What Western Word said.
LITW comments on the above "crowing" post. (Did Jay read the same post that everyone else did? Or do crows sound different in Missoula than they do in Billings?) A point that should be clarified is that Jay read the MH post to mean that we believe the governor knew in advance that he was breaking the law. That would be a serious charge, and it is not at all what was meant.
A review of MH coverage of this imbroglio will reveal that our position from the beginning was that this was probably an oversight on the part of the governor, and not intentional:
...it seems as though this is probably the result of carelessness on the governor’s part, or on the part of one of his state employees. It probably didn’t even cross anyone’s mind that the governor couldn’t just do what he wanted to — which is a problem in and of itself.
Jay also comments on the very real phenomenon of "weird and obsessive hate" on the part of some Republican stalwarts vis a vis the governor. He seems to realize that it has something to do with the governor's talent for sticking his finger in the collective eye of the Republican Party -- but hey, this is politics, so there is no need to get bent out of shape over that sort of thing.
Anyway, we would note that in our next post on this matter, we specifically criticized the tendency to overblown rhetoric and over-reaction when it comes to the GOP talking about the governor. When the Montana GOP accused the governor of "arrogant, heavy-handed tactics" and implied an intentional breaking of the law, we had this to say:
There is a difference between intentionally arrogant actions in which one knowingly flouts the law and the kind of passive arrogance that is shown by not bothering to think about the fact that there might be rules to be followed. Montanans will understand the difference, and if it is clear that the governor was just being careless, then overstating the case isn't going to help the overall GOP message about the governor and the unsuitability of his style of governance.
Jay still would likely think that this was too harsh, but the point is that while MH still takes a dim view of carelessness or, at worst, "passive arrogance" in the apparent failure of the governor's office in neglecting to notice that maybe Dem. Sen. Joe Tropila's law might just apply to the governor, at no point did we take the view that the governor intentionally set out to break the law.
After it had been drawn to the governor's attention, however, it should have been a no-brainer, upon even the briefest reflection, for the governor and his staff to know they had broken the intent of the law as Sen. Tropila drafted it, even if it was broken unintentionally. What MH criticizes -- unapologetically -- is the inexplicable unwillingness on the part of the governor, after having time to think about it and to review the discussion that surrounded Tropila's legislation, to say "I made a mistake, you're right, my bad, won't happen again."
While the LITW commentary is reasonably thoughtful, the Lamnidae commentary was simply silly, implying that the dastardly Erik Iverson's intent in bringing this complaint forward was to bring Montana economic development grinding to a halt. It couldn't have had anything whatsoever to do with the governor using public employees and state-owned equipment to put out an ad that contained his re-election campaign slogan? Naw...
Seriously, we Republicans should be flattered that Lamnidae credits us with thinking on such a big-picture scale: "Hm, without the governor's PSA's, Montana's economy will come to a standstill, people's bank accounts will empty, they'll blame the governor, Roy Brown will be elected!" (Cue evil, haunting laughter.)
Following Lamnidae's argumentation, such as it is, it is apparently OK to break state law whenever it seems like it would be a good idea to do so. (Or is it only that Democrats can break the law if Democrats think it is a good idea -- it is easy to get confused.) If Lamnidae has a problem with the existence of this law, the complaint should be taken to the guy who drafted it (a Democrat,) the legislature that passed it (controlled by Democrats,) and the guy who signed it into law (also a Democrat.)
And that law can be overturned by any future legislature. But until then, good idea or bad, it is the law that everyone has to adhere to.
Sec. State Brad Johnson's office has done plenty of PSA's, but hasn't used his name, voice or face. If Johnson is bright enough to figure out how to get his job done within the law, surely the governor -- widely acclaimed by his fans to be one of the most brilliant politicians in Montana history -- should be able to manage to figure out how to promote Montana in spite of being hamstrung by what must seem like an eternity of an 8 month blackout on taxpayer funded ads.
Showing posts with label Brad Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Johnson. Show all posts
Friday, August 22, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
The governor: "Take responsibility when you're wrong..."
The governor's new ad is out, and it is a pretty good one. It is straight from the current Democratic playbook -- the governor on the back of a horse, bawling calves in the background, etc.
The ad is all about symbolism, which is a big part of what an effective television ad is about. Just ask Barack Obama, who has been schooled by the McCain camp on that front recently with an effective, hilarious, mocking viral ad campaign that conveys the sense that Obama is an empty suit with nothing much behind the high-flown messianic rhetoric and worshipful fan-base.
