[EL] about the new Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Larry Levine
larrylevine at earthlink.net
Thu Feb 14 10:52:51 PST 2013
I'm heartened to read all the optimism and my outlook on life generally is
very optimistic. However, I've dealt with enough elections officials over
the last 55 years to know they are very territorial about what they do and
many of them think what they are doing is the right way and everyone else is
wrong. And then there is the matter of many of them being partisan election
officials. Even in areas where the elections are non-partisan, those running
tend to have distinct partisan leanings, or they couldn't get the support
they need to win their elections. And then there are things imposed on the
process by partisan legislatures and governors. This learned group of
commissioners may actually come up with some things, but I doubt they will
be able to dig deeply into the innards of state and local election laws and
personalities to root out and resolve most of the issues. Sorry to be the
wet blanket. But I've seen the same elections officials make the same
mistakes and sometimes unconstitutional determinations years after year,
even after being confronted with, or informed of the fallacies of their
ways.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Hess [mailto:douglasrhess at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 10:37 AM
To: Michael P McDonald
Cc: Paul Gronke; larrylevine at earthlink.net; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] about the new Presidential Commission on Election
Administration
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
>>
View list directory