Since November 9th I have been reading a lot. One
interesting thing was learning that in 2014 Republicans had put a lot of money
into state campaigns for secretary of state, winning victories in several states
(I think 24 though I can't find that article now).
That should not seem like a particularly partisan
position, focused mainly on public records and elections, but there is room for
manipulation. Think of Katherine Harris in Florida in 2000. As secretary
of state for Florida she still felt comfortable acting as a co-chair for that state's Bush
campaign and halted recount efforts, but only after her participation in the
voter list "scrub".
When it appears that in this 2016 election many
states purged voters, and that sometimes 30,000 voters carried the state and
all its electoral votes after 100,000 had been purged, well, it behooves us to
pay more attention to the secretary of state.
Let's take a quick look at Dennis Richardson's
actions in office.
1. Richardson sent out a mass mailing.
This annoyed many but surprised no one, being consistent with his reputation as
"spam king". It is a little bit interesting in light of the long
history of conservative causes being built on direct mail efforts (see Richard
Viguerie for more on that), but it is not really alarming.
2. Richardson asked to limit his
powers. Specifically, he asks that he would not have the power to order an
investigation into an election without an outside complaint.
This is alarming. While the justification is that
the power could be used as a way to target opponents, this has not historically
been a problem. Furthermore that seems like a problem that could be best solved
through other means, like audits or censures.
What the legislation would do instead is weaken it
so that the person who oversees the election and thus might be in the best
position to notice irregularities cannot use that knowledge to protect the
process.
Also a little alarming is that the proposed
legislation can't be seen yet, which makes me wonder if it is somehow even
worse than I think.
One fascinating aspect here is that so much of the
campaigning against Brad Avakian seemed to be that he wanted to extend the
power of the office, possibly because of his desire to see civics education in
schools. Now I can't help but wonder if the purpose was not just to smear Avakian
but also to pave the way for weakening the office for all future secretaries.
3. Richardson convened a
redistricting panel.
This story focuses on how the panel is mainly
Republican (though that does not represent the congressional composition), and
mainly white and male. That is important, because broader representation is how
notice things that might be outside of our experience.
There is something else interesting about it though,
in that the redistricting should happen based on the 2020 census. This is
really in advance of that. I like getting a head start within reason, but I am
not sure that this is, especially because of this line:
"may never get to his office, if lawmakers
agree on boundaries first."
They will instead "examine the possibility of
developing a ballot measure that could propose a different way to draw the
lines." If it's not going to be based on population, what criteria will
they be using?
Oregon has a beautiful system with vote by mail and motor voter registration.
Other states should be emulating us. Now I wonder if our system is threatened.
Even if those don't change, but eligible voters start finding their eligibility
threatened, or if district lines are drawn to cause shifts in the balance of
power, that will undermine our democracy. We cannot let that happen.
Time to rise to the challenge Oregon.
Related posts:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment