually left the party and registered as no-party last year.

The candidate has not shied away from his partisan history. He did the Democrats’ opposition research for them, posting a lengthy blog post about his political past and evolution.

Glass told me leaving the party was “hard and freeing.” He’s glad to be out of the GOP but also sees how our political system makes it much more comfortable to align with a party.

“Partisan offices are easier because no matter what you do you always have like 30 percent of the electorate that will love you because you’re on their team. If you’re on school board, everyone can hate you,” Glass said.

Glass promises he won’t accept endorsements from current council members or candidates during his council service. He also said he won’t endorse or donate to candidates at any level nor register with a party.

Local Democrats’ recent collective endorsement calls Glass “problematic.” It lists his past associations with the Republican Party and GOP candidates but does not mention any of Glass’s city policy positions. To do so, they would have to acknowledge they agree with him on much of it. They would show themselves guilty of associating with the wrong-thinker.

Majorities of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and Iowa City Council have the exact same position as Glass. Loyal Democrats have not been eager to criticism them for it.

The one issue I have seen critics hit Glass on is local law enforcement’s use of an armored vehicle — he wants to keep the military surplus vehicle or replace it with a civilian model. I disagree with him on that but majorities of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and Iowa City Council have the exact same position as Glass. Loyal Democrats have not been eager to criticism them for it. Some values.

However independent-minded the candidates think they will be on council, surely a loyalty pledge is bad for local politics.

“I’ve had prominent Democrats, including elected ones, who have told me privately they are supportive of what I’m doing but can’t do so publicly because of fear of retribution,” Glass told me.

(319) 339-3156; adam.sullivan@thegazette.com