Moonlighting in California

 

The blog has moved to sunny California.  When I started this blog in January 2013 in Salt Lake City, the weather was cold and hazy.  High temperatures were in the teens for 8 weeks which is actually great weather for skiing, the Sundance Film Festival and graduate studies and research.  Temperatures are balmy here in California as I write this post.

With the change of venue and its accompanying shift in perspective, I also have changed from an academic and researcher foremost and administrator/election official second to the opposite relationship.  As a newly appointed California Election Official, I am returning to my bureaucratic roots as my principle endeavor and setting the academy into a secondary role.  Whether I am an academic moonlighting as an administrator or a bureaucrat imitating a scholar will be for the reader to judge.

I have no plans to write about my personal experiences as an administrator in my new capacity.  Brian Newby is already filling that space and journaling insightful perspectives and entertaining experiences. My colleagues, my employees and my employers can rest assured that they will not appear in these musings.  Scholars and other bloggers may not share the same consideration (humor intended).

I will continue to observe the administration of elections from a generalized perspective and attempt to offer observations and analysis of both a theoretical and practical nature which may be meaningful to a wide spectrum of election geeks and enthusiasts.  As a doctoral candidate, I am continuing my studies and research in public administration and political theory.  The subject of my primary research continues to be elections related and my dissertation proposal is an analysis of the effectiveness of federal election reforms (HAVA) specifically, provisional ballots, voter identification and definitions of a valid vote.  By necessity, I am researching and assessing the metrics by which election administration in general and federal reforms can be meaningfully determined.

I welcome questions, insights and critiques on election topics whether or not they are relevant to my posts or my research.     

Stay tuned.

A Model Worth Emulation

It has been a couple of weeks since my last post and during that period I have had some significant professional and personal events that have reminded me of the importance of the commitment to continuous improvement, especially when the opportunity to improve and advance is contingent upon recognizing and owning weaknesses and mistakes.

I was prompted to to write this post after reading a tribute to a friend and colleague who has retired after 24 years in the election business- Steve Weir- the Clerk/Registrar of Contra Cost County, CA.  The tribute recognized in Steve a quality that all election administrators should develop or enhance- the ability to say “We made a mistake.”

In a previous post I pointed out the paradox between election administrators’ conscientious commitment to perfection and the benefits of recognizing and learning from mistakes.  It is impossible to improve if mistakes or weaknesses are hidden or unacknowledged.

“… it is understandable for election officials to conscientiously set a high yet unobtainable standard of perfection and to choose not to see or admit to ever falling short of that standard. The price is too high. Yet the adoption of this seemingly noble and highly responsible standard -perfection- has two paradoxically negative and unanticipated outcomes. First, it reinforces an unreasonable and unattainable expectation, among the public, media and politicians, that an election is only acceptably “good” when conducted without issues or errors. Second, the façade of perfection often adopted by election administrators truncates the feedback loop that is a necessary part of the cycle of learning and improving.

The personal cost of publically acknowledging “learning moments” can be unnecessarily high and painful. The unrecognized organizational cost of ignoring or hiding the “learning moments” is even higher.”

In an opinion piece published this past weekend, Lisa Vorderbrueggen, the election beat reporter for the Contra Costa Times wrote in a piece entitled “Weir’s honesty is a model worth emulation”:

“Journalists have a special place in their otherwise cold little hearts for the true public servants who pursue the public good even when it runs counter to their personal interests.

Steve Weir is such a man. He retired Friday after 24 years as Contra Costa County’s election chief and clerk-recorder.

Many people know the diligent Weir for his unyielding political neutrality, his extraordinary kindnesses and his willingness to stand publicly for same-sex partner equality.

But reporters know the former Concord mayor as that exceedingly rare elected official who routinely sent out news releases that detailed mistakes no one knew — and might never have known about.

‘Steve was not only totally forthright when you asked him questions, but he would also tell you things you needed to know, even if it didn’t make him or his office look good,’ said one journalist who covered Weir for many years.

His biggest crisis came when scrutiny over a tight 1996 San Ramon Valley schools tax measure revealed thousands of incorrect or missing sample ballots and the destruction of ballots. Weir ended up in court, and the grand jury published a critical report.

But Weir didn’t duck and cover.

Instead, he moved his desk into the election department lobby and faced the crisis head-on.

Oh, there were still mistakes. Since then, Weir has confessed to everything from ballots mailed to the wrong houses to ballots with missing races to ballots missing altogether.

 ’I believe you should confess, fix the problem and move on because there is always another mistake waiting, and the next one could bury you,’ Weir said.

Elected officials everywhere would do well to model themselves after Weir: Tell the whole truth early and often. Shoulder all the blame but generously share the credit.  Adopt a ‘give respect, get respect’ approach both inside and outside the office.

These practices are not only the right thing to do; they pay big dividends when it comes to voters’ trust — not a single person challenged Weir in six elections.”

I can’t think of a better tribute to be paid to an election administrator from a reporter.  However, transparancy and honesty are not the only constructive reason to acknowledge shortcomings.  Again from a previous post:

“…errors and mistakes in elections seldom affect the outcomes and should not be considered inherently fatal to acknowledge. The healthy and constructive approach, which I am advocating working toward, is one in which it is safe to acknowledge mistakes and failures for the purpose of learning and improving from them. To do otherwise casts unjustified suspicion on elections and election administrators and inhibits a culture of continuous learning and improvement from which the profession can greatly benefit.”

Stay tuned.

Headline: “Clerks kill Election Day voter registration”

The last hours of many legislative sessions are filled with unexpected and sometimes hard to explain events.  Yesterday (March 14), the last day of the Utah 2013 legislative session was definitely one of those cases.  For years, the media, scholars and politicians have bemoaned the fact that the state has suffered from low voter turnout.  The Salt Lake Tribune, reporting on the close of the session summarized the low turnout dilemma:  

The Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Democracy — formed by former Gov. Jon Huntsman to find ways to improve voter turnout — made Election Day registration a top priority, but the idea has foundered for five years since it was recommended.

Utah voter turnout is among the nation’s lowest. In 2010, 36.2 percent of Utah’s voting-eligible population cast ballots — ranking No. 49 among the 50 states. In 2012 when favorite-son Mitt Romney was running for president, that rose to 55.4 percent — but still ranked only No. 38, and was still below the national average of 58.2 percent.

Utah has an interesting form of same day registration as part of the statute pertaining to provisional ballots.  If a voter fails to re-register or update their registration by the legal registration deadlines, the voter can cast a provisional ballot at the polling place assigned to their new address and that ballot will be counted provided the voter was previously registered, at anytime, anywhere in the state.  The statewide registration system makes this easy to verify and simple to verify that the voter has not previously voted.  The vast majority of provisional ballots cast (75%+) fall into this category.  The net result is same day registration for a sub-set of the state’s residents.

The ballots of voters who showed up on election day, cast a provisional ballot but were not previously registered in the state yet are otherwise qualified are not counted.  These voters are registered for future elections but the registration is not effective for that election.  The majority of provisional ballots not counted in the state fall into this category.

The upshot of the statute is that one group who ignores or fails to meet arbitrary registration deadlines gets their vote counted and another group who fails to meet the same deadlines does not.  To close this gap, Rep Rebecca Houck has sponsored a bill for the last five years which would close the loophole and would permit the provisional ballots for all eligible voters who show up on election day at the correct polling place to count.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, D-Salt Lake City, has noted that Utah law now allows people to register on Election Day and cast provisional ballots. While that is used to register them for future elections, the provisional ballots are discarded if officials find those people were not previously registered in Utah.

“What this bill does is allow the vote to be counted,” Jenkins [the Republican Senate Sponsor] said. “This allows you to register and vote on same day if you prove your residency and identity.”

