Speaker Miller, Chairman Perkins, Chairman Rivera, members of the Council, good morning. I am pleased to be with you this morning to address this important issue.

As I have said repeatedly since the formation of the Mayor's Charter Revision Commission, I am opposed to the elimination of party primaries and the imposition of a non-partisan election system in the City of New York. It is poor public policy, and an idea more likely to weaken our democratic system than to strengthen it.

The New York City Charter is an immensely important document; it is the blueprint by which the City governs itself. Any changes to that blueprint must not be undertaken lightly. And any contemplated changes to our electoral system must be demonstrably superior to what is currently in place. Nonpartisan elections do not meet that standard.

Some of the arguments advanced by its supporters are based on misleading claims, and others are simply unconvincing.

First, advocates argue that party politics control the outcome of elections in New York City. In reality, New Yorkers are among the most independent-minded voters in the country, and they routinely cross party lines to support candidates. In New York City, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 5 to 1, it is striking that a Republican has been chosen to serve as Mayor in each of the last three elections.

Second, despite the claims of its proponents, there is no convincing evidence that eliminating primaries would increase voter turnout in New York City. New York's experience to date with non-partisan elections - special elections to fill vacancies and Community School Board elections, which both, unfortunately, draw extremely low numbers of voters - does not suggest that it is the right system for New York City.

Indeed, the experience of Jacksonville, Florida, which is often cited by proponents of nonpartisan elections, is decidedly mixed. In the first election following the elimination of party primaries, voter turnout increased somewhat. In the next election, voter turnout dropped substantially below what it had been in the last election to include party primaries.

In the most recent election, voter turnout returned to the levels that it had reached when party primaries were still in effect. In other words, the experience of Jacksonville, Florida, does not exactly serve as a ringing endorsement of nonpartisan elections.

Third, eliminating party primaries would be bad for minority groups. These groups have spent years building up electoral strength in a variety of ways, especially through membership in political parties. By concentrating their political strength through party membership, minorities have elected candidates that reflect their concerns. Dismantling this system at a moment when members of these groups hold more City and Borough-wide offices than at any time in our history would undermine that progress.

Finally, abolishing primaries for only some elected offices would create widespread confusion among voters. Voters would have the opportunity to vote in primaries for federal and state positions, but not for city positions. New Yorkers would follow entirely different voting systems in electing their City Councilmember as they would in choosing their State Assembly representative or State Senator.

It is hard to imagine that a more confusing voting system will help us towards our goal of increasing voter participation.

Certainly, strengthening our democracy is a laudable mission. The goals of increasing voter participation, encouraging diversity, and increasing access to government are of vital importance. New York City has in fact already instituted several reforms that have begun to nurture greater voter participation. As a result of term limits and our pioneering campaign finance law, the 2001 municipal elections proved as vibrant as any in the City's recent history. Some 250 candidates competed for the 51 city council seats that year, in which more voters streamed to the polls than for the 1997 city elections.

Campaign finance laws have also made it possible for candidates in less moneyed positions to launch and sustain serious campaigns.

For me, as an African-American without a personal fortune, they made the difference between running a symbolic campaign and running a successful one that gave me the opportunity to serve in city-wide public office.

That is not to say that New York City's electoral system would not benefit from additional reforms. In fact, New Yorkers would be well served by a serious, substantive and public discussion of any reforms that might increase voter participation. The Charter Revision Commission might have played an important role in facilitating such a discussion had its members shown any interest in doing so. Instead, when presented with several such reform proposals by one of its members, former deputy mayor Bill Lynch, the Commission dismissed them out of hand.

Mr. Lynch's proposed reforms include same-day voter registration, voting rights for non-citizens and allowing voters to cast their votes on more than one day. Each deserve as much discussion and serious deliberation as eliminating party primaries, yet the Mayor's Commission, despite its professed allegiance to greater voter participation, refused to consider any of them. I am disappointed that the Commission did not embrace this opportunity for a broader examination of a range of real potential reforms.

If we as a city are serious about election reform and seeking new ways to increase voter turnout, we should widen the discussion to include a wide variety of methods.

It is my hope that the citizens of this City demonstrate wisdom where the Charter Revision Commission did not, and on November 4, vote against the elimination of party primaries.
In a similar vein, just as we should not change the Charter without substantive public debate, we should not alter the Charter to implement reforms that can be achieved in other, more efficient ways. Some of the procurement reform proposals advanced by the Charter Revision Commission fall squarely into this category. I remain committed to improving the procurement process through administrative measures and legislative recommendations, because these changes do not have to be made at the Charter level. My staff has been working with the Mayor's office to develop administrative improvements to the contract system.

I also joined with the City Council leadership in forming a Joint Advisory Committee on Procurement Reform to address the need for better procurement procedures.

We are making progress by working together, through existing channels, to implement cost-effective improvements. I look forward to continuing this type of effort. Changes to the Charter itself to reform our procurement system are unwarranted.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.