Local Government Political Activity and Misuse of Office

Political activity by local government employees can be a sign of misuse of office. And when election problems arise, they generally involve local government employees, as has happened in Essex County (NJ; home of Newark), according to an article in Friday's Star-Ledger.

The principal problem with political activity involves patronage, the system whereby officials make it a requirement of being hired for a job that the employee work for the election of certain candidates. The classic case is Chicago, where even a federal order to institute serious obstacles to the patronage system were, for years, undermined by fraudulent conduct.

The situation in Essex County is more complicated, but nearly all the players seem to be local government officials and employees. According to an earlier Star-Ledger article, back in August, five individuals were indicted for forgery, fraud, and other crimes related to absentee ballots in a state senatorial election (more specifically, the ballots involved are known as "messenger ballots," used by those who cannot leave their homes due to illness, infirmity, or disability).

The first to be indicted was the only one who was not a local government official. Two were Newark employees, another worked for the county sheriff's office, and another worked for the county's superintendent of elections.

Then in December the candidate's husband, himself an Essex County freeholder (that is, council member), was indicted, along with aides to the Newark mayor and a Democratic power broker, and two county employees, on grounds of ballot tampering.

According to the most recent article, the latest to be charged is the county superintendent of elections himself, who appears to have gotten the investigation started in the first place. He was charged with creating a scheme by which his department's employees would be paid for days spent campaigning.

This is a government ethics issue because it appears that local government officials were deeply involved not only in possible voter fraud, but in using the power of their public offices to further the interests of their political allies. And they were willing to use public money and, most likely, public facilities to further these personal interests.

What differentiates this from the usual conflict situation, besides the political aspect, is that the conflicts are not personal and financial in the usual sense. Their acts are not directly beneficial to them. The conflicts are part of a system whereby elected and appointed officials misuse their offices for purposes they know are not in the public interest. And they easily justify such misuse on the grounds that everyone does it, they are not personally benefiting, and everyone has a constitutional right to be involved in electoral politics.

At the same time, they know that "everyone does it" is a child's excuse; that they are personally benefiting, even though the benefit isn't a quid pro quo; and there are limits on constitutional rights. In fact, there are federal, state, and local laws that limit political activity by government employees, and they have been held constitutional.

This paragraph from Friday's Star-Ledger article says it all:

"I’m taken aback and I’m surprised," said Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo Jr., whose roots, like [the superintendent of elections'], extend to Newark’s North Ward and Barringer High School.

There's nothing surprising about what has been coming out. Nor that the county "power broker," who has done a great deal for the city, was taught at the high school back when. All politics is local, yes, but more important, all politics is personal.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---