Should partisans be in charge of our elections?
Former Florida Secretary of State and U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) (L) announces that she will not be running for the U.S. Senate, with Florida State Representative Nancy Detert looking on January 16, 2004 in Sarasota, Florida. / Getty Images
(CBS News) Imagine that the umpire in a baseball game was affiliated with one of the teams on the field. Would you trust him to call the game fairly?
You most likely would not. Yet when it comes to elections, Americans trust officials from the two political parties to oversee the process in a fair way.
There are 36 states in which elections are overseen by an elected, partisan secretary of state or lieutenant governor, according to the National Association of Secretaries of State. In another three states - Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas - partisan secretaries of state appointed by the governor oversee elections.
These officials vow to carry out their duties in an impartial manner. The Constitution of the National Association of Secretaries of State says that members commit to "practicing fair and unbiased election administration that recognizes each eligible citizen's right to cast his or her vote, and for that vote to be counted with the highest regard to constitutional foundations."
But there have been numerous decisions that have prompted critics to call that promise into question. The most famous comes from Florida, where, in the year 2000, Secretary of State Katherine Harris halted recounts and certified George W. Bush the winner of the state's decisive electoral votes. This year, in Florida, Colorado and other states, efforts by Republican secretaries of state to purge non-citizens from voter rolls have left critics alleging voter suppression.
Ohio, another battleground state, has seen more than its fair share of this sort of controversy. In 2004, Democrats successfully sued Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, for a provisional ballot policy they said was designed to suppress the Democratic vote. Blackwell was succeeded by Democrat Jennifer Brunner, who was also widely seen as having tried to tilt the playing field in her party's favor. In August, the Obama administration successfully sued Brunner's successor, Jon Husted, for giving military voters (who tend to vote Republican) extra time to vote but denying that opportunity to civilian voters.
Many partisan secretaries of state have aspirations to continue rising through their party ranks. They thus have a particular incentive to make decisions that help that party achieve its goals.
"It's an inherent conflict of interest because you've got an umpire who's a betting stake in the game," said Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji, an expert in election law.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Both parties vow to "get to the bottom" of IRS scandal 103 Comments
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 246 Comments
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 223 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 195 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
America has a problem. America is CORRUPT. America has only two parties, and there is so much HATRED for each other, you can't possibly trust anyone to do the right thing.
I suggest bringing in people from outside the country to oversee things. I'm available. : )
You should NOT be using voting machines. Paper ballots only. And when those ballots are transported, there should be a cop escorting the person/persons handling them. There should be a camera on at all times. Even during the counting process. They should be counted three times. Once by a Democrat, once by a Republican and once by a so called partisan.
Sheesh, when you have parties changing the rules about who can vote and where they can vote, at election time, you've got problems. No one can be trusted.
How about this headline CBS:
Should partisans be in charge of the Free Press?
Who's to say that an election board of six district court judges is not conflicted in ways other than partisan affiliation?
For example, all six judges are state bar association members. What happens when the radical reformer of the legal profession ends up in an election recount?
At least with partisan affiliation, the public becomes sensitized to the conflicted potential of all our politics.
Harris actually received a bit of a bad deal. The position is a down-ballot, low controversy job and is not designed to become the spotlight of focus in a recount that determines the outcome of a presidential election. Her only responsible course was to adopt every interpretation that supported the election outcome of the political party to which she was affiliated, and let the candidates, courts, and others act in accordance with their own interests.
She is sort of an early prototype for Palinizing conservative females by liberals.
Period.
Who's to say that an election board of six judges is not conflicted in ways other than partisan affiliation?
For example, all six judges are state bar association members. What happens when the radical reformer of the legal profession ends up in an election recount?
Without partisan affiliation, the public becomes desensitized to the conflicted potential of all our politics.
Harris actually received a bit of a bad deal. The position is a down-ballot, low controversy job and is not designed to become the spotlight of focus in a recount that determines the outcome of a presidential election. Her only responsible course was to adopt every interpretation that supported the election outcome of the political party to which she was affiliated, and let the candidates, courts, and others act in accordance with their own interests.
Who on the other side was willing to accept any of her decisions as non-partisan while the outcome was still against them?
The Democrats are dangerous and unAmerican.
------------------by Mortarman_1SG29 September 27, 2012 9:08 AM EDT
Why are they un-American?
But even if so, that's pretty funny that to you, Repubs aren't un-American because they pretend to follow the Constitution.
Both sides also have individuals who are decent, American, etc.
All election money should come from a self-contained pool of tax money. No "contributions" from external sources allowed. To do that turns us from a republic or democracy into a plutocracy, oligarchy, corporatist, or other anti-American state.