The Secretary of State’s responsibility to oversee Ohio elections could be given to an appointed bi-partisan board, depending on how Ohio voters approach Issue 5 tomorrow.
Reform Ohio Now, the non-partisan coalition who proposed Issue 5 as one of four election reform amendments, believes that one partisan officials should not oversee elections because of the tendency to be biased toward the official’s own political party. Opponents believe the appointed board would not be accountable to voters.
“[Having a board] removes any political motivation from one person, and allows different people representing the different sides to participate in the running of the election,” said Democrat B.J. Fischer, the president of Bowling Green’s city council.
Opponents of the issue believe the board could complicate who to go to if there is a problem.
“Voters of Ohio would not have the power to vote in or out this board, and they would be the final arbiter of the election issues,” said Republican State Senator Patty Clancey, an opponent of Issue 5. “If you think you’re going to take politics out of it, that’s just nonsense.”
The members of the election board would include four appointed by the governor, and four appointed by the general assembly of the opposite party of the governor. The Ohio Supreme Court officials would choose the final member.
The board was modeled to the bi-partisan County Board of Elections in all 88 counties, said Herb Asher, democrat. Asher is one of the first architects of RON and a political science professor at The Ohio State University.
“It has proven to work over time,” Fischer said about the County Board of Elections. The democrat and republican board figures out how to work together and come to consensus on decisions, he added.
Political Science Professor Scott Piroth thought the issue was better than the current system, but he would have tried to eliminate all partisanship in the board.
“I would rather have people who aren’t associated with either party – someone who doesn’t have a stake in partisan politics – but it’s a step forward,” he said.
Clancey as well as other opponents of Issue 5 have said that the board could spend tax payers’ money without having to answer to anybody.
If the issue was passed, Asher believes that the proper way to form a new staff and budget would be to transfer it from the Secretary of State’s office, so no new tax dollars would be spent.
According to RON materials, the issue was formed because “in recent elections, in Ohio and elsewhere, partisan election officials have undermined public confidence in the fairness of the election process.”
Kenneth Blackwell’s biased actions as Ohio’s Secretary of State is an example of why a bi-partisan board is necessary, Asher said.
In the 2004 election, Blackwell was the campaign manager for President Bush, and also had to make calls on the controversial Ohio voting.
“It doesn’t mean the Secretary of State is doing bad,” Fischer said. “Last election every decision he made people would wonder if he was doing it to support the President.”
Although proponents point the finger at Blackwell, individuals for RON believe that the issue supersedes party lines.
“Even if democrats did this, it would be questionable too,” Asher said. “I’ve heard Dems say it’s ‘anti-Blackwell.’ No, it affects all Secretaries of State.”
However, opponents of Issue 5, have said the problem of disliked or biased officials could be solved in other ways.
“If people disagree with the way the Secretary of State is handling the elections, they can vote the official out of office,” Clancey said.
Also, the National Association of Secretaries of State could issue a strict code to the Secretary of State to not act in a partisan way.
“They could do this, but actions are not being taken,” Asher said.