Yeah, I've noticed that commission candidates tend to omit their party alligience (in Adams County) when they are republicans, probably because, just as you said, that's perceived as a disadvantage. Your point cuts both ways.
The fact that they don't want me to know they're republicans doesn't exactly inspire my confidence in them.
I doubt that the offices in question are entirely non-partisan or that all of their positions are exactly the same. But, assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct about that, you still haven't given me a good reason to vote for the republicans.
If I refused to vote for someone in a certain party, merely because someone else in that party abused the public trust, was corrupt, stole money, and wound up being convicted of felonies, I'd never be able to vote for anyone at all, because all the parties have had their bad apples at one time or another.
I'm simply not willing to assume that because one democrat is a thief that all democrats are thieves, any more than I'm willing to assume that, just because one republican is a thief, they all are.
What I judge them on is the social policies that they support as a result of their political affiliation, and on the vast majority of contested issues, I agree with the democrats more than the republicans.
If you could show that the Dem candidate in this instance was in cohoots with the scum who ripped you off, that would be a different story. Instead, you seem to be just assuming that, or else not caring whether he was or not.