Previous attempts to pass the bill met partisan resistance and did not make it to a vote.  This year, however, the bill had support from both major political parties and the House passed the bill after hearing testimony in favor by the State Republican Party, State Democratic Party, League of Women Voters and the head of the Utah Tea Party.  The only testimony in opposition came from County Clerks—who complained it would be too much work.  As the bill proceeded to the Senate and passed out of committee, the Clerk’s Association mounted the bill’s only opposition.

A bill to allow Election Day voter registration died Thursday — ironically killed by election officials who worried that it could work too well, and cause them too much work, in a state that has among the worst voter turnout in the nation.

HB91 died on a 10-18 vote in the Senate, after earlier passing the House 58-14.

Most of the opposition cited was from county clerks who said it could create more work than they could now handle between when votes are cast and when counts must be finalized.

This case is representative of election administrators across the country and is not merely a Utah aberration.  Clerks and administrators are not effective policy makers nor is it their function.  The role of administrators should be to inform policymakers about proposed legislation and to even take positions on bills.  There is a fair question of where genuine support and opposition of a proposal ends and where active lobbying and activism for a bill begin.  That line can be fuzzy and may not be meaningful much of the time. 

However, when opposition by election officials to a measure, which is uniformly agreed by all parties to be in the interest of voters and the electoral process (as in this case), is based solely on avoiding additional work, the personal competence, the profession’s credibility and the integrity of the process is rightfully scrutinized, and even called into question, by the public.  The passage of good public policy should not be thwarted by complaints by election administrators that it is “too hard” or by their exaggerated estimates of time and cost.

 Stay Tuned

“Measure twice, cut once.” Election Data and Norm Abram

Measurement is the first step that leads to control and eventually to improvement.  If you can’t measure something, you can’t understand it.  If you can’t understand it, you can’t control it.  If you can’t control it, you can’t improve it. ~ H.  James Harrington

The pithy maxim “Measure twice, cut once” is the title of a book by one of my heroes- master woodworker, Norm Abram of PBS series “The New Yankee Workshop.”  Silently repeating this advice to myself as I undertake making the cuts for a new woodworking project has saved me countless hours of labor and untold dollars in materials.   Besides the obvious wisdom of double checking a measurement before committing a board to the teeth of sharp saw, there are other critical aspects of measuring to be considered:

1. The accuracy of the measuring instrument must precise and consistent.  Poorly designed or hastily constructed measuring tools lead to work products of uncertain quality.
2. The instrument must be calibrated in the right units of measurement.   To make a measurement in inches and fractions, the rule must be in the right units.  A metric rule or a rule incremented in tenths of an inch may be accurate for its respective purpose but is inaccurate if measuring for fractions of inches.  The impulse to simply convert between units of measure with confidence in its accuracy is a fallacy.  Conversion always introduces error and cannot be consistently replicated.
3. Identical measuring instruments yield different results.  Slight variations in the scale and condition are introduced through use, wear and tear.  The same instrument should be used throughout a project for accuracy and consistency.  Switching instrumentation in the middle of a project introduces unequal lengths and loose joints (error and uncertainty).
4.  Two craftsmen using the same instrument will measure differently.  Each has his own technique and method of marking.  One craftsman cannot cut with confidence on the measurement made by another unless he knows the method and assumptions underlying the mark of the other.
5.  The method of recording the measured mark determines its accuracy.  Felt tip markers, carpenter’s pencils, fine lead pencils, marking knives and scratch awls are all common methods for recording a measurement.  Each recording device has its own pluses and minuses and none are the right tool in all cases.  The material being measured and the level of accuracy required determine the appropriate recording device.
6. Mid-stream shortcuts always lead to mistakes.  During the course of a project and the repetition of tasks, the creative (and lazy) always learn enough to find a way to make the work go faster.  Improving processes and increasing productivity is a good thing unless introduced in the middle of a project.  Changes in techniques or assumptions during a project add complexity and inevitably introduce errors.  Lessons learned and shortcuts are best left for future projects (rather than the current one).

