Portsmouth council delays vote on switching council and school committee elections to nonpartisan

Council member McDowell moved on Feb. 24 to place a question on the next election ballot asking voters whether Portsmouth should change town council and school committee elections to nonpartisan contests. The proposal drew extensive public testimony and a lengthy council discussion before a motion to table the item prevailed 4–3.

Nut graf: The item touched on local governance, the Hatch Act’s effects on prospective candidates, and whether taking party labels off the ballot would improve civic participation. Supporters asked to let voters decide; opponents and several local experts urged a structured study—through a charter review committee or a public education process—before sending a charter amendment to the ballot.

Council member McDowell said she believed nonpartisan elections would “increase the candidate pool” and “force us to look at policy decisions over party,” and moved that the council place the question on whichever election—special or general—comes next. Len Katzmann, chair of the Portsmouth Democratic Town Committee, disputed several premises of that motion during public comment, citing academic research and local experience. “I do not believe you can say in sincerity and honesty that you have an evidence-based rationale for moving forward to put this on the ballot tonight,” Katzmann said, urging study and public discussion.

Several speakers representing civic groups and neighbors told the council to let voters decide. Larry Fitzmaurice of Portsmouth Concerned Citizens said removing party labels would allow people barred by the Hatch Act to run and that “all people that are qualified by age and the other qualifications … should be allowed to run for office.” Other commenters, including Mark J. Katzmann and Craig Clark of the Portsmouth Historical Society, urged following the charter’s established charter-review process to vet any amendment.

Council debate followed a broad pattern: some members said the council should put the question before voters and allow a fuller public debate to follow; others said the topic deserved a standalone study and broader public outreach. Council members and public commenters repeatedly referenced the Hatch Act and academic studies on nonpartisan elections’ effects on voter information and turnout.

A motion by Councilor White to table the proposal in order to hold a learning session and gather additional public input carried by a 4–3 vote. The council’s stated fallback remains to place a charter question at the next general election if no special election arises. No charter change was drafted at the meeting; the council did not adopt ballot language and took no further formal steps beyond tabling the motion.

Ending: Council members who supported tabling said they favored a public education process and a charter-review approach before any ballot question. Those who opposed the tabling motion said they would continue to press the measure and seek to place the question on a future ballot with additional outreach.