I don't think I missed your point at all. I don't think there is much reason to believe that nonpartisan, professional administration does much to address the problem - as you note, even where that is the case, as in San Diego, confidence is low. I think the public is skeptical less because of who is administering elections, or even because of "mechanical snafus," than because of the determination of many partisans, including some in very high positions, to indulge, if not fan the flames, of the conspiracy theorists. I think you and I could agree on a fair set of rules. I doubt that that would insulate us from charges of fraud by the losers of a close election. Along those lines, my point about campaign finance was not that it is easier (or as easy) to agree upon rules, but that rules, and their non-partisan enforcement, haven't solved the problem of public perception, and almost certainly will not so long as there are persons with substantial money and influence to fan!
the public belief in "corruption." Similarly, so long as major political figures, partisans, and journalists find it worthwhile (for their purposes) to fan the belief that elections are rife with fraud and corruption and the results not to be trusted, that will be a problem. If large numbers of Democratic partisans are willing to believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of local Democratic election officials were complicit in "stealing" the election in Ohio (which is necessary to their claims), I see no reason why they won't believe that of non-partisan officials.
I'm not saying that non-partisan administration is necessarily a bad idea. I'm saying it probably has a minimal impact on public perception of electoral fraud and integrity, and an excessive focus on bringing it about probably makes the situation worse, at least in the short run and I think quite probably in the long run. You apparently disagree. That's not missing your point, and I hope you will think further about whether you could be mistaken in placing so much confidence in non-partisan administration
________________________________
From: Rick Hasen [mailto:Rick.Hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Mon 6/12/2006 1:00 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Mehlman pushes storyline that Democrats commit vote fraud
Brad,
I think you missed my point, which is that partisan bias in election administration since 2000 (think Katherine Harris (not to mention the 2000 Florida attorney general, Bob Butterworth), Ken Blackwell, Kevin Shelley, and others) as well as reports of mechanical snafus in the wake of the revamping of election machinery post-Florida, have caused significant portions of the the public to become very skeptical about the fairness and accuracy of election administration. Nationally, many more Democrats are skeptical than Republicans, but the pattern is the opposite in Washington state, which saw a closely contested gubernatorial election end up with a Democratic winner. Public confidence is so low that even claims of malfeasance in places that have had good reputations like San Diego are taken seriously in some quarters.
I don't think it is true, if you look to other countries, that "nonpartisan, professional" election administrators have been attacked ("legitimately" or otherwise) by whichever side loses. I think there is a value in both nonpartisanship and professionalism when it comes to election administration, not only in assuring public confidence in the accuracy of election results, but in assuring the accuracy of those results itself. This is not just an "appearance of corruption" type problem.
Part of the reason I have faith in election administration being done in a nonpartisan and professional way is that I think if you and I sat down we could agree upon a set of fair election administration rules in advance, while we likely could not sit down and agree on a set of fair campaign finance or redistricting rules. In other words, I think that there are some basic principles of fair election administration for which there is widespread consensus. (I'd point you to the IDEA code of conduct, referenced in my Washington and Lee article.)
Rick
Smith, Brad wrote:
If California has had a "very good reputation for nonpartisanship and professionalization," wouldn't that suggest that, "more nonpartisan professionalized election administration systems" are unlikely to make a difference?
I doubt that the problem has as much to do with who administers elections than with the disposition of partisans to want to claim election fraud. "Nonpartisan, professional" is another way of describing a person who can be legitimately attacked by whichever side loses. Heck, we have already seen partisans attacking election officials of their own party. And we have the relatively new phenomenon of major party leaders and candidates stoking, rather than calming, the fears of the most crackpot conspiracy theorists.
I think that partisanship is working to create the appearance that our elections are substantially and regularly unreliable and rife with fraud; and this appearance, which is far different from the reality, leads to hasty and unwise laws. Again, I can't help but notice the similarity with campaign finance laws - once appearances become more important than reality, we have a prescription for bad public policy and disregard for the rights of the public.
I would not be at all surprised if nonpartisan election administration increases distrust of the electoral process, just as public perception of corruption in office has correspondingly grown with the imposition of an increasingly complicated web of "ethics" rules, lobbying restrictions, and campaign finance laws.
Brad Smith
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Rick Hasen
Sent: Sat 6/10/2006 2:04 PM
To: Michael McDonald
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Mehlman pushes storyline that Democrats commit vote fraud
It is worth pointing out that some on the left too are looking to use the Bilbray-Busby race as proof of fraud (or potential fraud) in the electoral process:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002924.htm
This pattern of partisans trying to raise questions about the fairness of the electoral process is something I expect to continue until we see more moves toward creating more nonpartisan professionalized election administration systems. It is especially troubling in this instance because local election administration in California has, at least until recently, had a very good reputation for nonpartisanship and professionalization.
Rick
Michael McDonald wrote:
I thought this would be of interest:
In the wake of the Busby defeat in California's 50th district, Republican
chair Ken Mehlman pushed the storyline on Hardball that Busby encouraged
illegal immigrants to vote in the special election, and tied the claim to
Democrat Gregoire's victory in the Washington recount case.
For a transcript see: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606090002 (for the
conservatives on the list, my apologies for linking to a left-leaning web
site.)
A few points here:
1. A fair reading of Busby's controversial comment that "you don't need
papers to vote" is that she mispoke and corrected herself in the next
sentence to say that you don't have to be a citizen to volunteer for a
campaign. From my vantage of teaching a campaigns class in Washington DC at
a school with many foreign nationals, I have known non-citizen students who
worked on Democratic and Republican campaigns. I'll be curious to hear the
opinion of those on the list if the campaign activity represents an illegal
political donation from a foreign national. Was Busby promoting illegal
activity?
2. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that any fradulent votes were cast
in the California special election. There is, to my knowledge, no
investigation underway to determine if Busby's campaign orchestrated the
casting of fradulent votes. Perhaps someone knows something different?
3. With regards to the Washinton recount case, there were inleigible felons
and a husband of a deceased women who testified that their illegal votes
went to Rossi, the Republican candidate. There is no evidence that
Gregoire's campaign knowlingly solicited illegal votes.
I'm sure we can all see where this is leading: we need photo identification
at the polls to prevent Democrats from stealing elections using illegal
immigrants. I'm sure that we're going to hear more of this as the election
approaches. Chris Matthews can be expected to promote this kind of
rhetoric, but I am disappointed that Charile Cook (the third guest on the
show, and typical of the cable talk shows, he was apparently there to
provide "balance" to Mehlman) didn't interject a more reasoned response.
------------
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444