But one should be careful, when massaging the symbolism, not to say inconvenient things that can bite you with sharp-toothed facts, and the governor did just that, when he said that he had "learned as a rancher" a list of good American, apple-pie things that included "taking responsibility when you're wrong."
The irony is that in at least one high-profile example to be found in the real world, the governor continues to refuse to take responsibility for breaking the law by doing Public Service Announcements (PSA's) -- using public funds to produce and distribute them -- while a declared candidate for public office.
There isn't much debate over whether the governor broke both the spirit and the letter of the law that he himself signed. The Democratic legislator who wrote the bill has confirmed that the Republican interpretation (i.e. the plain as the nose on your face interpretation) is what he intended. In other words, the law was intended to prevent public officials from doing exactly what the governor did with his "Ag Month" PSA's -- in this case, the governor even had the chutzpah to include his "Montana is on the Move" official campaign slogan in the "public service" announcement.
Ongoing coverage is on YouTube for those who want to listen to all the details of the special hearings now ongoing. One thing is clear -- the governor is refusing to accept responsibility for something he and his employees did that was wrong. As we have noted before, it would have been simple for the governor to say -- oops, we goofed and weren't watching the calendar closely enough. The matter would have blown over in days. It is precisely the governor's intransigence in admitting a relatively minor mistake that has turned this into much bigger matter of whether the governor considers himself to be accountable before the law or not.
We again note that the governor has made no more such PSA's -- if he were so certain that the intent of the legislation was not to ban the activity, why isn't he continuing to "serve the people of Montana" by making lots more PSA's?
We would also note that as Sec. State Brad Johnson told us in his Montana Headlines interview, it is perfectly possible for a government department to put out PSA's without using the name, face, or voice of the person in the department who is running for office.
The governor could have had the head of the Dept. of Agriculture or a volunteer announcer do the ads, could have left out the governor's campaign slogan "Montana is on the Move," and everyone would have been happy and unquestionably within the law.
If Sec. State Brad Johnson has no problems understanding and following the law -- and still manages to do the part of his job that requires putting out necessary PSA's -- why is is so difficult for the governor to do so?
The joke goes that one of the most dangerous places to be standing in Montana is between this governor and a television camera. Now, we have to add a radio microphone to the list of danger spots, it would appear.
The ad is all about symbolism, which is a big part of what an effective television ad is about. Just ask Barack Obama, who has been schooled by the McCain camp on that front recently with an effective, hilarious, mocking viral ad campaign that conveys the sense that Obama is an empty suit with nothing much behind the high-flown messianic rhetoric and worshipful fan-base.
But one should be careful, when massaging the symbolism, not to say inconvenient things that can bite you with sharp-toothed facts, and the governor did just that, when he said that he had "learned as a rancher" a list of good American, apple-pie things that included "taking responsibility when you're wrong."
The irony is that in at least one high-profile example to be found in the real world, the governor continues to refuse to take responsibility for breaking the law by doing Public Service Announcements (PSA's) -- using public funds to produce and distribute them -- while a declared candidate for public office.
There isn't much debate over whether the governor broke both the spirit and the letter of the law that he himself signed. The Democratic legislator who wrote the bill has confirmed that the Republican interpretation (i.e. the plain as the nose on your face interpretation) is what he intended. In other words, the law was intended to prevent public officials from doing exactly what the governor did with his "Ag Month" PSA's -- in this case, the governor even had the chutzpah to include his "Montana is on the Move" official campaign slogan in the "public service" announcement.
Ongoing coverage is on YouTube for those who want to listen to all the details of the special hearings now ongoing. One thing is clear -- the governor is refusing to accept responsibility for something he and his employees did that was wrong. As we have noted before, it would have been simple for the governor to say -- oops, we goofed and weren't watching the calendar closely enough. The matter would have blown over in days. It is precisely the governor's intransigence in admitting a relatively minor mistake that has turned this into much bigger matter of whether the governor considers himself to be accountable before the law or not.
We again note that the governor has made no more such PSA's -- if he were so certain that the intent of the legislation was not to ban the activity, why isn't he continuing to "serve the people of Montana" by making lots more PSA's?
We would also note that as Sec. State Brad Johnson told us in his Montana Headlines interview, it is perfectly possible for a government department to put out PSA's without using the name, face, or voice of the person in the department who is running for office.
The governor could have had the head of the Dept. of Agriculture or a volunteer announcer do the ads, could have left out the governor's campaign slogan "Montana is on the Move," and everyone would have been happy and unquestionably within the law.