A lot has been made recently of election metrics and it’s about time the idea got some traction in the US elections community.  Doug Chapin has written several times recently about data and metrics and has noted a movement among election administrators to begin to measure, analyze and use data.  What to measure, how to measure it, how to analyze it for meaning and how to leverage it are all questions that need to be asked by everyone.  Unlike the myriad of terms, definitions and meanings found in the fifty + election codes around the country, the answers to these questions must be consistent among the profession to yield meaningful data, comparisons and insights.

In a gallant first cut at collecting, aggregating and analyzing election data from around the country, the Pew released a compilation of comparative election metrics intended to score performance among the states in February 2013 along the lines of the “Democracy Index” proposed by Hether Gerken.  Like good craftsmen, those working on the project had well-tuned saws and sharp chisels.  What they did not have, however, is valid, reliable measures of comparable material recorded using similar assumptions and techniques in the same unit of accuracy with equal accuracy. 

Even where the data were comparable, meanings of the data were not clearly defined.  For example, the meaning to be assigned to the number of provisional ballots cast is ambiguous and contradictory:

“Unless provisional ballots are being given to voters for other administrative reasons, a large number may indicate problems with voter registration records. The meaning of a small number of provisional ballots, from an election administration standpoint, is more open to question. On the one hand, a small number may indicate that registration records are up to date; on the other hand, small numbers may be the result of poll workers not offering voters with registration problems the provisional ballot option when appropriate.” (Pew Center on the States, “Election Performance Index”, February 2013, p. 38) Emphasis added.

The danger of proceeding further into the data-driven world of empirical analysis without clarifying and standardizing definitions, specifying measuring instruments and units of measurement, and formulating measurement protocols (before the fact) is not merely fuzzy research.  Fuzzy research will tell a story to the public and politicians that is not accurate, that is not credible, and which may not be entirely ethical.  The real danger is that policies and decisions will be made on the basis of fuzzy research and careers and reputations will be made and damaged.  The results will be just like an inferior quality, poorly measured woodshop project regardless of the quality of the tools and the earnestness of the craftsman.

The parallels in the art of measurement between my twin passions of woodworking and elections administration are insightful to the present situation.  My point is not to criticize the Pew’s bold undertaking nor is it to put a damper on the emerging enthusiasm and commitment to gathering and using election data.   By pointing to the wisdom of masters of other crafts, I hope to shape the future of data collection and analysis in our craft of election administration.

 “While ‘measure twice and cut once’ is always pithy advice, it more important to measure accurately and to know that you have.”  ~Aldren Watson “Hand Tools: Their Ways and Workings”

Stay Tuned

Plus ça change….

“There is probably no other phase of public administration in the United States which is so badly managed as the conduct of elections.”

What a harsh and critical statement of the state of affairs in election administration.  This bold assertion, however, is not regarding the current state of elections although it may be true enough.  This is the opening  sentence of the 1934 book by Joseph Harris on election administration.  Like many scholars and administrators, I was aware of the book and recall seeing this quote appear occasionally in journal articles but had not taken the time to read the book.  I am guessing that may be the case as well for the readers of this blog so I thought I would share some more nuggets from the book that resound just as sharply in today’s administration and study of elections.  Even though I just picked up and read the book this week as part of the research for my dissertation, many of Harris’ critiques and themes have interestingly appeared in my previous blogs and writings.  I guess this is evidence of the French proverb, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

What is a “good” election?

“The ideal election administration is one which uniformly and regularly produces honest and accurate results.  There should never be the slightest question about the integrity of the ballot box or doubt cast upon the honesty of the elections.” (Harris, p. 1)

On management:

“The conduct of elections is marked throughout by obsolete procedures and methods…The personnel of the election office is usually concerned only with carrying out the provisions of state law, never giving thought to any matter concerned with improving the administration.” (Harris, p. 5)

“The attempt is made now to secure uniform and satisfactory election administration throughout the state by statutes, without any effective administrative supervision, and without using rules, regulations, and instructions issued by an administrative office. In no other phase of public administration do the statutes bulk so large and administrative control and supervision so little.” (Harris, p. 7)

On complexity and efficiency:

“It is very common for useless forms and records to be made out, many signatures required, and other forms of red tape, which are not only unnecessary, but actually defeat their own ends.” (Harris, p. 5)

On discretion and decision making:

“The election statutes are so detailed that the precinct officers cannot know the law.  Often the procedure set forth in state law is so cumbersome and unsound that the election officers make no pretense in complying with it.” (Harris, p. 6)

“The remedy lies not so much in putting pressure upon the precinct officer to comply with the law, but rather in a revision of the election statutes so that the temptation to take short cuts will be largely eliminated. The procedure at the polls should be simplified and regularized. When a sound procedure has been established, the office in charge of elections should take greater pains to instruct the precinct officers and to inspect and supervise their work.” (Harris, pp. 6-7)

With all due respect to my legislator friends and colleagues, you have been and still are (co)responsible for the state of affairs in election administration.  It is clear that the “Shrek Effect” has quite a history when it comes to elections:

“Patchwork upon patchwork will not remedy the situation.  The deluge of election laws, with constant revisions, has produced in many states an election code not only of voluminous size, but also with many conflicting and uncertain provisions.  Wholly aside from fundamental improvements which are necessary, most states are greatly in need of a revision of the election laws in order to clarify and codify the existing statutes.” (Harris, p. 7)

“Election statutes are greatly overworked at the present time. No sound, efficient, economical, and satisfactory administration can be secured so long as it is the practice to prescribe in minute detail every operation in the conduct of elections.” (Harris, p. 7)

“The constant revision of election laws which is taking place in most states is designed in practically every case to rectify some abuse which has sprung up. These alterations deal with minor details of administration and do not involve any fundamental changes. They have led to more and more cumbersome procedures and records. Most of the election records and methods are antiquated, expensive in operation, and require a thorough revision.“ (Harris, p. 20)

“The constant flood of election bills which is introduced in practically every state indicates the present unsatisfactory condition of election administration. Every bill is designed to correct an evil, to prevent a sharp practice which has sprang up. The election laws are being constantly changed, but without any fundamental revision or improvement. Many of the principles which now govern the conduct of elections and guide the framing of election statutes are unwise, and must be discarded before a sound system can be established.” (Harris, p. 7)

There have been radical social, political and technological changes in the 80 years since this book’s publication but the problems and challenges to American election administration are remarkably unchanged.  Are the problems of election administration so intractable?  Are the politics of election administration so strong that the system cannot evolve? Are election administrators too resistant to learning and practicing effective public administration? 

I think it is a little of “all the above.”  Harris proposes a remedy that is still appropriate to us today:

“There is needed for the administration of elections: (1) a revision of the state election laws similar to the revision which has already take place in many states in the administration of the registration of voters, (2) a reorganization of the election machinery, and (3) many improvements in election management. “ (Harris, p. 20)

What do you think?  I am interested in your reaction to the realization that election administrators (and legislators) might be just like gerbils running endlessly inside the wheel–maybe picking up speed but still not making progress.

Stay Tuned.

Work Cited:

Harris, Joseph. Election Administration in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1934.

Adaptation and the “Shrek Effect” in Elections

As is usually the case, the period of calm that follows a Presidential election is more an illusion than a reality.  This year, the peace is probably more illusory than most off-years:

• Legislatures are in session passing laws to fix last year’s problems, real and perceived.  This is the time-honored ritual of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
• The President is forming a new commission to study and propose new election reforms and has pledged to fix the problem of voters waiting in line to vote on Election day.
• The President has also proposed increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour (Brian Newby explains why this is an election issue).
• The Post Office, a long-time partner with election administrators, is reducing service and forcing administrators to examine its impact on postmark and ballot receipt requirements.
• Administrators, both state and local, have received their “report card” in the form of the recently published PEW Election Performance Index and are in the process of deciding how to or if they should respond to this and future studies.

The reflection and discussion that these activities bring to the profession are essential and are part of a healthy post-action, post-election review that characterizes effective management practices.  Unfortunately, much of the value of these exercises escapes our grasp.  Over the period of nearly 20 years in elections I have observed a pattern among administrators, legislatures, scholars and activists that accumulates “best” practices, new policies, laws, regulations, studies and reforms and overlays them onto their existing counterparts every year.

