The Problems with Bipartisan Local Election Administration
It's been a few years since <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/679" target="”_blank”">I wrote about the
problems with the partisan, or "bipartisan," administration of local elections</a>.
One thing that arisen from this year's election is a strong feeling
that it is high time that New York City's Board of Elections be reformed.
Hopefully, this process will get a great deal of publicity, and
become a guide for other communities.<br>
<br>
The principal problem in New York City, as in many other cities and
counties throughout the country, is the state's election laws.
According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/nyregion/city-officials-and-watchdogs…; target="”_blank”">an article this week in the New York <i>Times</i></a>, the state
constitution "sets the parameters for how all elections in the state
are managed, requiring that Republicans and Democrats be equally
represented at all levels of election administration."<br>
<br>
In other words, bipartisanship is the rule. Bipartisanship means control of the election process by the two major
parties, which can't manage to agree on very much other than keeping
the powerless members of minor parties (not to mention those who have chosen not to
register as a member of either party) not only out of power, but
also out of election administration. The two major parties have ensured their control of
elections not only in laws, but also in constitutions, which are much harder to change. If this were to
happen in a poor country, we would call it a power grab and insist
that election boards be as nonpartisan as possible, including people
from all parties and as many independents as possible.<br>
<br>
<b>Patronage</b><br>
But it's worse than this. Not only are NYC elections board members
selected by the two local party committees, but "the parties also
play a central role in installing people in staff positions." That
is, patronage is the rule.<br>
<br>
But this isn't the patronage of a city machine, which might actually
work very well. This is bipartisan patronage, which means that an equal number of members of each party must agree.
For example, the elections board has had no executive director for
two years, in part because the county leaders have not been able to
agree on a candidate. Yes, going into a major election, the party
leaders couldn't manage to agree on an executive director.<br>
<br>
Mayor Bloomberg put it well, “It should not be two parties and
county leaders picking their buddies to supervise the basis of our
citizenship. We don’t have a system for the 21st century. It’s just
a disgrace.”<br>
<br>
<b>Incompetence</b><br>
Since these are patronage jobs, there don't
appear to be any qualifications required to be on the elections
board or to run elections. How does that work? According to <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/patronage-breeds-corruption-which-breed…; target="”_blank”">a
piece written last year for the <i>Examiner</i></a> by a former elections
board director of personnel, "It was not too rare to have an
employee assigned to alphabetizing voter registration cards and be
functionally illiterate. ... Because of their political connections
these people survived years working at the board, being promoted and
being given assorted pay raises without a second thought. ... There
were countless employees that ignored rules and regulations because
they considered themselves 'untouchable'. Case in point, a clerk in
a borough office wasn’t much of a morning person, thus he would show
up for work after 10:00 a.m., if he bothered to show up at all.
Warnings and advisories had no effect. It seems that the mother of
his child was the daughter of the Chief Clerk in that borough."<br>
<br>
The result has been a great deal of incompetence, and the results in New York City the last few years have sometimes been pretty ugly.<br>
<br>
<b>Nepotism and Other Conflicts</b><br>
Nepotism and other conflicts appear to be part of this patronage
system. According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/nyregion/nyc-election-board-showed-dy…; target="”_blank”">an
article this July in the New York <i>Times</i></a>, "the senior staff all
carry a city politics DNA. The Democratic deputy director, Pamela
Green Perkins, is married to Senator Bill Perkins, a Democrat. The
Republican deputy director, Dawn Sandow, is closely connected to the
Bronx Republicans."<br>
<br>
And according to this article, a lawyer who shared an office with
the Bronx Republican leader once was paid $100,000 to lobby the
elections board on behalf of a voting machine company. Of course,
the elections board gave the company a $50 million contract. The
next day, federal prosecutors indicted the lawyer in an unrelated
bribery case, and he pleaded guilty.<br>
<br>
<b>Indefensible Institutional Corruption</b><br>
Bipartisan election administration is wrong in so many ways, it is a
wonder that anyone could defend it with a straight face. So they don't. This could
only happen in a culture where government ethics is considered a
minor issue and a personal, character issue. Bipartisan election
administration is not a matter of bad apples. It is a case of
serious institutional corruption. It makes every elected official
who does not aggressively try to change it complicit in every
problem raised in this blog post (and here are a few more:
gridlock, weak enforcement, hostility to innovation, putting the
good elections employee in a difficult ethical position as well as
burdening them with extra work and, most important, inculcating the idea that
election administration is something partisan rather than the most
important way our democracy ensures that it functions fairly and
properly).<br>
<br>
New York City can become a leader in ethics administration reform. It should start by recognizing that the current situation is one of institutional corruption, that everyone is responsible, and that the state and city need to work together to put an end to it, once and for all. The result of handling this well would be an enormous increase in public trust in the parties and in our election system.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---