Editorial: Cross-filing and Pennsylvania political identities

Should candidates in Pennsylvania school board races be permitted to cross-file?

Cross-filing is allowed only in lower-level judicial races and for school board candidates in the Keystone State. It is what happens when someone decides to appear on the Democratic and Republican ballots in a primary election.

For some, that could be a deliberate move to stave off a challenger within the party. A lifelong Democrat, for example, could prevent being bumped off by another Dem by cross-filing when there are no Republicans running. On the other hand, a particularly popular candidate could sew up a race in May by capturing the nomination from both parties.

Both of those examples are arguments for why cross-filing isn’t allowed in higher- level races. They can be seen as circumventing the process, which is staggered for a purpose. Think of it like the World Series. There’s a lot of baseball between April and October. There’s a reason you don’t win the trophy for being in first place in May.

A Spotlight PA article examined cross-filing and the criticism about it being confusing for voters. It makes sense that a Republican seeing a name on the primary ballot could assume that person is a member of the GOP.

Pennsylvania is one of just nine U.S. states that utilizes a closed primary. That means that only registered Democrats and Republicans can participate in primaries, unless there is a ballot question being put in front of all voters at that time. Primaries are intended for the two major parties to pick their nominees to face off in November.

Because of that, engaged voters can identify candidates they see in the spring being their ideological peers. Cross-filing can mean that’s not true.

But is that an argument against cross-filing? Or is it an encouragement for more voters to understand who their candidates really are?

Some candidates may wish to avoid confusion, too. With school boards becoming hyper- partisan battlegrounds, cross-filing isn’t as commonplace as it has been historically.

Although there are good reasons on both sides, it boils down to an unfortunate commentary on the political landscape. Even our least-partisan elected offices are becoming more mired in pointed political identification.