[EL] about the new Presidential Commission on Election Administration

Thu Feb 14 10:37:21 PST 2013

I'm also somewhat optimistic, at least if the focus will be on
identifying standards for a variety of activities at the state and
local level. However, commissions do have a tendency to set the bar
too low and ignore the devil in the details, especially as it affects
the more vulnerable populations. (And I wish they would emphasized
that this should be non-partisan instead of bi-partisan.)

I don't have any scholarly research on commissions, but this Governing
Magazine article on state "efficiency" or "cost cutting" commissions
has some points that are general to any executive program to change
complex systems:
http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/State-Efficiency-Commissions-Effective.html
 . Pretty general stuff, but the key (long story short) is sufficient
staffing and an executive that will carry the ball over a potentially
lengthy period.

Also, the EAC's effectiveness in various domains may be worth thinking about.

Overall, here's my 50 cents: The need to import longstanding methods
of problem solving and problem monitoring from other policy arenas in
election administration is apparent. The work officials have been
doing is valiant (involving several miracles each election). But it is
rather painful to watch the election administration field "discover"
these analytic methods on its own. Time to bring in practitioners and
scholars experienced in those fields to meet with both those
experienced in running elections and those with experience watching
elections (rights advocates, etc.). E.g., instead of rediscovering
program evaluation on its own, the field needs to bring in (to help,
not run the thing) experts from evaluation.

Maybe each state needs its own standards and review board (with a
process for appointment well removed from the parties) that is
separate from the people doing the administration of elections, but
works with them. It could serve as the postmortem and recommendations
body after each election and handle the science behind doing such
work.

More concretely, I agree completely on the data issue. Standards for
data collection (and definitions) would be interesting and I don't
think get into too many overly partisan quagmires. No?  As McDonald
noted: The questions in the CPS could be much better (the "where did
you register" questions don't  accurately reflect the services the
question is trying to measure). I don't know if the civic engagement
supplement is ongoing (I think Robert Putnam was involved in getting
that going), but it's pretty darn long and should integrate voting
into it (it also is in November).

In any event, I'd still be interested in any light on the structure
such an entity takes on. Were the previous commissions (with Carter)
created by the President or how?

Douglas R. Hess, PhD
Washington, DC
ph. 202-277-6400
douglasrhess at gmail.com

Starting Aug. 2013:

Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
Carnegie Hall
Grinnell College
Grinnell, IA 50112-1670

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Michael P McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:
> I too am more optimistic than some, but maybe I am inherently so. I am puzzled by those who complain that the commission can only make recommendations. There is little that the president can do with respect to elections by executive order (among the few is updating the Current Population Survey voting and registration data collection), so I confused why people are do down on the commission.
>
> To answer Paul's question -- you have no further to look than state constitutions. I would hazard a guess that nearly all of them have election related revisions that were brought about by constitutional convention. Often, those conventions were preceded by commissions that recommend changes. We haven't had much experience with these conventions since the 1960s reapportionment revolution forced states to revise their redistricting processes. Whether you think the current state constitutions are good or bad is another issue...
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor, George Mason University
> Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
>
>                              Mailing address:
> (o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
> (f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
> mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
> http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at GMAIL.COM>
> Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:41 pm
> Subject: Re: [EL] about the new Presidential Commission on Election Administration
>
>> Larry,
>>
>> I may be naive but I am optimistic.  I have read closely the
>> comments by Rick, by the League of Women's Voters, but I learn
>> more toward Michael Waldmann's statement from Brennan: guardedly
>> optimistic.
>> Rather than being frightened, then, I'd rather be forward looking.
>> It's not my impression that Ginsberg or Bauer are dummies.  They
>> are hard headed lawyers who were deeply integrated into highly
>> competitive campaigns.  I recognize that, for some, that makes
>> them precisely the wrong people to head such a commission.  I
>> think it may make them the right people because they will be less
>> likely to be swayed by millions of disparate ideas.  I hope
>> they'll cut through the B.S.
>>
>> It's also the case that, at least in the past, both Ben and Bob
>> have been willing to listen to voices outside of the immediate
>> community of election administrators.  I've seen them productively
>> interact at meetings of election lawyers and Pew sponsored
>> gatherings.  Scholars, NGOs, and advocacy groups can lend an
>> important comparative context to the often idiosyncratic views of
>> LEOs.
>> Before we indict them, let's see who they appoint as staff.  Let's
>> see what their answers are to Doug's questions about what
>> questions they'll ask and who they'll ask.
>>
>> I thought, as a last comment, that some of the improvements
>> incorporated into HAVA stemmed directly out of the first
>> Commission's work.  While there may be fewer examples at the
>> Federal level, I'm less certain that "no good has ever come out of
>> a commission created to clean up politics, campaigns, or election
>> administration."  The scholar in me asks: do we have any evidence
>> on this point?  Are there any commissions at the state level that
>> have helped to create new campaign reporting systems, non-partisan
>> redistricting commissions, or otherwise helped to improve the
>> political process?  If anyone would know, it's the readers of this
>> list.
>> ---
>> Paul Gronke     Ph: 503-517-7393
>> Reed College and Early Voting
>> Information Center
>>
>> http://earlyvoting.net
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 9:00 AM, "Larry Levine"
>> <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Be frightened. Be very, very frightened. No good has ever come
>> out of a
>> > commission created to clean up politics, campaigns, or election
>> > administration. They are detached from the everyday operations
>> of campaigns,
>> > or in this case election administration. They will hear a
>> million ideas from
>> > a thousand secretaries of state and local registrars of voters.
>> Many will be
>> > just plain stupid. And when it's over they will have no
>> authority to impose
>> > anything on any local or state jurisdiction. They can create
>> rules and
>> > standards for federal elections, but that won't mean any city
>> clerk or
>> > registrar anywhere will want to do what the commission says.
>> Remember, the
>> > hanging chads in Florida were no different than the hanging
>> chads in Fresno
>> > CA 20 years earlier. But no election official anywhere would
>> want to admit
>> > their way isn't the best way. So, they fixed the problem in CA
>> and everyone
>> > else just blundered along. Be hopeful if you wish. There's
>> plenty that needs
>> > to be done. But who's going to tell some local election official
>> how many
>> > voting booths he or she must have per 500 voters, or when early
>> voting must
>> > begin and which days it must be available and how many locations
>> there must
>> > be. Be frightened. Be very, very frightened.
>> > Larry
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> > [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf
>> Of Doug
>> > Hess
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:36 AM
>> > To: Election Law
>> > Subject: [EL] about the new Presidential Commission on Election
>> > Administration
>> >
>> > Regarding the new Presidential Commission on Election
>> Administration (PCEA
>> > perhaps?), in what capacity does such a body exist? Is it
>> created by
>> > executive order? Is it funded out of a pot of money the White
>> House has for
>> > special projects? Or will Congress authorize funds for it in
>> some manner or
>> > have any role in creating it? I assume it has no authority
>> (other than over
>> > some staffing and budget for research, travel, publication,
>> etc.). Correct?
>> >
>> > Just wondering what kind of "animal" these commissions are (or
>> can be).
>> >
>> > Douglas R. Hess, PhD
>> > Washington, DC
>> > ph. 202-277-6400
>> > douglasrhess at gmail.com
>> >
>> > Starting Aug. 2013:
>> > Assistant Professor
>> > Department of Political Science
>> > Grinnell College
>> > 1210 Park Street
>> > Grinnell, IA 50112-1670
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Law-election mailing list
>> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Law-election mailing list
>> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>