Polarization

Op-ed in The Hill: All Americans lose with partisan attacks on the electoral process by Matthew Weil

This op-ed originally appeared in The Hill on November 12, 2019.

In close elections, the playbook for losing candidates is well worn. They blame the voting process, undermine confidence in election results, and delegitimize the opposition. Both parties do it, and all Americans lose in the end. Political actors are incentivized to attack the legitimacy of the voting process. Take the gubernatorial race in Kentucky. Republican Governor Matt Bevin trails Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear, though it appears he is behind by an insurmountable margin. Bevin has every right under state law to request a recount to ensure the validity of the result. But instead of saying just that, he added an almost reflexive nod toward fraud by claiming undefined and unreported “irregularities.”

The intent is clear to make the process or other nefarious action be the reason he lost. Those who voted for Bevin will hear that message. In our era of hyperpolarization, it means that they will claim that the likely winner is illegitimate. Whatever Beshear does during his term can thus be easily written off as unfair or even illegal. Neither party is alone in undermining confidence in the legitimacy of the electoral process. Kentucky also saw a rather unusual “call” of the election for Beshear by Democratic Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes very shortly after polls closed and before the Associated Press made its traditional announcement of a winner. Calling results like this is not the job of any election official.

Election administrators at the local level are the front line for reporting results. They coordinate a logistical masterpiece whereby results from all the polling places under their control must be delivered, tallied, and reported as unofficial to the public. State officials to varying degrees aggregate these unofficial results and report them for statewide races. The state will certify the result as final in the weeks after Election Day.

Election night results are unofficial for a reason. First, it is the culmination of a long day. When votes are tallied in the precinct, tired poll workers are known to make transcription errors, which will be discovered later in the canvassing process. Second, every state permits some amount of voting by mail, and many states do not report those results right away. Finally, any provisional ballots cast on Election Day must be adjudicated.

A Democratic secretary of state who makes an election “call” during the initial and unofficial reporting of results in an extremely close race will unnecessarily poison the well when you consider her office will play a role in a recount or challenge. Why should voters, particularly those who are now primed to view the election results as illegitimate by their preferred candidate, believe that the recount can be done without bias?

Attacks on the system are now commonplace. Republicans tend to claim voter fraud, and Democrats cry voter suppression no matter the action taken. The truth is rarely so black and white. The Bipartisan Policy Center and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has released a report on polling place lines in 2018. The study spanned more than 3,100 precincts, 211 jurisdictions, and 11 states, accounting for 10.5 million votes cast, or about 9 percent of national turnout in the midterm elections. Jurisdiction size ranged from Metz Township in Michigan with 230 registered voters to San Diego County in California with nearly 3 million registered voters.

The good news is that in the 2018 midterm elections, the average voting wait time was just under 9 minutes, well within the acceptable 30 minute limit that is set by the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration in 2014. The bad news is that nearly 5 percent of precincts averaged more than 30 minute wait times throughout Election Day. We found that the distribution of those very lengthy wait times is uneven. Precincts with a high portion of minority voters saw significantly longer wait times. In precincts with 10 percent or less minority voters, the average wait time was 5 minutes. In precincts with 90 percent or more minority voters, the average wait climbed to more than 32 minutes.

Some might use this data as proof that local election administrators are intent on suppressing turnout in some areas. But many factors contribute to long lines, and the administrators, mostly civil servants, tend to be focused on improving voter experience at the polls. More likely, these areas have been hampered by state and local policy decisions that limit investment in modernizing polling places with better technology and make it difficult to allocate resources to meet uneven demand.

It will take a lot of internal reflection and some difficult work on behalf of political actors, administrators, and the voters themselves to understand and value the importance of election legitimacy. We are all too cynical about the process and assume the worst. Instead, we must all allow the voting process to unfold as intended by state and federal law and believe that the electoral process in this country is worthy of our trust.

Clean 2019 Elections Jumpstart A Year of Voting in 2020 by Matthew Weil

This post was originally on the BPC blog.

The off-year election results will be dissected by analysts for cues about what it portends for the next year of campaigning. I’m more interested about what it means for administering good elections and ensuring the legitimacy of the process.  

No election is perfect. Throughout the country, there were reports about voting technology not working correctlypens for marking ballots without inkvoters receiving the wrong ballots, and results websites going down. These are issues that no election administrator ever wants to see happen to their voters. But they happen, and those same administrators have every incentive to rectify the issues as quickly as possible.  

Even when officials can point to the source of the problem and its solution, candidates affected by those races have been quick to cry foul and “fraud” with no evidence, which serves to undermine confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome. There will be many more opportunities during the 2020 primaries and general election for candidates to attack the process—often without any tangible proof—to further their positions when they perceive they may be on the losing end of a contest.  

But these baseless threats to election legitimacy damage the process and weaken our governing institutions. Elected officials, administrators, candidates, and even the press must be hyperaware of how their comments impact the voting experience. 

For the most part, overnight reporting on the 2019 election did not reveal many accusations of nefarious activities. It is worth it, however, to point out two examples to show how candidates and officials can unnecessarily undermine confidence during the election process with just a few statements.  

Kentucky’s gubernatorial election is incredibly close. In fact, the various news agencies that typically declare winners based on statistical models have not yet made a call on the outcome. The process for recounts and contests in Kentucky is fairly clear. The losing candidate can request a recanvass of the vote, followed by a full recount.  

Why then did Governor Bevins, who is currently trailing in the vote count decide to cite otherwise unsubstantiated “irregularities” as the reason for his decision not to concede the election?  

He has every right to not concede and to follow the process as defined by state law and could have framed his hesitation that way. But the feint to fraud is unnecessary and likely serves as a whistle to supporters to question the legitimacy of the election if he ultimately loses. 

Similarly, the American system of elections has developed in most states to position the secretary of state as the chief election official. That’s how it is in Kentucky. In this case, the Democratic secretary of state, Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is responsible for much of the elections process, decided to appear on live television while election returns were still being received by the counties and compiled by the state to declare that the Democratic nominee had won the gubernatorial election.  

I have had the privilege to know many secretaries of state. The idea that these officials “call” elections is just wrong and disappointing to see. Doing so while in her position will lead many to question the objectivity of her office in administering any recanvass or recount.  

However, most of what happened yesterday provides reason to cheer. Voter turnout exceeded expectations even where administrators were planning for higher than normal turnout. Voters even went to polling places when their jurisdictions were not having elections yesterday

Americans want to make their voices heard. It’s incumbent on those responsible for running a fair process and those battling for hearts and minds to remember that it all means nothing if the process is deemed illegitimate.