Nonpartisan Election Administration
My colleague Ned Foley has this op-ed from today's Columbus Dispatch on the issue of partisanship in the administration of elections. This was the subject of a recent conference held at the Moritz College of Law, a webcast of which is now available here.

Because we are after all in Columbus, Professor Foley compares our present election system to a football game, in which one side's coaching staff also referees. This most recently because an issue in Ohio during the 2004 election, when Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was accused of making decisions to benefit his own party. Although Professor Foley favors nonpartisan election administration, he supports the proposed Reform Ohio Now amendment (Issue 5) that would create a bipartisan structure. Specifically, it would transfer the Secretary of State's election responsibilities to a bipartisan board, composed of four Democrats, four Republicans, and a ninth member appointed by unanimous vote of the state supreme court. It would also create a chief administrator chosen by the board to run things on a day-to-day basis.

I share Professor Foley's support for Issue 5. Although it may or may not be the best solution to the problem of partisanship in election administration, it's a definite improvement over the system in place in Ohio and most other states. And the truth is, we won't know for sure what the best way of administering election is, until states and local governments experiment with different structures -- and, critically, until social scientists and others take a careful look at how well those different structures work.

In related news, the Cincinnati Enquirer has this report on the campaign for and against Issue 5, and the other three Reform Ohio Now amendments. The battle is heating up, and will undoubtedly get much hotter in the weeks to come. - posted by Dan Tokaji @ 11:41 PM