When Voters Choose Nonpartisan — and Still Lose the Choice: Wakulla’s Long Fight to Keep Politics Local

For nearly two decades, Wakulla County voters have made one message unmistakably clear: local elections should be nonpartisan. Not because party labels are inherently bad, but because local governance works best when neighbors choose leaders based on qualifications, character, and community needs — not national political branding. While you may not agree with non-partisan elections (which is perfectly fine) the background story as to how Wakulla County (and the state) went to from non-partisan to partisan elections.

Despite two voter approvals and a third vote rejecting repeal, Wakulla’s nonpartisan system was ultimately swept aside by forces far outside the county’s control. This is the story of how it happened, why it matters, and what it reveals about the tension between local choice and statewide preemption.

A Voter‑Approved Tradition: 2008 and 2014

Wakulla County adopted its Home Rule Charter on November 4, 2008. Included in that charter was a simple but powerful idea: key county offices should be elected without party labels. The goal was to keep local races focused on local issues.

Voters reaffirmed this vision in 2014. Through a charter amendment (Ordinance No. 2014‑07), they expanded nonpartisan elections to all elected county officials:

• County Commissioners

• Clerk of Court

• Property Appraiser

• Sheriff

• Supervisor of Elections

• Tax Collector

The ballot language emphasized elections “through nonpartisan elections instead of one indicating a political party affiliation.”

Two separate elections. Two clear mandates.
For more than a decade, Wakulla operated under a voter‑endorsed nonpartisan system.

The 2016 FEC Complaint: A Warning Sign in the System

The first cracks appeared in 2016.

Commissioner Ralph Thomas — an incumbent and former chair of the local Republican Executive Committee — spoke at a WCREC‑hosted candidate forum. The event had Republican signage, but Thomas did not declare his party, distribute partisan materials, or campaign on party lines.

Still, a complaint was filed: Florida Elections Commission Case No. 16‑350.
It alleged that Thomas violated §106.143(3), F.S., which restricts nonpartisan candidates from using party affiliation in campaigning.

Thomas defended himself by arguing:

• The statute applied to advertisements, not spoken remarks.

• No advertisement existed.

• No Chapter 104 violation was alleged.

• Precedent allowed attending partisan events, receiving endorsements, and accepting contributions.

A probable cause hearing was scheduled for August 16, 2017.

The public records received by Wakulla Reports did not include any final order, sanction, or documented resolution. It is possible additional materials exist elsewhere, but nothing provided to us showed a conclusive outcome.

The case simply faded from the available record — a common fate for borderline complaints — but it revealed something important:

Nonpartisan rules can create legal gray areas, defense costs, and opportunities for political weaponization, even when candidates follow the rules.

Thomas is now in his fourth term and ran uncontested twice. Ironically, he later supported efforts to repeal the very nonpartisan provision that once entangled him.

The Turning Point: Orange County v. Singh (2019) ⚖️

The real shift came not from Wakulla voters, but from the Florida Supreme Court.

In Orange County v. Singh (2019), the Court held that the Florida Election Code — especially §97.0115’s preemption clause — overrides charter‑mandated nonpartisan elections for constitutional officers. The ruling emphasized statewide uniformity in elections.

Although the case focused on constitutional officers (like sheriff and clerk), counties across Florida, including Wakulla, applied the logic broadly. Because commissioners share many election statutes with constitutional officers, the ruling cast doubt on whether nonpartisan elections for commissioners could survive.

This was not a legislative change.
Not a statewide vote.
Not a local vote.

It was a judicial decision that effectively overrode local charters — including Wakulla’s — without direct voter input.

2020: Voters Say No to Partisan Elections — But Partisan Elections Happen Anyway

Citing Singh, the BOCC placed a referendum on the March 17, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary ballot:

Should Wakulla repeal Section 7.6 and allow partisan elections for all county offices?

Results (certified):

• Yes: 2,627 (48.06%)

• No: 2,839 (51.94%)

• Undervotes: 339

• Total votes: ~5,466 (out of ~21,600 registered voters)

Voters rejected the repeal.
The nonpartisan provision technically survived.

But in practice:

• Singh forced constitutional officers into partisan elections.

• The Supervisor of Elections initially planned to keep commissioners nonpartisan.

• The BOCC filed Case No. 2020‑CA‑43 against Supervisor Henry Wells, seeking a court order to force partisan commissioner races.

No final order appears in the public records available to Wakulla Reports. The case likely became moot or resolved informally as the 2020 election cycle proceeded with partisan qualifying, primaries, and general elections.

By the end of 2020, all Wakulla offices were effectively partisan, despite the voters’ decision.

From “Pick a Seat” to “Pick a Side” 🎭

Wakulla voters chose nonpartisan in 2008.
They reaffirmed it in 2014.
They rejected repeal in 2020.

Yet the system shifted anyway — driven by judicial preemption and legal pressure rather than local will.

This stands in contrast to 2024, when Florida voters statewide rejected Amendment 1, preserving nonpartisan school board elections.

In Wakulla, the shift to partisan elections has had predictable effects:

• Local races now mirror national political divides.

• Incumbents gain structural advantages through party support.

• Independent or cross‑aisle challengers face higher barriers.

• Voters are nudged toward choosing a color, not a candidate.

This is how communities get separated:
Not by local issues, but by national labels that have little to do with county roads, land use, emergency services, or fiscal stewardship.

Local government works best when residents evaluate people — not parties.
That’s why Wakulla Reports encourages readers to leave partisan hats at the door. The future of your community depends on cooperation, not color‑coded teams.

A Turning Point for Local Control

When voters speak three times — and still lose the system they chose — it raises real questions about how much influence local communities retain over their own election structures.

Wakulla’s story is not unique.
But it is a powerful reminder:

Local choices matter. And so does paying attention when those choices are overridden.

Stay sharp, Wakulla. 👀