 |
The County Line
- Pre-Convention Issue 2004
Revised Election
Process Costs Counties Money The effects
of the national controversy surrounding the presidential election of 2002 are
still being felt in Alabama. In fact, one might argue that counties are just beginning
to feel the impact of these changes in the place it matters most - the pocket
book. One of the outcomes of the months of wrangling
over "hanging chads" -- and other things -- was the passage of federal
and then state legislation making a host of changes in voting procedures around
the country. Many of those changes were implemented during the just-completed
June Party Primary Elections. Some changes went unnoticed, but a few had a direct
impact on the voters and the county budget.
For example, these changes
include a requirement that all voting places be open during the same 12-hour period
from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. on the day of the election and the creation of a new
procedure for casting what are known as "provisional" ballots. These
extra hours have generated a number of questions regarding the compensation of
election workers. One can assume that there will be some efforts to hike the pay
of these election officials because of the increased work time.
Because
the increased work hours were the result of state legislation mandating the extended
hours, the ACCA will take the position that any increase in compensation should
come from the state coffers - and not from county governments. That position is
consistent with the Association's posture on other similar issues.
On
the local level, county officials should resist any suggestion of passing local
salary "supplements" for election officials in order to compensate them
for extra hours. Again, the extra hours they must work are a result of a state
mandate and, therefore, should not be compensated with local salary supplements.
This year's primary election - and the subsequent runoffs - brought to light another
problem with Alabama's election law that may need some review in a coming legislative
session.
Under current law, Alabama's county governments finance the cost
of the election (even those party primary elections) and then the state reimburses
the county for half its costs, if any state issues or state races are on the ballot.
If there are no state ballot questions or state races, then the law requires the
county governing body to bare all of the costs.
For decades the party
primary elections were the "real" election in Alabama. It was very unusual
for all statewide races to be decided without a run-off. But political times have
changed and most of the real election focus is now on the November election and
that means more election expense for county commissions.
This year's experience
is a good case-in-point. All statewide races on both the Republican and Democrat
tickets were decided without runoffs. Now, there were runoffs for a handful of
judicial and district attorney races as well as a State Board of Education race
in 12 counties and a runoff for a seat in the U.S. Congress in seven counties.
But not one single statewide runoff race was held on either the Democrat or Republican
side of the ledger.
But on the local level, runoffs were just as prevalent
as they have always been. In prior years, the cost of runoffs has been handled
like the cost of the primary election. But without a statewide runoff, the process
of sorting out the money is going to be very confusing and will result in the
county spending more than usual.
For example, in the 12 counties in central
Alabama where the state school board runoff was held, the election expenses may
have to be divided under some formula that allocates expenses between segments
of voting precincts. Because some of those counties held local runoffs, the state
is only going to reimburse for half of the cost of the election in the school
board district, even if that district does not overlap exactly with the local
runoff district.
And in the counties without any of these runoffs for
state offices, the county commission will be required to pay the cost of ALL of
the runoff elections. Again, this has not been a major problem in prior years,
but we can expect this trend to continue as the focus of the "statewide"
election process shifts to November.
The election reform legislation
passed in 2003 will also require a few counties to purchase new voting machines
to be used beginning in the 2006 election cycle. And many counties that already
have voting equipment that meets the federal mandates will be required to provide
a "counter" at each polling site starting in June of 2006. The state
legislation requiring these changes also provides for expenses to be reimbursed
from federal funds allocated to Alabama as part of the federal voting reform legislation.
But with all of these changes to Alabama's election process, one of the most controversial
portions - at least in the eyes of most county commissioners - has not yet been
addressed by the Legislature. Alabama law still requires the county to pay for
the cost of publication of the list of qualified voters prior to each election.
This list, according to Alabama law, must be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county.
During the 2004 regular session, Rep. Howard
Sanderford introduced a bill that would have repealed that requirement. As you
might expect, the newspapers were opposed to this legislation and kicked up a
stink by crying that democracy would somehow be wounded beyond repair if this
voters list were not published - at public expense, of course - in every county
in the state. Alabama is, by the way, the only state in the south that requires
this publication of the voting list.
The Sanderford bill did not pass
this year. However, the existence of the legislation has been given credit for
a newspaper reducing its publication charges by more than $80,000 this year! And
now that the 2004 regular session has concluded, talks are underway between the
Association and representatives of the newspapers to make changes in the law that
would allow for a more economical approach to the publication of the voters list.
We don't expect the law of publication requirement to be repealed, we're just
hoping that some compromise can be forged that will reduce the cost to the taxpayers.
All in all, Alabama's election process is undergoing a revision that is long overdue,
but perhaps some consideration should be given to the price tag associated with
conducting an election on the local level.
| |