This practice is like a dripping faucet that keeps accreting minerals onto surfaces that eventually become lime and scale deposits which constrict and shut off the flow of water (at worst) or deface and mar the visible appearance of the sink (at best).   While this is an apt visual metaphor, I prefer to call this the “Shrek Effect.”

In the original Shrek movie while the talking Donkey and Shrek, the Ogre, were getting to know each other, the Ogre claimed a complex personality and character.  Donkey, in a flash of understanding, exclaimed “like a parfait!!  You have multiple layers!!”  Shrek agreed, but not willing to accept such a sweet comparison, said “…more like an onion.  I have layers like an onion.”

The “Shrek Effect” is illustrated by problem-solving processes which fail to diagnose the real issues creating the problem.  “Shrek Effect” solutions attack the visible symptoms of issues while leaving the root causes invisible and undisturbed.  The “Shrek Effect” demands immediate and urgent action in the form of visible technical solutions– “If we only did this…”

“Shrek Effect-ed” management relies on borrowing solutions from others– solutions which make some anonymous and dubious claim to being “best practices.”  The result of the “Shrek Effect-ed” processes is the continued layering of the parfait (policy on top of policy).  The result is new layers on the onion (new laws on top of unrepealled old laws).  The result is the relentless mineral accretion of the drip, drip, drip of the faucet (new reforms reforming prior reforms).

The alternative to the “Shrek Effect” is an adaptive approach which conceives of election laws and administration as a system.  It is a problem solving approach which insists on taking the time to diagnose the real problem(s) and which is willing to resist the temptation to act for the sake of action.

It is an approach which critically identifies and considers assumptions underlying both the existing practices and the proposed solutions.  It is an approach that develops and assesses multiple solutions before committing to a course of action.  It is an approach that is willing to get rid of unneeded clutter and noise –to perform housekeeping on the existing inventory of policies, practices and canons of law.  It is an iterative approach which is constantly evaluating effects and outcomes and which makes adjustments on an on-going basis.

Adaptive leadership and management techniques are proven to be effective but they are not part of our public/election administration education, training and culture.   Adaptive leadership and management requires more patience, more self-reflection, and more courage than the muddling style of so many administrators and scholars.

As the profession participates, navigates, and deliberates in the forums and venues of 2013, situations will arise in which administrators, scholars and politicians can mitigate the “Shrek Effect” and foster adaptive solutions.  To do otherwise invokes the plot of another well-known movie- Bill Murray’s “Groundhog Day.”

Note: For more information regarding Adaptive Leadership, see The Practice of Adaptive Leadership and the Kansas Leadership Center.

Stay Tuned.

Federalism, Reform and the State Election Paradigm

Several years ago in an interview with the original Commissioners of the US Election Assistance Commission, I made the assertion that there is no such thing as a “federal election.”  After a few moments of stunned silence, Buster Soares, the Chair of the Commission, asked me to explain what I meant- which I did.  Later in the interview, he again returned to my assertion and asked what the implications were to my argument.

I have been reminded of this exchange by the recent discussion of federal actions to address the perceived election issues from the past 2012 election.  The role of the federal government in election reform has always been contentious.  The reason for controversy lies in the evolution of the popular view of our federal form of government.  Americans today see the United States as a single nation, a unitary actor, which is (or should be) governed by a leader popularly elected by all the citizens of the nation.

When inconsistencies between laws, practices and systems between states and local jurisdictions are revealed during an election, the public perceives sloppiness, mismanagement and even malfeasance.  The Electoral College notwithstanding, shouldn’t all Americans have an equal opportunity to elect their President?  Obviously, the solution is for Congress, the President or the courts to mandate technical and uniform standards for federal elections so that everyone elects the President the same way.

