Part IV: Candidate Forums
Frequently Asked Questions
Do you have security concerns for your candidate forum?
If there are concerns about safety of candidates, such as from another candidate, please plan ahead with media statements and transparency. Consult with LWVMN as soon as possible for more specific advice, as each response will necessarily depend on the details of the situation.
When is there a conflict of interest for a moderator?
Here are example scenarios when there would be a conflict of interest for a potential moderator, and therefore the League should seek out a different moderator:
The potential moderator for a school board seat is a current member of the school board.
The potential moderator has a significant relationship with a candidate, such as being a family member or business partner.
The potential moderator is a well-known community activist working on an issue that will likely be addressed at the forum.
Can you host a primary forum?
A DFL primary and the Republican primary are different races, so think of them as being for different offices or seats. Under IRS rules, nonprofits can hold primary election forums, even if only for one party, and that’s not considered partisan. However, the appearance of partisanship could still be a result, so each local League has flexibility to determine whether it will do such a forum.
An incumbent sheriff wishes to wear his uniform during the forum rather than appear in plain clothes. Is this allowed?
LWV tries to adhere to best practices that do not give or appear to give any candidate an advantage during a forum. This means LWV avoids referring to incumbents by their titles or allowing incumbent officers to wear apparel indicating their incumbency. All candidates should be reminded that they will only be allowed to participate if they appear in plain clothes, i.e., "civilian" clothing. If a candidate appears in uniform, they should not be allowed to participate or remain at the forum until they wear plain clothes.
Can we partner with a union, such as a teacher’s union, for a forum?
While a teacher's union is not an ideal partner, they may still be an appropriate partner in some limited circumstances. If they have not endorsed, or appeared to endorse, any candidate for school board, and agree not to do so until 24 hours after the forum has completed, then they might be an appropriate partner. The local LWV should ensure that the partner agrees in advance to the LWV best practices and rules for candidate forums. The local LWV should be sure to strictly enforce other best practices for nonpartisanship when planning and holding the forum.
Can we introduce candidates in a way other than a forum?
Yes, for state and local elections. This is particularly useful when there are a large number of candidates running in a race. One way this has been handled in the past is to have each candidate come and record a 3 minute introduction and informational clip and put them all together into a longer video. However, this cannot be done for federal elections, as special federal laws apply.
How do we hold a forum when there is a large number of candidates (10 or more)?
If you have a single forum with a large number of candidates all on one stage, consider creating a strict, tight schedule and a longer forum (90 minutes rather than 60) that allows both adequate time for candidates’ opening and closing comments, and time for enough questions on topics of interest to voters to make the forum valuable. Reducing the time available to answer questions to 1-1½ minutes, where feasible, can help include enough questions to ensure an effective forum. Keep in mind that races at higher levels of government (statewide and legislative races) frequently have longer and more detailed responses by candidates than do local (e.g. city council) races. Also consider establishing the seating arrangement well ahead of the start of the event to allow time for the moderator to prepare their question matrix.
If you determine a single forum is not desirable due to the number of candidates and the issues to be discussed, consider randomly splitting the candidates into two groups and holding two forums. In these cases, the forums must occur back-to-back, use the same questions in the same order, and cannot be live-streamed to ensure an equal playing field for all candidates. In order to ensure no information from the first forum is provided to candidates in the second forum, consider the feasibility of conducting the forums without an audience and sequestering the candidates for the second forum while the first forum is in progress.
An additional option with groups of 10-12 all on one stage is to create several questions in advance for each topic of interest to voters, and ask those questions to smaller groups of the candidates (4-6) selected at random. For example, 10 candidates could be divided into 2 groups of 5 with each group responding to a different question on a topic. The composition of the small groups would change (at random) with each new topic. This allows each candidate to address each topic with different opponents, while preventing the answers from being repetitive, and the candidates and audience forgetting the question. The groups and the questions that will be asked must be determined in advance of the forum.
With any large group (10 or more), consider the potential for “lightning rounds” during the forum with one-word or short answer questions for a change of pace, and to cover more topics.
