Skip Navigation
Analysis

Revamp the NYC Board of Elections Now

Immediate reforms to the Board will create public accountability, improve leadership, and implement the satisfactory practices in election administration.

This piece origin­ally appeared in the Daily News

Wednes­day in Brook­lyn, the state Senate will hold the first in a series of hear­ings about the exper­i­ences and chal­lenges faced by New York voters. No doubt the witnesses will testify to the notori­ous dysfunc­tion at the city’s Board of Elec­tions, which has disen­fran­chised thou­sands of New York­ers and demor­al­ized many more. For years, city and state lead­ers have channeled the public’s deep frus­tra­tion with the agency, initi­at­ing invest­ig­a­tions, lawsuits and partial reforms.

Yet the pattern of fias­cos contin­ues. Last month, the agency failed to exclude approx­im­ately 135,000 test ballots before announ­cing an early vote count for the mayoral primary. It’s time to stop this prob­lem where it starts: the board’s very struc­ture, which makes it resist­ant to public account­ab­il­ity, even for its most seri­ous fail­ures.

Some suggest that bold struc­tural change can’t happen without alter­ing the state Consti­tu­tion, a process that requires passage by two consec­ut­ive legis­latures and a ballot refer­en­dum. But state legis­lat­ors have other options. As a forth­com­ing Bren­nan Center report will detail, the Legis­lature can make import­ant changes to the Board to create public account­ab­il­ity, improve lead­er­ship, and mandate best prac­tices in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion. A consti­tu­tional change may still be in order, but these more imme­di­ate reforms would go a long way toward curing what ails this agency.

First, the Assembly and Senate should reduce the number of commis­sion­ers from 10 to four. The board’s lead­er­ship compos­i­tion is larger and more diffuse than that of any other major multimem­ber metro­pol­itan elec­tions agency in the coun­try, which typic­ally have three to six people in compar­able roles. The number 10 comes from having two commis­sion­ers, one from each major party, from each of the city’s five counties.

None of the nation’s 15 largest elec­tions juris­dic­tions with multimem­ber boards outside of New York use geographic subdi­vi­sions to select members, and New York City does­n’t need to, either. Having 10 commis­sion­ers encour­ages inef­fi­ciency, obscures account­ab­il­ity in a system domin­ated by party insiders, and masks excess­ive party influ­ence in oper­a­tions meant to serve all New York­ers. Decreas­ing the number of commis­sion­ers would promote more equit­able voter service city­wide.

In addi­tion to redu­cing the number of commis­sion­ers, the Legis­lature should strengthen the process for select­ing them. Many assume that the Consti­tu­tion gives county party insiders control over the selec­tion of commis­sion­ers, but the selec­tion process is primar­ily dictated by state stat­ute. In fact, the Consti­tu­tion provides only that elec­tion “boards and officers” be selec­ted on the nomin­a­tion of “such repres­ent­at­ives of [the two major] parties respect­ively, as the Legis­lature may direct.” Indeed, the City Coun­cil today has the final say over commis­sioner appoint­ments. But they typic­ally rubber-stamp nomin­ees by county party lead­ers, perpetu­at­ing cronyism.

The City Coun­cil’s selec­tion process should be merit-based and trans­par­ent. The Consti­tu­tion does­n’t prevent requir­ing commis­sion­ers to have exper­i­ence in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion or voting rights, impos­ing term limits, or conduct­ing the selec­tion process in public — all elements state lawmakers can and should estab­lish.

Along with apply­ing more robust stand­ards for choos­ing commis­sion­ers, Albany should give the mayor and City Coun­cil the power to remove commis­sion­ers, with review by the courts for just cause. As it works now, the Coun­cil appoints commis­sion­ers, but the governor has the sole author­ity to remove them. No governor has ever exer­cised this power, despite the agency’s extens­ive record of poor lead­er­ship. Mean­while, the commis­sion­ers dodge account­ab­il­ity to city voters. Nearly all of the coun­try’s largest elec­tion juris­dic­tions with multimem­ber boards give removal power to the same entity that appoints the board’s members. 

The Legis­lature should also mandate that the board publicly advert­ise its vacan­cies and conduct national searches to hire top exec­ut­ive staff. Currently the board advert­ises only a hand­ful of tech­nical posi­tions. Commis­sion­ers select nearly all hires from names sugges­ted by their networks and current staffers. Other elec­tions agen­cies serving large and diverse popu­la­tions conduct national searches for the best qual­i­fied exec­ut­ive staff.

Finally, the Legis­lature should strike the require­ment in current state law that the two major polit­ical parties be equally reflec­ted in the makeup of the agency’s staff. That provi­sion unne­ces­sar­ily extends the state consti­tu­tional require­ment of bipar­tisan repres­ent­a­tion in “boards or officers charged with the duty of qual­i­fy­ing voters, or of distrib­ut­ing ballots to voters, or of receiv­ing, record­ing or count­ing votes at elec­tions” to cover all board employ­ees. This require­ment has enabled the inef­fi­cient duplic­a­tion of almost every role at the agency and has exacer­bated patron­age hiring.

These recom­mend­a­tions and others are just a start. But they would help bring the city’s Board of Elec­tions in line with other major juris­dic­tions around the coun­try. And they could happen tomor­row, if the Legis­lature musters the will.