Petitions

Dear Petitioners:

Over the past few days, Dorothy and I have been going over petition sheets for candidates in the November general election. The most common argument for having candidates and campaigns for initiatives and referenda file petition sheets in order to qualify for an election is that the sheets show that the public has at least a minimal level of interest in the candidate or initiative. But there are additional reasons that are just as important for requiring petitions.

Gathering valid petitions requires many of the same qualifications and abilities that are needed to be a competent politician. First, a candidate has to either collect the signatures himself, or he needs to recruit workers to gather the signatures. A candidate who collects the signatures personally demonstrates an ability and willingness to do some hard work and to meet and talk with the public. A candidate who recruits workers demonstrates the ability to inspire others to believe in him and to work for him. Taking an alternate course, and just paying workers who have no personal commitment, is asking for trouble.

When the petitions are collected, they have to be checked for errors. Under the best circumstances, about a third of signatures will not be valid; people will sign even though they aren’t registered voters, or have moved from their registered addresses without re-registering, or in partisan elections will not belong to the candidate’s party. In addition, peoples’ handwriting, whether in their signatures or even in printing, have become increasingly illegible over the decades. A signature or printed name has to be readable to be accepted. Staffers at the Board of Elections have magic eyes, and are able to decipher handwriting that most of us would never recognize, but even they can be stumped by many signatures.

Because of the likelihood of errors, candidates and campaigns collect more than the bare minimum of required signatures, but simply adding up high — or even excessive — numbers isn’t enough. A good campaign for a candidate or initiative will check the petitions carefully. Taking that step demonstrates attention to detail and carefulness, two more important qualifications for good politicians. Checking the petitions will also expose fraudulent and forged ones. A good candidate won’t tolerate it when the people who work for him cheat, take shortcuts, or commit election fraud. The best candidates will recruit honest workers to their campaigns, but at the very least good candidates will fire dishonest people.

Gathering petitions is a healthy, positive part of the electoral process that benefits the public. Turning in clean, valid petitions demonstrates not just public interest in the candidate, but also the candidates’ ability and competence. And making sure that the petition process is conducted cleanly and fairly, guarding our elections against fraud and cheating, benefits all of us. Right now, candidates aren’t held personally accountable for the actions of their campaigns and campaign workers. Election fraud is frequently, and cynically, dismissed as a minor or even nonexistent problem. But exposing election fraud, and holding candidates responsible for it, is the first step in cleaning up and improving the behavior of our elected officials.

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

###############

Voter Rolls in themail
Michael Bindner, mikeybdc@yahoo.guess what

The entire reason voter rolls are never purged regularly is that the council has no incentive in direct democracy. In almost every jurisdiction, polls are culled automatically — not here. This has been going on since David Clarke was chair and it has prevented most recalls that would otherwise happen. (This is also why you can’t change the Charter by initiative, and why being able to do so should be the issue for electing a new council and throwing out all the incumbents).