Newby's Commission Question: Where's the Beef?

[Image courtesy of nomorehomemadeflyers]

My friend and colleague Brian Newby had a fascinating and provocative piece over the weekend at ElectionDiary taking a look at the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. He, like many people (including me) is impressed by the individuals appointed to the group and is delighted to have some attention paid to the issues confronting election administration.

He’s worried, though, that the Commission is missing some very key people – specifically, lawmakers:

This week I realized that without county commissioners, state legislators, members of Congress, or someone from the White House on the Commission, we are destined to explain how we could “fix that” but when it comes to actually fixing it? Not likely.

Those who need to weigh in with the fixin’ aren’t engaged.

He goes on to recount his own experiences at home in Johnson County, KS where funding cuts have resulted in a reduction in polling places, longer lines and a staffing structure that is “an untimed illness or staff vacancy from disaster.” Without buy-in on the need to fund and staff election positions, he suggests, the Commission’s efforts are in danger of being ignored by the very policymakers who will be necessary to turn the Commission’s talk into action.

To that end (and because he always walks the talk) Brian proposes that the Commission focus on identifying and recommending “Mandatory Election Administration Targets”, or MEAT, that policymakers can use to ensure optimal election administration:

Those who create budgets should ensure budgets are set to support the MEAT, such as election staff members per registered voter, polling places or advance locations per registered voter, and other cost metrics. These metrics should be delivered by the Commission and come with a strong wag of the finger from the President.

I’m 100% percent with Brian on this; while public officials in every sector and at every level are always concerned about budgets, the truth is that the dominant policy choice across the nation right now is to operate elections on lean (if not starvation) funding. [California Voter Foundation’s Kim Alexander made this observation late last month with regard to the new California state budget.]

I do, however, respectfully disagree that the Commission should include more policymakers; while the group may lack the ability to enact new laws or standards it does have the expertise to identify the kinds of data and processes that will help put Brian’s MEAT on the table. My experience with policymakers is that they are always looking for help in doing their jobs; it’s only when there’s a lack of information that they tend to fall back on general opinions like “less is more”. The primary advantage of the current Commission membership is that it doesn’t really need a primer in election administration, which would certainly be the case for a body that included policymakers.

That said, Brian is absolutely spot on about the need for the Commission to link the demands of election administration to the fiscal and management challenges facing policymakers, especially at the state and local level. That’s the way the Commission can achieve its goal of helping the nation “fix” the issues facing our country’s system of election administration.