You are here
A Serious Election-Oriented Conflict of Interest in Southwest Ohio
Sunday, October 19th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
See Update below
Is there a conflict when a county prosecutor who is a presidential candidate's campaign chairman in the area subpoenas the voting records, including personal information, of certain voters who registered and voted at the same time during a short window when this is allowed in Ohio? Three more facts worth knowing, according to an article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer: (1) his state political party already asked for this information under the public records law, but it can't get the personal information; (2) the county elections board has the same power to investigate and issue subpoenas, only its investigation would be public; and (3) the county elections board was not consulted by the prosecutor and knows nothing about the investigation.
Of course, beyond there being a conflict here, there is also the issue of voter intimidation. When a prosecutor publicly calls for personal information about voters, voters who might have something to hide will hesitate about voting. And voters who have moved recently and think they might be registered in more than one place, or students who are worried about their dorms not being a legal address, will decide not to risk getting caught by the authorities. Is voting really worth the possibility of getting in trouble with the law? some people will ask themselves.
And how, one wonders, did the prosecutor decide which voters to include in his subpoena? Were they members of a particular party -- the other party, perhaps? Or college students? Or people with criminal records?
The prosecutor should immediately withdraw the subpoena, take himself out of any case involving this year's election, and apologize to the people of his county. He should also promise never to be involved with any election but his own. He clearly isn't responsible enough to separate his roles.
Does the Hatch Act apply here? That is, is this behavior the use of official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination? Probably not technically, but it certainly goes against the spirit of the act.
Update: According to an AP article, the prosecutor "removed himself from the investigation Monday after Democrats raised questions about his impartiality." A special prosecutor has been appointed. But why not turn the matter over to the county elections board? Why should the judgment of so partial a person be followed? And won't voters be just as intimidated by a special prosecutor as by an ordinary one?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Is there a conflict when a county prosecutor who is a presidential candidate's campaign chairman in the area subpoenas the voting records, including personal information, of certain voters who registered and voted at the same time during a short window when this is allowed in Ohio? Three more facts worth knowing, according to an article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer: (1) his state political party already asked for this information under the public records law, but it can't get the personal information; (2) the county elections board has the same power to investigate and issue subpoenas, only its investigation would be public; and (3) the county elections board was not consulted by the prosecutor and knows nothing about the investigation.
Of course, beyond there being a conflict here, there is also the issue of voter intimidation. When a prosecutor publicly calls for personal information about voters, voters who might have something to hide will hesitate about voting. And voters who have moved recently and think they might be registered in more than one place, or students who are worried about their dorms not being a legal address, will decide not to risk getting caught by the authorities. Is voting really worth the possibility of getting in trouble with the law? some people will ask themselves.
And how, one wonders, did the prosecutor decide which voters to include in his subpoena? Were they members of a particular party -- the other party, perhaps? Or college students? Or people with criminal records?
The prosecutor should immediately withdraw the subpoena, take himself out of any case involving this year's election, and apologize to the people of his county. He should also promise never to be involved with any election but his own. He clearly isn't responsible enough to separate his roles.
Does the Hatch Act apply here? That is, is this behavior the use of official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination? Probably not technically, but it certainly goes against the spirit of the act.
Update: According to an AP article, the prosecutor "removed himself from the investigation Monday after Democrats raised questions about his impartiality." A special prosecutor has been appointed. But why not turn the matter over to the county elections board? Why should the judgment of so partial a person be followed? And won't voters be just as intimidated by a special prosecutor as by an ordinary one?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