A person in Florida shouldn’t have to wait in line to vote any longer than a person in Kansas, right?  Why should a voter in Oregon be forced to vote by mail when in Nevada a voter can vote early at lunchtime at their workplace or when a voter in Virginia must appear in person at the polls to vote?  Why should a provisional ballot cast in Washington State be counted when the provisional ballot of a voter from Ohio in the same circumstance is not counted?  Why should a voter in Arizona be compelled to produce valid photo identification to vote and another voter in California be allowed to vote without identification?  Why should counties in Utah audit their electronic voting machines using a paper audit trail and counties in Georgia, using the same voting system, not be required to create a paper record of votes?  These questions only have relevance when there is an assumption of a “federal election”, a national election conducted on a common date.

My answer to the Commissioners was that, in reality, there are 50+ state elections conducted on the same day but using different laws and regulations for federal, state and local offices.  Our system of federalism, rather than a national form of government (or as Madison describes it in Federalist 51- our compound republic), intentionally diffuses power between states and the federal government and establishes an elaborate system of checking and balancing power.  The methods of electing persons to federal office (House, Senate and President) in the Constitution were created to be part of the balancing mechanisms.  The Federalists, in advocating for ratification, argued that the Constitution did not create a national government but a federation of sovereign states who would elect and send their representatives to the federal Congress.

To balance against the whims of public opinion and to minimize the framers’ fear of a fickle and uniformed popular vote, the Constitution specified that only members of the House of Representatives could be elected by a vote of the people.  Senators would be indirectly elected by the state legislatures and the President, even more indirectly, by the Electoral College whose delegates would be appointed or elected by the states.  The 17^th Amendment changed the method of electing Senators by permitting their direct election by the voters of each state.  We can see then, that those that hold federal office, including the President, are elected at the state and not federal level as specified by the Constitution.

The constitution is otherwise silent on the laws, regulations and procedures for conducting elections thereby delegating responsibility for elections to the states (at least not claiming it for itself).  The 10^th Amendment reinforces the authority of the states to conduct elections as they will.

There is a conflict between the 21^st century expectations of American voters and elected leaders and the federalism’s Constitutional paradigm.  Rather than acknowledging and addressing the conflict, the public, pundits, and media call for solutions to which those in authority are happy to respond.  Tiptoeing carefully around Constitutional concerns, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) “mandated” voting system reforms by footing the bill for voluntary compliance and by creating the ever oxymoronic federal “Voluntary Voting System Standards.”  Further, HAVA ordered the states to develop provisional voting, voter intent and voter registration reforms but was silent on the substance of the reforms deferring instead to the states to implement them as they saw fit.  The unintended, but not unexpected, outcome of imposing solutions without addressing the paradigmatic conflicts is a crazy quilt of conflicting legislation, practices and case law.

One of the reasons states resist federal solutions for electing federal officers, besides the issues of federalism, is the concurrent election of a myriad of state and local officials on the same ballot as the federal offices.  Any changes targeted to federal offices have an usually undesirable ripple effect to state and local offices.  States compound the problem by loading up the even year ballot with as many offices and ballot measures as possible to get economies of scale and cost savings.  As a Registrar of Voters in California, I received scores of petitions from local governments to change their election cycle from odd to even years for the sole purpose of reducing election costs.  The result is extremely long, complex and cumbersome ballots that feature federal offices as well as every minor local office.

The point of this diatribe is to propose that further federal reforms not be hastily considered and added to the often contradictory and ambiguous existing canon of election law.  Additionally, it is time to acknowledge the elephant in the room which represents the conflict between modern expectations of elections and federalism.  It is time to discuss solutions which bridge this paradigmatic divide.  It is time to identify and discuss strategies for bifurcating state and federal elections.  For example, how could elections for federal office be conducted on a different day than state elections?  If elections were on different days, could there be a uniform set of federal rules for federal offices?  Could elections for federal office be conducted by federal authority?

The answers to these questions have the potential of addressing and resolving all the issues of voter equity raised earlier.  Doing more of the same type of federal election reform as the past will only add new patterns to the crazy quilt of election laws and practices without realizing the intended results of the reforms.