Some states have boards to lead elections, others rely on a secretary of state, but not one of the 50 U.S. states has election leadership intentionally designed to be impartial. In this respect, the U.S. is a major outlier internationally.

In practice, most American elections are run impartially, but there are few ways to ensure they will be. A study conducted by the law firm Ropes & Gray concluded that no U.S. state has conflict of interest laws constraining election chiefs from conflicted behavior.

Instead, U.S. elections must rely on the ethics of officials, many of whom come to their position as members of a political party elected by that party’s supporters. This system has failed in the past, and with increasing polarization it could very well fail again.

We are the only democracy in the world where senior election officials gain their office by winning partisan elections.

The starting point to move toward more impartial election administration is the secretary of state, a key position in state government. Secretaries of state face an increasingly untenable contradiction of being both referees and players on one team. Over the years most secretaries of state have performed admirably, but some have not. And partisan pressure on this position is growing.

CLICK BELOW to read ERN’s report on the secretary of state position and how it can be improved:

What are the problems in our system?

• Impacting Electoral Outcomes: Though anti-democratic behavior is extremely rare, a handful of secretaries of state have sought to abuse their position to gain an advantage for themselves or their party.
• Affecting Public Trust: As the head of elections in a state, this position carries a great deal of sway over how the conduct of elections is perceived. Partisan accusations of state officials have often caused damage to trust in the electoral process, escalating to unacceptable threats of violence in recent years.
• Endorsements and Campaign Positions: Few states bar their head of elections from participating in campaign activity, which may further damage the reputation of election offices as nonpartisan arbiters.
• Professionalism and Career Opportunism: For some, the secretary of state position may be little more than a political springboard to higher office. In our research, we find that 40% of state CEOs went on to run for higher office; prior to holding the position, a mere 26% had any substantive elections experience.

CLICK BELOW to read a recent op-ed on the secretary of state issue:

How do we fix them?

• Short-Term – Recusal Requirements: For the sake of electoral integrity, secretaries running for higher office or re-election must recuse themselves of duties that could be seen as impacting the race, such as addressing complaints about their candidacy.
• Short-Term – Bars on Partisan Activity: To increase public trust in the office, state election chiefs must be forbade from serving on campaigns or making political endorsements.
• Long-Term – Systemic Change: To bring the U.S. up to international standards of impartiality, Congress and the states must enact legislation buffering state election officials from partisanship, increasing professionalism, and driving up public trust. How this will look may vary state-by-state. ERN recommends an approach modeled on judicial nominating commission, in which chief election official candidates would be shortlisted by a multi-stakeholder panel, for appointment by the governor and confirmation by the legislature. State and federal legislation should also strengthen the authority of this impartial chief election official to administer elections independent from legislative micromanagement.

Major endorsements of impartial election administration: