Election Administration
Wasted Tax Dollars and Political Patronage Are Undermining Democracy in New York State

The New York State Constitution is exceptional in that it establishes the proceedure for elections administration.  Under the current system of elections administration, the administration of state and local elections be done by boards on which the two political parties receiving the most and next most votes in the immediately preceding previous general election are equally represented (i.e. the Democrats and Republicans). The potential for abuse of this system is seen with every election, and the process of elections administration affects the outcomes of elections.

From Florida to Yonkers, we’ve seen what happens when election workers try to influence the outcome of an election by any means necessary.  Uncounted votes, voter suppression and even fraud are all possible. 

And with oversight evenly split, with no one person in charge, enforcement of election laws is almost non-existent because either party can block a legal action to protect their candidates, no matter what the facts.

Our current system leaves many voters dependent on election workers who are appointed by and answerable only to the major party bosses.

Historic Problems:

In 2006, Democratic State Senate candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins came within 18 votes of defeating the Republican incumbent, Nick Spano.  Why?  Under the noses of the partisan election workers, many voters were sent to the wrong polling place; refused correct polling place information; or allowed to fill out invalid ballots.  That undermines Democracy and disenfranchises voters.

Present Day: 

On September 13, 2011 there was a special election in the 54th Assembly district in Brooklyn.  In a special election the party leadership gets to designate the party nominee without a primary.   With no opportunity for a primary in this overwhelmingly Democratic district, three Democrats ran, one on the Democratic Party line, Working Families Party line and one on the “Community First” party line.

But on Election Day, only the Democratic party leadership had workers inside the polls administering the elections.  There was no one from the Working Families Party, no one from the Community First Party.  There was however a Republican poll worker despite the absence of a Republican candidate on the ballot.

Unlike most states, which use elected officials or professionals to oversee elections, New York has a constitutional mandate to let the major political parties run our Boards of Elections.

Our State Constitution lets the two political parties which get the most and second-most votes (i.e. the Democrats and Republicans) appoint equal numbers of Commissioners to run our elections.  These partisan commissioners then get to hand out all of the paid jobs to staff the polls and run elections across the state.  We pay for these patronage jobs with our tax dollars, but party officials hire all the people who fill them.

The idea is that the parties will keep a check on each other, but there’s no one to serve as a check on the two parties when they collude, leaving independent voters, “minor party” voters and party insurgents at their mercy.



Bi-partisan registration and election boards

All laws creating, regulating or affecting boards or officers charged with the duty of qualifying voters, or of distributing ballots to voters, or of receiving, recording or counting votes at elections, shall secure equal representation of the two political parties which, at the general election next preceding that for which such boards or officers are to serve, cast the highest and the next highest number of votes. All such boards and officers shall be appointed or elected in such manner, and upon the nomination of such representatives of said parties respectively, as the legislature may direct.

New York Post
David Seifman
Monday, September 12, 2011
The campaign manager for Rafael Espinal -- a candidate in tomorrow’s special election to replace state Assemblyman Darryl Towns -- got himself named a site monitor for the Board of Elections in the very same Brooklyn district where he is running.
This is an example of how the partisan appointment process preserved in the New York State Board of Elections by the New York State Constitution can allow one candidate to gain a perceived or actual advantage over others.
Link to Original Source - Link to Cached Version
Utica Observer-Dispatch
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Quick. Name a position where the only qualification for employment is that you belong to a particular political party; once hired, your employer has absolutely no say in how you do your job or whether you even keep it. Bzzt! Time’s up. Answer: county...
Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, since rules governing the process are part of the state constitution and have been on the books since 1894. The system was originally designed to keep elections fair and clean, but through the years it has helped keep the two parties in power and, as SUNY New Paltz Professor Gerald Benjamin says, has opened the door to patronage jobs that virtually lock out independent and third-party voters.
Link to Original Source - Link to Cached Version
A selection of relevant solutions from other states.

Only eight other states specify elections administration in their constitution.  They are Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Virginia.  Of these,  Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Vermont and West Virginia give this duty to an elected Secretary of State; in Texas a Secretary of State appointed by the Governor (with no legislative advice and consent) is responsible. Virginia’s constitution makes no provision for a state election board: it calls for three member city and county election boards, with representation assured for the two major parties.  The rest of the states deal with election administration in their statutes.

For the administration of elections, about three quarters of American states use a single headed agency.  Boards are commonly employed in the United States for regulatory or quasi-judicial functions.  In these circumstances it is almost always the case that these bodies have an odd number of members, as a guard against potential deadlock.



A Project of the Howard Samuels New York Policy Center, Inc.
Web Development by Kallos Consulting 

Creative Commons License