Other view: Rebuild trust in electoral process
By Debra Bowen Special To The Sacramento Bee
 February 22, 2005

Few things are more important in a democracy than the integrity of our electoral process.

That's why it's so important for California's secretary of state - the one person responsible for certifying election results for all state and federal offices in California, as well as all of the statewide ballot propositions - to conduct the duties of the office in a nonpartisan fashion.

The first step toward meeting that goal is to pass conflict-of-interest laws that prevent the secretary of state from endorsing or campaigning for candidates whose electoral results he or she is responsible for certifying. The secretary of state shouldn't be co-chairing a presidential campaign and thanking donors for contributing to a particular candidate - which happened in Ohio in 2004 - or chairing a presidential campaign while simultaneously ordering state elections boards to stop hand counting ballots - which happened in Florida in 2000.

 
 A second important reform would be to preclude the secretary of state and candidates for the office from accepting campaign contributions from voting equipment manufacturers and vendors whose systems he or she is charged with certifying for use in California. The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) created a new political player: the electronic voting machine manufacturers who are vying to get their voting systems installed in polling places nationwide.

Since the enactment of HAVA, the four major electronic voting machine manufacturers have given more than $652,000 to candidates running for office, including secretary of state candidates in four states.

Simply eliminating the R, D, L, G, PF or other party label next to the secretary of state's name won't prevent him or her from getting involved in campaigns in a way that leads voters to question the secretary's impartiality. That's because it doesn't reduce or eliminate the inherent conflict of interest between the secretary's responsibility to ensure elections are conducted in a fair and nonpartisan manner and partisan activities, such as supporting a candidate whose very election the secretary of state will certify.

To minimize that conflict and instill confidence in voters that the secretary of state is focused solely on the integrity of the electoral process, we need reforms that will change the very nature of how a secretary of state is allowed to operate while in office. That means doing more than the political equivalent of putting a fresh coat of paint on a house with a crumbling foundation. If California wants a secretary of state who operates in a nonpartisan fashion, we need true reforms that will repair that foundation and help rebuild the voters' trust in our electoral system.