[EL] BI-partisanElection Administration

Thu Nov 8 20:52:25 PST 2012

Having  worked monitored elections and worked for reform in both Los Angeles (civil service election administration) and New York City (patronage driven system), all I can say in response to this position is you must be kidding. Clearly you have not had to deal with any New York board of elections, which are arranged as you suggest, parallel appointments down to the clerical level. Result: gridlock, patronage no-show jobs, well -meaning relatives of politicians hired for who they know not what they know how to do, hostility to innovation, great concern for how any situation will affect the party and candidates, the few employees with the correct skill set impeded by their supervisors and having to do the work of 6, no one who advocates for the voter, and a general defensive and  “can’t do” attitude. Did I mention board of elections employees who visit the campaigns of favored party-supported candidates in hotly contested primaries right before the primary to inquire if everything is being handled to the liking of the favored candidate (see, Rangel-Espaillat primary)?  Another unfortunate effect which I experience firsthand every election is that the press disregards any accusations of election irregularities as mere party politics and an easy to disregard continuation of campaign animus, even when there is a real problem (see, Rangel-Espaillat primary for a recent example). As a result, the public believes that they shouldn't pay any attention to theses issues either.  Additionally, when the candidates are the guardians of the reliability of an election, they often choose not to pursue or to drop accusations of illegality, particularly in party primaries, because the long-term political consequences to the complainant are more important than the honest functioning of the election system.

I, for one, don’t believe that elections run for the convenience of the parties is the best we can do. Neither do NY voters, who, recognizing that they are considered irrelevant by election authorities, stay home in droves (ok, there are other factors as well, but poorly run elections indifferent to the voters’ experience don’t help).  When they do venture out, like this past Tuesday, the experience is so negative, many don’t bother to vote again for years.

Shall I continue on about the experience of being thwarted in trying to get public information released from various boards because the 2 parties couldn’t agree on the appropriate format in which to release public information so the information is not provided? Or should we be talking about the fact that New York City’s board of elections has been without an executive director for TWO YEARS because the party bosses can’t agree on a candidate and won’t conduct a national search for someone with election administration experience ?

As to using retired judges, that presumes that the judges are not captured creatures of the parties.  But here in NY, the parties hand pick the trial judges (remember Lopez-Torres?), so you could end up with a panel as beholden to the party bosses as the directly appointed boards of elections.

Maybe it works differently in some other jurisdictions, but I am writing you from the jurisdiction where the ghost of Boss Tweed rules elections.  Give me an arrogant civil servant any day.  They at least can be shamed because their professional reputation will suffer if an election is run badly.

That’s enough ranting for now,

Susan Lerner

________________________________
Susan Lerner
Executive Director, Common Cause/NY
74 Trinity Place, Suite 901
New York, NY 10006
t:  212-691-6421
m:917-670-5670
________________________________
From: Paul Lehto [lehto.paul at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:12 PM
To: Roy Schotland
Cc: larrylevine at earthlink.net; Even, Jeff (ATG); Susan Lerner; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] BI-partisanElection Administration

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<mailto: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<tel:202%2F662-9098>
        fax: -9680

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto: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<mailto: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]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:40 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; Susan Lerner; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:34 PM
To: Even, Jeff (ATG); 'Susan Lerner'; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:28 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; Susan Lerner; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:212-691-6421>
m:917-670-5670<tel:917-670-5670>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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/20121109/eae5d3ef/attachment.html>