The Conflict at the Heart of the Local Election Process
Last October, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/544" target="”_blank”">a blog entry</a> about why parties should fight
elections, not referee them. <a href="http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/03/19/17/clayindict.source.prod_a…; target="”_blank”">An
indictment this month</a> in Kentucky emphasizes the need for the
election process to be taken out of the hands of those contending for
the results of that process.<br>
<br>
According to the indictment, the Clay County Board of Elections
consists of the county clerk (an elected official), the sheriff (an
elected official), and two members appointed by the State Board of
Elections, selected from a list of five names submitted by the
Republican and Democratic parties in the county. The Board appoints
election officers, including two judges, one clerk and one sheriff for
each precinct, and board members can fill these roles, as well.<br>
<br>
Eight people, including two former members of the election board, two
election officers, two owners of a major county contractor, the school
superintendent, and a circuit court judge, were indicted for "bribery,
extortion, and mail fraud designed to corrupt and affect the outcome of
elections." The most interesting thing they were charged with is a
scheme to fool voters into leaving the booth after pushing the Vote
button on a touch-screen voting machine, when in actuality that does
not enter their votes, but gives them a chance to confirm their vote.
This allows people to go in and change the votes before they are
recorded.<br>
<br>
There's a lot of talk about the weaknesses of computerized voting
machines (and this is certainly one of them), but far too little about
the essential conflict of interest in having parties, politicians, and
their friends running the system that elects these politicians.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>