If Sec. State Brad Johnson has no problems understanding and following the law -- and still manages to do the part of his job that requires putting out necessary PSA's -- why is is so difficult for the governor to do so?
The joke goes that one of the most dangerous places to be standing in Montana is between this governor and a television camera. Now, we have to add a radio microphone to the list of danger spots, it would appear.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 2 of 2
Read Part 1 of the interview here.
Part 2:
MH: The Secretary of State's office oversees a wide variety of governmental functions, all of which are important, but most of which are out of the view of the average Montanan. Could you, for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with what your office does, give an overview?
Brad Johnson: Elections are, of course, the one that everyone notices. But the Secretary of State's office also serves Montana's business community as a filing office. When a new business gets started, they register their name here so no one else in Montana can use it. Corporations and Limited Liability Companies file annual reports with us, so the public can be aware of contact information, who's on their board of directors, and more. After business filings, we also preserve records for the rest of the state, we publish that state's Administrative Rules, we oversee Notaries Public, and more. That's one of the reasons I like the Secretary of State's office: it's an office of government that does humble, quiet work. It really is a place to serve the people.
MH: You mention filing and reporting for corporations as being a role of the Secretary of State's office -- are there things under the purview of your office that you think could be changed in order to create a more business-friendly climate in Montana? Will you be advocating for any legislation in the upcoming session?
Brad Johnson: This office definitely improves the business climate in Montana. The first step has been to hold fees down. Not one business reporting fee has increased during my term. The second is to reduce paperwork, which we did by shifting to online annual reports and which we’ll continue doing by bringing more services online. We’re improving the methods by which we deliver information about administrative rules, which many businesses need to do their job. Those are just a few of the areas where I hope to make even more improvements over the coming years.
MH: Let's turn to politics. You are one of only two Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and the only one in Helena. This has thrust you into a high-profile leadership role in the state party that you probably didn't anticipate having 4 years ago when you defeated Bill Kennedy for the Secretary of State position.
What has that been like, and what are your thoughts as a leader about what we Republicans will need to do in order to recover from the losses we have sustained in the last couple of election cycles?
Brad Johnson: I wholeheartedly believe that the excited, committed crop of Republicans we have this year is ready to come roaring back in 2008. We've got so much excitement at the grass roots, it's really moving. I try to think of myself as a resource to them. I believe there's an understanding out there among the activists that it was never offices or numbers or majorities that made this party great -- it was our beliefs. Our beliefs will make us great again.
We don't need to think about being in power; we need to think about being in the right. As long as we are, and we stay that way, we will be a great political party. Fiscal conservatism, the values of the American family, a strong nation with a strong defense, liberty and individualism -- we stood for those things once, and we were great. If we stand for them again, we will be great again.
MH: Speaking of your new high-profile role, part of the package deal is that you've drawn fire from the left here in Montana -- we've certainly seen it in the blogosphere. You've also had to have felt a bit isolated as the sole Republican member of the state land board. We're not giving away any big secrets here when we say that you are being targeted by the Democrats in this election. How does this affect day-to-day life in doing your job as Secretary of State?
Brad Johnson: I've had my share of criticism from the Democrat party, that's true. But I just don't let it affect the job. While I'm there, the Secretary of State's office will not descend into partisanship. I've actually got an elected Democrat serving as my elections deputy -- Lisa Kimmet, former Clerk and Recorder for Prairie County. Many people don't know that, but to me, it's a guarantee of high quality elections for everyone. We have a Republican Secretary of State and a Democrat who's working right alongside me to make sure Montana's elections remain among the cleanest, fairest in the country.
MH: Funny thing -- one struggles to think of examples where the leftward bloggers in Montana, let alone the mainstream press, commends you for having hired a Democrat as your elections deputy.
Brad Johnson: I admit it’s a bit frustrating. People on the other side of the aisle line up to sing Schweitzer’s praises for having “Republican” John Bohlinger in his administration, but they’re dead silent when our side does something similar. But I try not to let those frustrations come up too often. The truth of the matter is, you don’t do the right thing for credit, you do the right thing because it’s the right thing. And an election that both sides can trust is absolutely the right thing.
MH: One more question on attacks from the left: we've heard stories about a nationwide effort on the part of Democrats specifically to take over Secretary of State offices at the individual state level, presumably to have more control over the election process. Have you had evidence that you are being targeted on a national level?
Brad Johnson: We’ve had some interaction with the national Democrat and left-leaning organizations. Their “Secretary of State Project” wrote about my race once, and have been said to have an interest in it. We encountered MoveOn.org, too, believe it or not. They sent us a bunch of petitions urging Montana to move to paper ballots. Of course, we passed that law in 2005…
MH: Yes, that was an amusing illustration of how out-of-touch MoveOn.org is, once they get away from the coasts.
One more political question -- you were an early supporter of Gov. Mitt Romney, who was successful in winning the Montana Republican Presidential Caucus. Have you been asked to be involved in Sen. McCain's presidential campaign here in Montana -- and regardless of whether you will be actively involved, how would you suggest that the Montana Republican Party can transfer some of that Romney grassroots energy to John McCain?
Brad Johnson: I've already been advocating the importance of electing John McCain to the White House. I haven't been involved in the campaign yet, but I'm spreading the word on a personal level as much as I can. As far as transferring some of the Romney enthusiasm to McCain, I think there's a relatively simple formula that will work: Romney earned a lot of his support simply by showing up. He came here, he listened to Montanans, and he treated us like we mattered.
Frankly, we saw the same thing in the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Those two were here a lot, and their supporters were very enthusiastic for that reason. That's what the party and the McCain campaign need to do to transfer the Romney enthusiasm. Treat individual voters with respect. Listen to their ideas. And give them some time. They will respond. Chairman Iverson is already doing this at the party level; I have every confidence that we're going to see it from the McCain campaign as well.
MH: Let's leave politics and for the final question go back to the job you've been doing as Secretary of State. You've overseen a major modernization of the Secretary of State's office during your 4 years. Tell us a little about some of the things happening behind the scenes in your office that might not be making front page news.
Brad Johnson: When I ran for this office, I committed to bringing the Secretary of State's office into the 21st century. It's going well. We've got online candidate filing now, a statewide voter registration database, business annual reports are mostly online, we've just upgraded our Administrative Rules system into an easily searchable online database, we've established a steering committee to guide statewide policy on electronic records and information management, and more.
Right now we're in the middle of a project to completely revamp the office's computer system, with an end goal of making all our records available electronically, and all our reports submittable electronically. We've saved over a hundred thousand dollars with the online annual reporting. Electronic services cut down on paperwork and time for the citizen and the fee-paying business, and they're cheaper for the state to provide. It's a win win situation for everyone.
MH: A "win-win" situation is a good note to end on. Secretary Johnson, thank you very much for spending time with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in the campaign.
Part 2:
MH: The Secretary of State's office oversees a wide variety of governmental functions, all of which are important, but most of which are out of the view of the average Montanan. Could you, for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with what your office does, give an overview?
Brad Johnson: Elections are, of course, the one that everyone notices. But the Secretary of State's office also serves Montana's business community as a filing office. When a new business gets started, they register their name here so no one else in Montana can use it. Corporations and Limited Liability Companies file annual reports with us, so the public can be aware of contact information, who's on their board of directors, and more. After business filings, we also preserve records for the rest of the state, we publish that state's Administrative Rules, we oversee Notaries Public, and more. That's one of the reasons I like the Secretary of State's office: it's an office of government that does humble, quiet work. It really is a place to serve the people.
MH: You mention filing and reporting for corporations as being a role of the Secretary of State's office -- are there things under the purview of your office that you think could be changed in order to create a more business-friendly climate in Montana? Will you be advocating for any legislation in the upcoming session?
Brad Johnson: This office definitely improves the business climate in Montana. The first step has been to hold fees down. Not one business reporting fee has increased during my term. The second is to reduce paperwork, which we did by shifting to online annual reports and which we’ll continue doing by bringing more services online. We’re improving the methods by which we deliver information about administrative rules, which many businesses need to do their job. Those are just a few of the areas where I hope to make even more improvements over the coming years.
MH: Let's turn to politics. You are one of only two Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and the only one in Helena. This has thrust you into a high-profile leadership role in the state party that you probably didn't anticipate having 4 years ago when you defeated Bill Kennedy for the Secretary of State position.
What has that been like, and what are your thoughts as a leader about what we Republicans will need to do in order to recover from the losses we have sustained in the last couple of election cycles?
Brad Johnson: I wholeheartedly believe that the excited, committed crop of Republicans we have this year is ready to come roaring back in 2008. We've got so much excitement at the grass roots, it's really moving. I try to think of myself as a resource to them. I believe there's an understanding out there among the activists that it was never offices or numbers or majorities that made this party great -- it was our beliefs. Our beliefs will make us great again.