If one candidate for a forum has a personal or work conflict with a scheduled in-person forum, can we allow them to participate virtually if requested?
It’s important that all candidates have an equal opportunity for participation in candidate forums. If a forum has been planned for all candidates to be present in person, consider first telling the candidate that virtual participation is not currently planned. This places the responsibility with the candidate to adjust their schedule to be able to participate in the forum, and leaves open the option to offer virtual participation in the future.
When considering whether to allow a candidate to participate in a forum virtually, keep the following in mind:
Consider the technical capabilities and resources available in the facility where the event is being held, and the feasibility and past experience with hosting hybrid events from that facility.
Balance the effort required in making a change to accommodate a single candidate’s availability with the potential impacts on the League, the hosting facility, and other candidates. While we want to accommodate candidates’ availability where we can, we are not obligated to do so. If the candidate’s schedule conflict cannot be resolved, consider allowing an opening and closing statement to be read at the forum in their absence, as detailed in the LWVMN Candidate Participation Policy.
If the option to participate virtually is provided to one candidate in a forum, it must be offered to all candidates in that forum. Also, consider the potential perception if this option is provided in one forum and not at others in the same facility, or at other facilities with the same technical and support capabilities, and be prepared to respond to any inquiries.
Because of the potential complexity of allowing one, and potentially many, candidates to participate virtually, it may be helpful to wait until all candidates have responded with their availability for the scheduled forums to make a decision on virtual participation.
Can we put a name card in the places of the absent candidates who were invited to the candidate forum?
No. The only actions to be taken to identify that an invited candidate is not present are the statement made by the Moderator at the beginning of the forum and reading of an opening statement from the candidate if the League decides to allow it. No other acknowledgement of the absent candidate should be made in order to maintain focus on the candidates who are in attendance.
A candidate for local office is running unopposed on the same ballot as other candidates who are in contested races. Should we include the unopposed candidate in the candidate forum?
Having unopposed candidates appear is a decision that is up to local Leagues. In general, including unopposed candidates in forums with candidates in contested races is an additional drain on League resources and can detract from time spent with candidates in contested races. The key question for the League to consider is whether including the unopposed candidate serves a benefit to voters and is within the capacity and interests of the League.
We typically include a “Land Acknowledgement” statement at the beginning of our meetings. This practice has become politicized in our community and may be seen as partisan. What should we do?
While we view the “Land Acknowledgement Statement” as a nonpartisan and non- controversial action to recognize those who preceded us in the areas where we now live, it is possible that some candidates and community members may take exception to these statements and could view this as reflecting a partisan bias by the League. While we do not see it this way, Leagues must assess the conditions in their community and determine if inclusion of a Land Acknowledgement statement would be disruptive to the forum or detract from the Leagues representation of the forum as a nonpartisan function. Based on this assessment, a League may determine that it is preferable to not include the Land Acknowledgement in order to keep the focus on a nonpartisan presentation of candidate positions on issues important to the community rather than on the League.
A member of the public, candidate, or organization asks why we are not having an audience for our candidate forums. What do we tell them?
LWV Minnesota conducts candidate forums in order to provide an opportunity for civil discourse by candidates on issues of interest to voters and relevant to the office being sought. Our goal is to provide a forum that is as effective as possible in achieving this, while being accessible to as many voters as possible and providing conditions in which volunteers are comfortable serving. LWV Minnesota supports local Leagues in determining whether or not to have an in-person audience based on the local League's community circumstances, resources, and use of technology. While an in-person audience may be valuable for some voters, having an in-person audience it is not always feasible or desirable to ensure an effective forum that is as accessible as possible, or that is within the limitations of the community and the local League. Decisions on in-person attendance can vary widely between communities and races. At the same time engagement of the public through online viewing, both live and using recordings online, has expanded dramatically over the last several years, increasing total access to the community. Using methods to provide real-time questions for virtual forums can mitigate some of the concern with the lack of an in-person audience.
See also: Expect the Unexpected: Tips & Techniques