electionline Weekly

Director's Note

Director’s Note: Of Willy Loman and “Whoopee”

By Doug Chapin
electionline.org

Longtime readers of electionline Weekly and my occasional Director’s Notes are well-familiar with my ongoing (and occasionally plaintive) calls for more attention to the issue of election reform.

Indeed, from the very earliest days of the project in 2001, I have described election reform as the “Willy Loman” of issues – stealing a line from Arthur Miller’s classic play Death of a Salesman, where Loman’s wife Linda tells their son “attention must be paid” to her husband in his failing effort to make a life for them.

To me, it was an apt analogy given the considerable needs evident in the field, which frequently stood in stark contrast to the level of interest on the part of policymakers.

Recently, though I see signs of attention being paid – and I have mixed feelings about it. 

For two consecutive days this week, The New York Times has run stories detailing the escalating debate over voter fraud in American elections. Yesterday (April 11), the Times’ Ian Urbina wrote about the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and its handling of a voter fraud report prepared by outside consultants and commissioned by the EAC. His front-page story cites concerns that the EAC altered the report to soften its conclusion that evidence of such fraud is thin.

Today (April 12)’s story – another front-page effort authored by Urbina and Eric Lipton – is about the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)’s efforts to combat voter fraud in the courts, and finds that convictions have been few and the focus has been on isolated cases rather than widespread conspiracies to taint election outcomes.

The two Times stories are especially significant because they explicitly link the voter fraud debate to larger political issues in the country – including the escalating controversy about the recent dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys and disputes about whether such dismissals reflect a larger pattern of politicization of election law enforcement at DOJ. Both stories reference major players outside the typical election reform field – including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

In one sense, two straight front-page stories about voter fraud, one of the thorniest issues in elections – in one of the nation’s most prominent newspapers (which, as my experience suggests, drives other media coverage nationwide) is a very good thing for election reform. With all of the back and forth, perhaps now is the moment when research can finally overcome rhetoric. In other words, perhaps Willy Loman is getting attention at last.

And yet, I can’t help but think of the flip side of all this attention – “whoopee”.

In 1977, Princeton physics student John Aristotle Phillips was suddenly catapulted to international fame and notoriety when he successfully created a design for a beach-ball-sized nuclear weapon for his senior thesis project. But he soon discovered that his serious message about nuclear non-proliferation was lost in the rush to tell the story of the “A-Bomb Kid.”

Years later, in a book about his experience, he used the term “whoopee” to identify that moment where his time in the spotlight began. He defined it thus:

Whoopee is a mass media action word. It describes the process which starts when an Obscure Individual does something Creative, Courageous, Frivolous, or Frightening … The media decide that he will make a Good Copy … Using millions of newspapers, magazines, radios, and television sets, the media form a peephole through which the public can scrutinize him.

Phillips notes that his life was changed – not always in good ways – by “whoopee”. I wonder if the same isn’t true for election reform. Specifically:

• Partisanship – real or perceived – is now believed to be a part of the process. I am not nor have I ever been privy to internal discussions at the EAC or DOJ about their approach to election reform issues, so I have no idea whether partisanship actually affects deliberations about election issues. Yet I note that conventional wisdom – fueled in part by media coverage – has already concluded that partisanship is not just a factor but the factor when election issues are on the table;

• Research – usually a tool for settling or at least clarifying disputes – is now itself suspect. A key feature of the EAC’s mandate under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was to commission research on various topics. But recent controversies about the agency’s handling of draft research have raised concerns that the entire research agenda has itself become politicized. The EAC disputes this, noting in a recent statement that its responsibility is “to ensure [the draft’s] accuracy and to verify that conclusions are supported by the underlying research”, but that does nothing to dispel fears that the EAC is focused more on the outcome of a study rather than its underlying methodology or value.

• Other election reform issues will now be filtered through the partisanship lens. As the EAC and DOJ continue to pursue their responsibilities under HAVA and other federal law, partisanship will further crowd its way into the discussion. Just as litigants look to the partisan affiliation of judges as an insight into the outcome (as Rick Hasen did, for example, regarding the 7th Circuit’s decision not to rehear a case upholding Indiana’s photo ID statute), election reform observers will no longer be able to dismiss partisanship as irrelevant. It is only a matter of time, for example, before someone begins trying to decode the pattern of HAVA enforcement – i.e., which states have been sued for failure to meet HAVA requirements and which have not. If and when they do, I am all but certain someone will suggest that partisanship played a role. That will put the EAC and DOJ in the position of proving a negative – a difficult spot indeed.

In the end, the current front-page debate over voter fraud presents an opportunity for a more thorough examination of election reform generally. This attention moves the issue up the national list of priorities and ensures greater policy focus on an often underappreciated subject.

What remains to be seen is whether this represents a healthy dose of attention for election reform or an unwelcome trip through the “whoopee machine.”

Either way, the focus in the field has to remain on finding a way past partisanship and toward a program of well-designed, evidence-driven research that can foster real clarity on issues of reform – ultimately leading to significant advances in elections.