[EL] BI-partisanElection Administration

[Paul Lehto]

"Nonpartisan" election administration is tantamount to believing that the
truth will emerge from legal processes where ALL of those with standing in
courtrooms (i.e. partisans) are eliminated from the election processes
purportedly designed to derive the truth in voting processes.  Because it
would appear "partisan" nonpartisans will not proffer a vigorous case for
one side or the other even though occasionally at least the partisans are
correct. Thus, eliminating partisans from election processes does not
further the cause of truth in elections unless one can show that partisans
are never correct or mostly correct, which would be a false statement.

My personal view is that the partisans are a critical part of the process
because distrust, and vigorous advocacy, is necessary to a process designed
to arrive at the truth.  The best system would be one where all partisans
remain represented in the process but that unaligned people are also
present.  These unaligned people keep the process from being captured by
partisan interests without eliminating the values that partisans provide by
(without themselves thinking of it this way) harnessing distrust in service
of a trustable outcome.  Susan Lerner, below, is reacting to
partisan-controlled models such as "Boss Tweed" which is a straw man
argument I doubt anyone is really advocating for here.

Just imagine "partisan" litigants being replaced by "nonpartisan" officials
who identify all concerns, make all arguments, and decide doubtful cases,
and one can see that a system that is simply "nonpartisan" mostly just
substitutes lame advocacy from unmotivated people in service of the
creation of an artificial confidence in election processes that will just
leave all partisans and advocates of any view dissatisfied.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Susan Lerner <slerner at commoncause.org>wrote:

>  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> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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/20121109/ece2d0cd/attachment.html>