Hi everyone, I am told by some that propostions are considered non partisan because they do not involve advocating for one candidate or another - Dem. vs Rep. In your opinions, is this a stretch of defintions, or do you considerate it fact? Here is the example - a button advocating yes or no on a proposition - non partisan or partisan? I know this may seem like hair splitting. Please induldge me. Thanks, Abner
Let's say the context is a workplace rule against public partisanship by employees. In that case, I think that a button directly advocating for any subject of an election, whether it's a candidate, party, or referendum, would be considered partisan and disallowed. Indirect issue advocacy would also be dangerous. Imagine a button reading "We Need Change in Sacramento." …And you can see the dissembling lawyerly argument that since no party or candidate thinks Sacramento should remain entirely static, advocating for change in Sacramento doesn't take a side in any partisan issue. But yeah, right. It can get subjective. I was a nonpartisan election agency worker in the last provincial election in Ontario. Except in extremis we were not to wear a prominent colour easily identified with a political party. They did issue largely orange safety vests for outdoor workers and there's an orange party, but going to great lengths to find brown safety vests or something would likely have been considered ridiculous by all.
I consider it a fact because it is one -- proposition aren't sponsored by parties, therefore they're nonpartisan. That doesn't mean they're not political, though, they certainly are.
I'd think if either side in a proposition is endorsed by a party, or even identified with a party, it could be considered partisan even by such a stricter definition.
Enh, maybe. But even in that case, supporting the proposition wouldn't be the same thing as supporting the party.
Most, if not all, propositions are partisan in my opinion. Propositions usually concern tax payer money which will almost always be partisan. Some current examples (Democrats for, Republicans against): California proposition 32 would prevent unions from using dues automatically pulled from employees' paychecks to sponsor political activity Idaho proposition 1 deals with tenure and collective bargaining. Idaho proposition 2 deals with performance pay for teachers . Some past examples (Republicans for, Democrats against): California proposition 8 from 2008 banning same sex marriages. California proposition 187 from 1994 was to prohibit illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services.
Jonathan and Steve - I agree with both of you. Jonathan, thanks for your comments. Now, let's look at one of your quotes: "let's say the context is a workplace rule against public partisanship by employees. In that case, I think that a button directly advocating for any subject of an election, whether it's a candidate, party, or referendum, would be considered partisan and disallowed." In this case, I feel you are correct as it pertains to the workplace. Regardless of the definition, I consider propositions "political" and therefore workers should not wear prop buttons in the workplace, period. In the technical sense, I agree with Steve. Propositions are nonpartisan. Here was the argument from some. Props are nonpartisan, and therefore prop buttons can be worn in the workplace. In other words, some thought they could skirt the rule against "partisanship" by employees. The workers could therefore display proposition buttons in the workplace. I vehemently disagreed. Verdict from the union attorney. simple - Don't do it. Have a good one guys, Abner :smile:
