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, City Ethics
203-230-2548
