Should the office responsible for administering elections be partisan?

[Joe Republic]

I'm referring of course to the office of Secretary of State in most states, which is responsible for handling voter registration processing, organizing the elections in that state, and certifying the vote counts.

Should this officeholder explicitly be a member of any political party?

[Indy Texas]

The Secretary of State or Commissioner of Elections or whoever does that should be a non-partisan office appointed by the governor and/or the legislature, preferably for terms greater than 6 years to avoid partisan revolving doors. The SoS/CoE should not be able to run for elected office for at least two years after leaving their position as SoS/CoE. An ideal candidate for the office would be someone with no political ambitions whatsoever.

[Joe Republic]

The Secretary of State or Commissioner of Elections or whoever does that should be a non-partisan office appointed by the governor and/or the legislature, preferably for terms greater than 6 years to avoid partisan revolving doors.

And if, such as in your own state for example, the governor's office and the legislature is controlled by the same unscrupulous party...?

[ElectionsGuy]

No, I don't know why it is partisan in most or all cases

[IceSpear]

No (sane)

[H. Ross Peron]

No (sane)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Secretary of State or Commissioner of Elections or whoever does that should be a non-partisan office appointed by the governor and/or the legislature, preferably for terms greater than 6 years to avoid partisan revolving doors.

And if, such as in your own state for example, the governor's office and the legislature is controlled by the same unscrupulous party...?

I like the idea of a ten year term, elected on an nonpartisan ticket.

[they don't love you like i love you]

FWIW this is one case where I don't think it's hackish to argue the Democrats are better and silly to go into the "both sides do it" false equivalence. We hear about Republican SoS's all the time doing crazy things, when has anyone ever heard of a Democratic SoS doing as such to obviously try to disenfranchise Republican voters?

[tpfkaw]

Yes, it's always going to be partisan.

[Indy Texas]

FWIW this is one case where I don't think it's hackish to argue the Democrats are better and silly to go into the "both sides do it" false equivalence. We hear about Republican SoS's all the time doing crazy things, when has anyone ever heard of a Democratic SoS doing as such to obviously try to disenfranchise Republican voters?

For various demographic reasons, it would be very difficult to craft policies that disenfranchised Republican voters without also disenfranchising Democratic and independent voters.

Close all the state ID offices in major city's suburbs? No biggie. The retirees and stay-at-home moms and business owners can easily find the time to drive out of their way to another office to get their IDs and paperwork. But you'd make it a lot more difficult for a lot of the 25% of people who live there who probably vote Democratic to be able to vote.

Purging of voter rolls? Are Republican voters more likely to have felony convictions? Are they more likely to be illegal immigrants? Are they more likely to live transient lives moving from one apartment to another?

[tpfkaw]

Democrats have occasionally tried to prevent the counting of absentee ballots from overseas soldiers, most notably Al Gore during the Florida recount.

And otherwise, it's simply a matter of interpretation; each ineligible voter allowed to vote, ipso facto, disenfranchises one eligible voter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if it were supposedly de jure nonpartisan, I fail to see how it could be guaranteed to be that way de facto.  So I have no particular impulse for or against the idea.  More generally tho, should any election in a FPTP system be explicitly partisan?  Why do we need parties as gatekeepers?

[Yelnoc]

Even if it were supposedly de jure nonpartisan, I fail to see how it could be guaranteed to be that way de facto.  So I have no particular impulse for or against the idea.  More generally tho, should any election in a FPTP system be explicitly partisan?  Why do we need parties as gatekeepers?

The tribal nature of party affiliation allows people who are unable/unwilling to research individual candidates to participate in politics with a modicum of intelligence. Otherwise a lot more voting would come down to "I've seen her name a lot/she sounds like a filthy Polack/etc."

[Indy Texas]

Even if it were supposedly de jure nonpartisan, I fail to see how it could be guaranteed to be that way de facto.  So I have no particular impulse for or against the idea.  More generally tho, should any election in a FPTP system be explicitly partisan?  Why do we need parties as gatekeepers?

The tribal nature of party affiliation allows people who are unable/unwilling to research individual candidates to participate in politics with a modicum of intelligence. Otherwise a lot more voting would come down to "I've seen her name a lot/she sounds like a filthy Polack/etc."

You see a lot of that in primaries where party affiliation is controlled for.

Ex. In the 2014 Texas GOP primaries, Malachi Boyuls performed extremely poorly in the race for railroad commissioner, despite good fundraising and endorsements from George P. Bush and other party notables. Some analysts attributed his poor showing to his name sounding too strange or possibly being perceived as African-American (Boyuls is white) by some voters.

[muon2]

FWIW this is one case where I don't think it's hackish to argue the Democrats are better and silly to go into the "both sides do it" false equivalence. We hear about Republican SoS's all the time doing crazy things, when has anyone ever heard of a Democratic SoS doing as such to obviously try to disenfranchise Republican voters?

For various demographic reasons, it would be very difficult to craft policies that disenfranchised Republican voters without also disenfranchising Democratic and independent voters.

Close all the state ID offices in major city's suburbs? No biggie. The retirees and stay-at-home moms and business owners can easily find the time to drive out of their way to another office to get their IDs and paperwork. But you'd make it a lot more difficult for a lot of the 25% of people who live there who probably vote Democratic to be able to vote.

Purging of voter rolls? Are Republican voters more likely to have felony convictions? Are they more likely to be illegal immigrants? Are they more likely to live transient lives moving from one apartment to another?

The more substantial issue is ballot access, not voter access. Election officials are in charge of determining if nominating petitions are in order and qualifications are met. IL has some partisan, some nonpartisan (through statutory bipartisan means), and some local nonpartisan but factional electoral boards. There can be quite a difference in how petition cases are resolved, and for candidates of limited means a court challenge to the board may not be reasonable. 

[politicallefty]

Absolutely not. Electing said individual makes about as much sense as electing judges (that is to say, it's a horrendously awful idea). I don't think you can remove partisanship from the election administration. However, you can absolutely have a system where decisions are not partisan-based. Other modern democratic countries seem to do this just fine (although I don't know the specifics of any other country).

I'd imagine the best way is to establish a commission of some sort. One possibility, for example: a 15 member commission (5D, 5R, 5I), where any action would require a majority vote from each group.

[Mordecai]

No (obviously).

[King]

Nonpartisanship is impossible (sane)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nonpartisanship is impossible (sane)

[politicus]

No (obviously).

[Franzl]

Nonpartisanship is impossible (sane)

Ah but election administration is astonishingly neutral in a lot of countries. It's just a matter of wanting clean elections...

[politicus]

Nonpartisanship is impossible (sane)

Ah but election administration is astonishingly neutral in a lot of countries. It's just a matter of wanting clean elections...

It's a matter of political culture and it is always difficult to change well established patterns. Creating consensus on a fairness culture when it comes to elections is hard when you have had the gerrymander game going on for centuries and there is the issue of one party being damaged by a large electorate, so easy access to voting isn't a neutral result.