Subject: Re: Chapin Article on AZ - EAC conflict
From: S Candice Hoke
Date: 4/4/2006, 11:13 AM
To: rutha@wscpdx.org
CC: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

I'd like to second the gist of RuthAlice's comments. 

There's no question that Doug Chapin's work via electionline.org has promoted a great deal of crucial new communication and thoughtful reconsideration of election practices among the "election delivery" staffers at the State and local levels, as well as among us in the the election law and policy arena.  Doug was only using the reflexive shorthand that has become commonplace recently, but that verbiage does, as RuthAlice notes, obscure the contestable value choices embedded within these terms.

As the Director of the Center for Election Integrity in Cleveland, Ohio (gallows humor expected) we take the position that US electoral systems, and Ohio's in particular, must achieve integrity throughout.  This is an essential objective and not a locus on a continuum with other supposed competing values such as "access."  Integrity is the ground from which all legitimate election office functions must spring (such as reporting winners) and also the goal toward which all others (voter access, tabulation, poll worker education etc.) must aim. 

It seems that all of us election law scholars and practitioners need to face the risks inherent in allowing the phrase "promoting integrity" to become mere code, owned by those favoring greater hurdles to access at the polls, expansion of causes for provisional rather than "regular" ballots, and so on.  What other word would we then use for what is encompassed by the integrity mission, if it becomes aligned with one political party or ideology?

I'd argue the "integrity mission" of election staffers and policy/law scholars is not ambigious -- it should include achieving fidelity to governing law, achieving transparency and full accountability to the public, and a can-do commitment to constant improvement of the election system rather than any type of complacency with the status quo.  It is, shall we say, both a journey and a destination for election delivery, and not one value or objective among many that compete.  Perhaps the zen of elections, but it seems fundamental that seeking greater integrity in our election processes should be the ground on which all Ds, Rs, Greens, Libs, independents etc.  mutually stand yet jointly seek -- even though there will inevitably be disagreements on how to achieve integrity. 

Achieving the integrity mission includes implementing voter registration laws such as those in NVRA as well as State election laws that are not preempted.  (In Ohio, our sample survey shows that Ohio state agency offices are in broad noncompliance with NVRA's registration access directives.)  Integrity also needs to be sought in laws and practices governing voter access to the polls, in vote tabulation and reporting, and all other phases of the "election delivery" process.   (To get technical legally, however, the Arizona-EAC  problem can be seen as raising a Chevron question and also challenging the acceptability of administrative preemption under NVRA.)

Thanks to Doug and RuthAlice for the benefits of this interchange.
 
Candice Hoke
Director, Center for Election Integrity
Assoc. Professor of Law
Cleveland State University
2121 Euclid Ave., Cleveland OH 44115
216.687.2313 (W)
216.687.4626 (Sec'y)
www.csuohio.edu/cei/



RuthAlice Anderson wrote:
In a message dated 4/3/2006 7:25:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
BSmith@law.capital.edu writes:

How  would you describe the other camp?

    
I would use more value neutral language such as those who favor stricter
voter registration rules or those favoring more stingent ballot access
regulations.

Access versus integrity may be shorthand, but it's not value-neutral. Open
versus strict/stringent ballot access is more value-neutral and doesn't
imply that if you have ballot access the integrity of the election process
is diminished.

I have read this listserv long enough to know that many people use
integrity for the stringent regulation side of the argument, but usually
the rest of their email or article is not objective either so their use of
integrity is obviously a propagandistic word choice. in a more objective,
news article like Doug's, using integrity is more objectionable because
it's not full of argument in favor of the stricter regulation. That gives
more credence to the  idea that access and integrity are actually
opposites.

The use of the concept of voting "integrity" to describe more stringent
registration regulations is like the use of "death tax" instead of
inheritance tax. When the pundits and politicians use it, it's still
clearly propaganda. When the reporters start using it, objective reality
is lost.

RuthAlice