Susan Lerner of Common Cause writes at the election law list:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
