Practitioner Commentary: Observations on the Changing Job of the Local Election OfficialAuthor(s): Ernest HawkinsSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 68, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2008), p. 850Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25145672 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 04:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.251 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:26:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ernest Hawkins

Chair, Board of Directors, Election Center

Special PAR Practitioner Commentary: Observations on the Changing Symposium on

j b f h L ^ m ; Qffi ^ Election J

Administration

Ernest Hawkins retired as registrar of

voters for Sacramento County, California, in

2006 after 30 years of service. He is a past

president of the National Association of

County Recorders, Election Officials and

Clerks and the current chair of the board of

directors for the Election Center.

E-mail: ernieh@aol.com

Changes in law, technology, and population have had a dramatic impact on the job of

election administration. Elections officials have

responded in a variety of ways, including the creation

or expansion of networks to share information and

inform policy makers. In 1976, the job of the local

election official (LEO) was widely viewed as clerical,

requiring no

particular education or training. Most

LEOs were, and still are, elected, and many of them

combine elections with other duties, as in the case of

county clerks. Three decades ago, LEOs focused almost

exclusively on their own jurisdictions. California had an association of county clerks, in which election of

ficials participated. An elections committee met once a

year to review legislation and inform policy makers of

any administrative consequences.

Today, the successor to that group meets monthly for

one and a half to two days each time. The reason for

the change is that a lot of new policies are being pro

posed at both the state and federal levels. Political

parties and activists for a variety

of causes have become much

more involved in elections, usu

ally seeking to remedy a per

ceived problem or to create an

opportunity by mandating new

procedures. As the number of

externally mandated procedures

multiplied, election officials

joined together, first to share

information about problems and

solutions and later to more force

fully alert policy makers to the consequences of pro

posed action. Now there are five major national

organizations that serve state and local election offi

cials with varying combinations of training, monitor

ing policy proposals, and taking positions on policy

Political parties and activists for

a variety of causes have become

much more involved in

elections, usually seeking to

remedy a perceived problem or

to create an opportunity by

mandating new

procedures.

proposals. Also, the U.S. Election Assistance Commis

sion sponsors research and serves as a clearinghouse

for information.

Old jobs have become more complex. In 1976, Sacra

mento County poll workers received little or no writ

ten instructions; for the February 2008 election, the

poll worker manual was 96 pages. An online manual

from Madison, Wisconsin, runs 158 pages. The chal

lenge is not writing the manual but training the poll workers. The time required for training, which must

take place shortly before each election, stretches the

capacity of election office and the willingness of many

potential poll workers to participate.

California ballots have long been complex, more so

because of federal multilingual requirements. One effect

has been that the number of printers able and willing to

produce ballots on the necessarily strict time schedule

of elections has declined. At one point, there was

only one vendor in the United States who would bid on the

punch-card ballots used by Sacra

mento County and many other

jurisdictions. The lack of competi tion resulted in a lot of orders,

which, it turned out, exceeded the

capacity of the printer. Some

jurisdictions did not receive their

ballots in time. Now some LEOs are trying to develop their own

printing capabilities.

The role of the LEO is much more

complex today than it was three decades ago.

Juggling a variety of relationships (contracting, volun

tary, and so on) to get their jobs done, they are also

trying to learn from each other and take a more active

role in the policy process.

850 Public Administration Review September | October 2008

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.251 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:26:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions