Categories
Editorial Opinion

The Politics of the Electoral College

Danziger

As if there weren’t enough problems associated with the ongoing presidential election, a valuable public discussion on Monday between two serious representatives of the legal community — both also well-versed in practical politics — illuminated a fundamental problem that has never quite been clarified to everybody’s satisfaction.

And that issue — the basic one of how to count the votes — was the subject of a dialogue at the University of Memphis Law School between Robert Cooper, the former Tennessee Attorney General, and John Ryder, the current chief legal counsel of the Republican National Committee. What the two legal worthies were at pains to illuminate was the Electoral College, the means by which, in every election since 1789, the nation has elected its president.

Cooper and Ryder are legal scholars and know the nuances of Electoral College law, which are more Byzantine than most of us might imagine. Some states are, in the Orwellian sense, more equal than others. We refer to the fact that, while some states (Republican Tennessee, for example) are so overwhelmingly one-party-minded that there is no suspense regarding the candidate they will vote for, there are several so-called “battleground” states (Ohio, for example) that could go either way.

And because this is so, and because, further, it is the electors in each state, and not the popular-vote totals in that state, that determine how a state’s Electoral College votes (determined by the number of its U.S. House and Senate members, totaled together) will be cast, this skews the way presidential campaigns are conducted. The swing states get catered to disproportionately by the contending candidates. And, significantly, a winner of the popular vote nationally (Democrat Al Gore in 2000 is a recent example) can be the loser of the Electoral College.

When you vote for president, you are really voting for the electors pledged to a specific presidential candidate; it is they who, well after election day, actually cast the votes that count. In practice, those electors are selected, on some sort of statewide basis, by the political parties which the candidates represent.
Now here’s a real complication: Only 30 states mandate that the electors on the ballot as representing, say, Trump or Clinton, must actually cast their votes for their candidate. In the remaining 20 states, though it is expected there will be a direct match of that sort, the electors are technically free to vote for whomever they choose. And, in multi-candidate races where there is no majority winner, the possibility exists for old-fashioned horse-trading and vote-swapping, either in the Electoral College itself or in the House of Representatives, which gets to break an unresolved impasse.

Confusing? Of course! There have been various proposals over the years for reforming the Electoral College or dispensing with it constitutionally in favor of direct national voting. But that is not likely. As Ryder noted on Monday, the system has worked with relatively little fuss, unlike that of, say, France, which, since 1789, has had two monarchies, one empire, and five republics.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Election Commission Zigs; County Commission Zags

Jackson Baker

Rich Holden

The announcement Monday by Rich Holden of his decision to retire as Shelby County Election Commission administrator at the end of the year belongs to the category of events that are both surprising and instantly seen as inevitable, once they occur.

For years Holden has borne the brunt of virtually nonstop criticism for a seemingly endless series of glitches and issues that have bedeviled the county’s electoral process. These have run the gamut from the issuance of ballots improperly matched up with the appropriate districts to snarls in vote-counting to what critics charged was a disregarding of quirks in the county’s voting machines.

At various times, Holden was the recipient of sanctions from the Election Commission itself, votes of no confidence by the Memphis City Council and the Shelby County Commission, and demands by local elected officials for federal investigations of his office.

Holden’s problems began as far back as the time of his appointment in 2009 by a commission that had become newly majority-Republican in the previous election cycle, when the state House of Representatives tipped over to GOP control.

Since the Senate had already come under a Republican majority, that made the GOP the state’s official majority party, and Tennessee law provides that not only the state Election Commission but each of the 95 county election commissions shall consist of a 3-2 majority in favor of the party which controls the legislature.

For decades, that fact resulted in anomalies like the presence of pretend-Democrats in control of election commissions in several ancestrally Republican East Tennessee counties where there were as many actual Democrats as there were aardvarks.

In Shelby County, however, the two parties had for some time coexisted in a condition of rough equivalence, and the change-over from Democratic to Republican control in the administration of elections had the potential of controversy under the best of circumstances.

And that fact was accentuated in 2009 by a fast-track post-election effort of the new GOP majority on the county Election Commission to transition Holden, who had been a Republican member of the commission, into the administrator’s job, which had long been held by Democratic CAO James Johnson.

The move was initially staved off by a statement of caution from former state Attorney General Robert Cooper, but would eventually come to pass, with Holden acceding to the position of administrator and Johnson becoming a Democratic commission member.

The newly configured commission hit a bump with the 2010 county election, the first major partisan election under the new management, when an apparent electronic glitch erroneously recorded thousands of potential election-day voters as already having cast ballots in the early-voting period, with hundreds of them being turned away before the problem was discovered and corrected.

Given that the slate of Republican candidates swept that election over their Democratic opponents, the losing Democrats thought they smelled a fish and sued to have the results overturned. They were supported by a series of itemized charges— some of them alleging chicaneries that seemed fanciful enough for a James Bond saga — from Black Box Voting, an out-of-state watchdog organization.

The list of allegations was pruned down to a series of possible technical irregularities before trial, and then-Chancellor Arnold Goldin dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit as not meeting the standards for declaring the election result “incurably uncertain,” as required for the trial to be pursued. The numerical gaps between winner and loser had, in any case, seemed far larger than could have been affected by the election-day glitch.

But the seeds of suspicion had sprouted, and the almost dependable eruption of new glitches in election after election ever since has done little to restore trust between the two parties vis-à-vis the election process.

The basis of contention shifted in the course of time from suspicion of fraud to simple negligence or mismanagement, and the spotlight shifted away from members of the commission itself to Holden. Following the mismatching of thousands of races to precincts in ballots issued in the August 2012 county election, the commission members, Democrats and Republicans alike, agreed to put Holden on six-month probation.

He emerged with his job intact, but allegations and complaints continued, from Democratic members of the commission and self-appointed watchdogs like Steve Ross and Joe Weinberg. Most recently, Weinberg made a point of publicizing a new case of apparent wrong ballots being issued to specific voters, this one based on a challenge originally raised by John Marek, one of the losing candidates in the recent election for the Memphis City Council’s District 5.

And state Representative G.A. Hardaway had of late gone so far as to call for a criminal investigation of Holden.

There often seemed to be a good deal of overreach by Holden’s critics, and no doubt partisan motives played a role in his tribulations, as did a general need to find a scapegoat for problems and circumstances beyond the province of a single individual. And, though generally good-natured and uncomplaining, the husky ex-Marine sometimes evinced a stubbornness in the face of complaints that others found frustrating.

In any case, Holden is at last off the hot seat. The five-member Election Commission, so often at odds with itself, will now have to agree on a successor.

• The Shelby County Commission, another local body accustomed to a fair amount of contentiousness, eased into its annual holiday break with a Monday meeting that lacked any of the clashes between members that have become routine, and, for the time being, avoided as well any resumption of the commission’s ongoing conflict with the administration of county Mayor Mark Luttrell.

And, as a result of the defeat at Wednesday’s committee sessions of a resolution from Commissioner Steve Basar requiring approval by the county commission and city council of any potential merger of the city/county Economic Development and Growth Engine Board (EDGE) with the Community Redevelopment Agency, Basar had withdrawn his resolution from Monday’s agenda.

The main order of business for the commission on Monday was to approve further incremental grants to community organizations, projects, and charities deemed to be deserving by members of the commission acting under their recently adopted license to dispense such lagniappes on a district-by-district basis.

One indication of Monday’s laid-back pre-holiday mood came in the form of a quip from commission chairman Terry Roland to Luttrell’s CAO, Harvey Kennedy, who had previously complained that the microphone at his desk in the well of the commission auditorium was malfunctioning.

“Well, Cap, you see we got your button fixed, and you don’t even need to use it,” cracked Roland, during a lull in proceedings. (The breeziness of addressing Kennedy, a former Navy captain, as “Cap” was an interesting indicator of the commission’s relations with the administration, as well.)

The lack of action Monday on either the EDGE issue or the conflict between the commission and the administration does not mean that either is a closed matter, of course. There will doubtless be further actions on the commission (and on the city council, as well) to revise the terms of the relationship with EDGE so as to give members of the legislative bodies more active say on industrial recruitment matters than their presence on the EDGE board as ex officio members currently allows.

And there are ongoing discussions behind the scenes to break the stalemate over the commission’s wish to complete the installation of former Commissioner Julian Bolton to act as an independent attorney on behalf of the commission. Basically, the commission insists on the basis of the County Charter that it has that right; Luttrell and County Attorney Ross Dyer insist on the basis of the self-same charter that they do not.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

TN Supreme Court Surrenders on Attorney General

It was just a little over a month ago that Tennesseans did themselves proud by decisively rejecting a campaign, led by Republican Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey, to purge three state Supreme Court justices — Gary Wade, Connie Clark, and Sharon Lee — in a retention election.

Although Ramsey did his best to malign the three for this or that alleged defect, the real offense of these distinguished jurists was that they had been appointed to office by a former Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen. The state’s voters obviously discerned this purely partisan motive in the purge campaign and voted by a 2-to-1 margin to retain the justices, who won’t be vulnerable for another eight years. So far, so good.

Ramsey, in his campaign against the three justices, had charged, among other things, that — with state Attorney General Robert Cooper coming up for reappointment or replacement in the wake of the election — they would be unlikely to appoint a state attorney general who would enlist in the national GOP’s ongoing legal vendetta against the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), as Cooper had declined to do. The justices, quite properly, dismissed the charge as irrelevant to their oath of office, which requires them to avoid prejudgments and to remain free of political motives (indeed, the fact that supporters, as well as foes, kept referring to them as “Democrats” was an improper stretch).

There was a political sequel of sorts to the retention election. The three newly retained Bredesen appointees, along with two others who had been appointed by GOP Governor Bill Haslam, now had the duty of deciding whether to reappoint Cooper or name a replacement. Justice Lee, who in the wake of the retention election was named chief justice by her colleagues, made a public statement offering reassurance that politics would not play a role in the appointment decision. Coincidentally or not, though, the eventual choice of the justices was Herbert Slatery, who served Haslam in the same role that Cooper had served Bredesen, that of chief legal adviser to the governor.

The appointment stuck in the craw of state Representative Craig Fitzhugh (R-Ripley), the Democrats’ leader in the state House, who praised Cooper for his achievements as AG and professed disappointment “that our Supreme Court has capitulated to Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey and the very special interest groups that tried to replace our justices just one short month ago.” Continued Fitzhugh: “While the people have shown they can be trusted to preserve the integrity of the courts, the Supreme Court justices have shown they are too susceptible to political pressure.”

Was Fitzhugh too harsh? Well, there was a reaction from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), a Washington-based lobby that describes itself as “the only national organization whose mission is electing Republicans to the Office of Attorney General.” Said RAGA in a press release: “We are very pleased by the appointment of Mr. Slatery,” adding, after some boilerplate praise for Slatery’s legal prowess: “The appointment of Herbert Slatery brings the total number of Republican AGs across the country to 25.”  

We hope we — and Fitzhugh — are wrong, but it’s beginning to look like the defenders of nonpartisan justice in Tennessee, having won a battle only last month, have run up the white flag of surrender this month.