This op-ed was originally published in The Hill.
In this age of hyper-partisanship and polarization, there is a dangerous trend in politics this election cycle: candidates refusing to face their opponents in debates.
These candidates expect to win the job with no job interview. Their rationale?
The organizations hosting the events are “partisan.”
Some politicians are using this tiresome excuse to avoid answering tough questions and tackling issues that may be politically charged. Getting candidates on the record about issues and positions is integral to every debate and informs the voting public.
When candidates say “no” to having open debates in nonpartisan settings, it is not only a disservice to the American voters, but it is another crack in the foundation of our democracy.
Debates are a tradition of American democracy. They are essential to the election process.
It’s vital that voters have the opportunity to hear directly from candidates. In local races with modest budgets and limited media attention, debates and forums create a unique space for open dialogue and conversation, tailored to the needs of the community and the issues they care about.
Refusing to debate an opponent in an election is not a new evasion tactic.
Incumbents, particularly, have avoided facing opponents in debates at all levels of elected office for decades, because some believe debates favor challengers who have no record. But debates can also illustrate a lack of experience or knowledge. Debates are an equalizer. The moment two or more opponents take the stage together, no matter how much money they have, no matter who is up in the polls, the candidates are side-by-side, on display for voters to size up for themselves.
We know a lot about the importance of debates. The League of Women Voters has a rich history of hosting such candidate debates and forums.
In 1976, the League of Women Voters Education Fund revived the presidential debates, which had not occurred since 1960. The League sponsored three presidential debates between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and continued to host presidential debates into the 1980s. But after the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates, the political parties sought control of the debate rules and issues so much that the League was compelled to walk away. In a press conference on October 3, 1988, then-League president Nancy Neuman warned, “Under partisan sponsorship, debates will become just another risk-free stop along the campaign trail.”
In the years since, Leagues across the country have continued to host hundreds of nonpartisan candidate debates and forums every year (yes, there are elections every single year).
Elections at the state and local level are just as essential to our democracy as the presidential race every four years.
During the height of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the League rethought these forums, moving many to online platforms that still gave voters the opportunity to hear from candidates when in-person gatherings were not a safe option.
But this year, candidates are taking aim at the League as an excuse to hide from the voters.
Something has changed. But it isn’t the League.
We have hosted and moderated debates for more than half a century and held positions on various issues in politics for decades. League positions are grounded in study and public opinion, and our members represent all political parties and perspectives.
Attacking the League of Women Voters as partisan is a poor excuse for dodging debates.
When voters enter their polling place or open their mail-in ballot this fall, many will see candidate names for the very first time. That is why the League works so hard to prepare voters by providing nonpartisan candidate forums.
The opportunity to hear from candidates directly ahead of Election Day is essential to protecting every single voter’s right to make an informed choice, regardless of their political affiliation. Not to mention, women voters will be the key in deciding many elections in November. The smart campaign strategy would be to engage women voters in dialogue through nonpartisan debates before Nov. 8.
Democracy means that every voice is heard, and every voter is confident in the decisions they are making.
Upholding our democracy is not a party issue — it is a civic duty that the League has led for more than a century of American politics. Democracy is not partisan. It does not belong to one side of the political spectrum or another.
Avoiding tough questions under the guise of partisanship is not only harmful to elections but is damaging to democracy.
Voters need a trusted voice that can convene candidates up and down the ballot in nonpartisan settings. These should be welcomed opportunities within a transparent, fair process that celebrates American democracy and empowers voters to participate in elections, not just every two or four years, but every year.
We are ready to debate. Candidates, are you?
Deborah Turner, MD, JD, serves as the 20th Board President of the League of Women Voters of the United States (LWVUS) and chair of the Board of Trustees of the League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF). Virginia Kase Solomón is the CEO of the LWVUS and serves on the boards of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Democracy Initiative, the board of directors for the Project on Government Oversight, and is a member of the National Election Task Force on Election Crises.
What You Can Do
The Latest from the League
After a 16 year period in which there were no public presidential debates, the League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF) sponsored three presidential debates in 1976.
Last week, the first debate for the 2016 presidential election took place. Here are a few things you can do to get the most out of watching future debates.