[EL] BI-partisanElection Administration

Thu Nov 8 09:12:24 PST 2012

In the super-charged partisan environment, partisans tend very much to see
anything that appears not to be in their interest to be an example of
"liberal bias" or "right wing bias" and won't be satisfied until public
policy is approximately equal to the positions in the ideological Pravda
they prefer to read.

Having election officials be "nonpartisan" or "centrist" hardly solves this
"problem" of the distance between the views of partisans and the action or
policy in question.  In fact, at times it will make this problem worse
because there's nothing stopping an ideologically-inclined election
official from hiding in nonpartisan garb and using the nonpartisan job
description as cover for doing the same things they would do anyway, only
more effectively because they are officially considered nonpartisan.

The solution - to the extent one can exist - is in transparency and having
multiple parties who don't necessarily trust each other watching each other
like hawks.  Thus, counting votes over the supervision of such opposing
parties is a form of genius because it converts a situation in which
distrust prevails into a process-output that can be trusted.  This is why
bank tellers counting cash in front of wary customers alert to catch errors
is one of the most accurate methods for counting cash, even though
individually each participant is a fallible human with divergent motives in
the transaction at hand.

Such arrangements of humans designed to check each other are still how the
accuracy of counting machines are ultimately assessed, and is why this
general format has been selected by most legislatures for over a century as
the final and best recount determinant of election winners.

Going instead with a single "nonpartisan" election official or even
multiple nonpartisan officials that are structurally inclined to trust
rather than distrust each other because of their claimed nonpartisanship is
not a solution to election problems when it comes to vote counting at least
because every voter - whether a ticket splitter or not - is effectively a
"partisan" with various horses in the race and there's no real value in
pretending they are not.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Roy Schotland
<schotlan at law.georgetown.edu>wrote:

> “Nonpartisan” election administration is most likely utopian dreaming.
> But back in 2001, Secys of State listed as one of the top priorities for
> improving elections, having at least BI-partisan officials up and down the
> organization chart.  Only a minority of States had anything as fair as
> that, I expect that’s still true….  I’m always hawkish for third parties
> and independents, but I’d rather have bi-partisan election administration
> than one-party control.****
>
> ** **
>
> Roy A. Schotland****
>
> Professor Emeritus****
>
> Georgetown Law Center****
>
> 600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.****
>
> Washington, D.C. 20001****
>
> 202/662-9098****
>
>         fax: -9680****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Larry Levine
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:07 PM
> *To:* 'Even, Jeff (ATG)'; 'Susan Lerner';
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] North Carolina Election Administration****
>
> ** **
>
> I agree completely. Now, how do we make that happen in states where the
> culture is different from what you describe? In this super-charged partisan
> environment, where some people think losing an election is equal to the end
> of the world, we see a parade of bad actors acting badly. They are no means
> a majority. But what they do is partially to blame for the public
> disenchantment with the political process. If they cared about that they
> wouldn’t act badly in the first place. ****
>
> Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Even, Jeff (ATG) [mailto:JeffE at ATG.WA.GOV <JeffE at ATG.WA.GOV>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:40 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net; Susan Lerner;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] North Carolina Election Administration****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes.  But a more serious answer to the question lies in instilling the
> right culture.  My observation on that score is that leadership can do a
> lot.  If it’s clear that staff is rewarded for playing straight, and if the
> leaders in the organization are themselves rigorous about treating all
> sides evenly, that culture can permeate the office.  Individuals will, of
> course, have their own opinions, but I witness a certain professional pride
> in our elections staff in turning that off during working hours.  I’ve
> advised two Secretaries of State over the past 20 years, and while
> individual employees come and go both have been successful in instilling
> and maintaining that culture.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Larry Levine [mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net<larrylevine at earthlink.net>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:34 PM
> *To:* Even, Jeff (ATG); 'Susan Lerner';
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] North Carolina Election Administration****
>
> ** **
>
> Most of them are exactly that. It’s the ones who step out of line that
> draw the attention.****
>
> Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Even, Jeff (ATG) [mailto:JeffE at ATG.WA.GOV <JeffE at ATG.WA.GOV>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:28 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net; Susan Lerner;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] North Carolina Election Administration****
>
> ** **
>
> They’re not bureaucrats.  They’re hard-working public servants.  But I
> digress.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Larry Levine
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:19 PM
> *To:* 'Susan Lerner'; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] North Carolina Election Administration****
>
> ** **
>
> How can you have a non-partisan election staff. I would guess many if not
> all of them have strong partisan leanings. Just because they are
> bureaucrats doesn’t make them non-partisan. ****
>
> Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Susan Lerner
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:10 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] North Carolina Election Administration****
>
> ** **
>
> It is my understanding that North carolina has a politically appointed
> Board of Elections but professional non-partisan election staff.  This
> contrasts mightily with the situation here in NY.  Is anyone aware of any
> articles that confirm my understanding or that discuss similar arrangements
> in other states (i.e., political Board, professional non0political
> administration/management)? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Susan****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> Susan Lerner ****
>
> Executive Director, Common Cause/NY****
>
> 74 Trinity Place, Suite 901****
>
> New York, NY 10006****
>
> t:  212-691-6421****
>
> m:917-670-5670****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121108/d3b7fde5/attachment.html>