We don't need to think about being in power; we need to think about being in the right. As long as we are, and we stay that way, we will be a great political party. Fiscal conservatism, the values of the American family, a strong nation with a strong defense, liberty and individualism -- we stood for those things once, and we were great. If we stand for them again, we will be great again.
MH: Speaking of your new high-profile role, part of the package deal is that you've drawn fire from the left here in Montana -- we've certainly seen it in the blogosphere. You've also had to have felt a bit isolated as the sole Republican member of the state land board. We're not giving away any big secrets here when we say that you are being targeted by the Democrats in this election. How does this affect day-to-day life in doing your job as Secretary of State?
Brad Johnson: I've had my share of criticism from the Democrat party, that's true. But I just don't let it affect the job. While I'm there, the Secretary of State's office will not descend into partisanship. I've actually got an elected Democrat serving as my elections deputy -- Lisa Kimmet, former Clerk and Recorder for Prairie County. Many people don't know that, but to me, it's a guarantee of high quality elections for everyone. We have a Republican Secretary of State and a Democrat who's working right alongside me to make sure Montana's elections remain among the cleanest, fairest in the country.
MH: Funny thing -- one struggles to think of examples where the leftward bloggers in Montana, let alone the mainstream press, commends you for having hired a Democrat as your elections deputy.
Brad Johnson: I admit it’s a bit frustrating. People on the other side of the aisle line up to sing Schweitzer’s praises for having “Republican” John Bohlinger in his administration, but they’re dead silent when our side does something similar. But I try not to let those frustrations come up too often. The truth of the matter is, you don’t do the right thing for credit, you do the right thing because it’s the right thing. And an election that both sides can trust is absolutely the right thing.
MH: One more question on attacks from the left: we've heard stories about a nationwide effort on the part of Democrats specifically to take over Secretary of State offices at the individual state level, presumably to have more control over the election process. Have you had evidence that you are being targeted on a national level?
Brad Johnson: We’ve had some interaction with the national Democrat and left-leaning organizations. Their “Secretary of State Project” wrote about my race once, and have been said to have an interest in it. We encountered MoveOn.org, too, believe it or not. They sent us a bunch of petitions urging Montana to move to paper ballots. Of course, we passed that law in 2005…
MH: Yes, that was an amusing illustration of how out-of-touch MoveOn.org is, once they get away from the coasts.
One more political question -- you were an early supporter of Gov. Mitt Romney, who was successful in winning the Montana Republican Presidential Caucus. Have you been asked to be involved in Sen. McCain's presidential campaign here in Montana -- and regardless of whether you will be actively involved, how would you suggest that the Montana Republican Party can transfer some of that Romney grassroots energy to John McCain?
Brad Johnson: I've already been advocating the importance of electing John McCain to the White House. I haven't been involved in the campaign yet, but I'm spreading the word on a personal level as much as I can. As far as transferring some of the Romney enthusiasm to McCain, I think there's a relatively simple formula that will work: Romney earned a lot of his support simply by showing up. He came here, he listened to Montanans, and he treated us like we mattered.
Frankly, we saw the same thing in the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Those two were here a lot, and their supporters were very enthusiastic for that reason. That's what the party and the McCain campaign need to do to transfer the Romney enthusiasm. Treat individual voters with respect. Listen to their ideas. And give them some time. They will respond. Chairman Iverson is already doing this at the party level; I have every confidence that we're going to see it from the McCain campaign as well.
MH: Let's leave politics and for the final question go back to the job you've been doing as Secretary of State. You've overseen a major modernization of the Secretary of State's office during your 4 years. Tell us a little about some of the things happening behind the scenes in your office that might not be making front page news.
Brad Johnson: When I ran for this office, I committed to bringing the Secretary of State's office into the 21st century. It's going well. We've got online candidate filing now, a statewide voter registration database, business annual reports are mostly online, we've just upgraded our Administrative Rules system into an easily searchable online database, we've established a steering committee to guide statewide policy on electronic records and information management, and more.
Right now we're in the middle of a project to completely revamp the office's computer system, with an end goal of making all our records available electronically, and all our reports submittable electronically. We've saved over a hundred thousand dollars with the online annual reporting. Electronic services cut down on paperwork and time for the citizen and the fee-paying business, and they're cheaper for the state to provide. It's a win win situation for everyone.
MH: A "win-win" situation is a good note to end on. Secretary Johnson, thank you very much for spending time with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in the campaign.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 1 of 2
Note to readers: please see our introductory comments on method and ground-rules that we published with our interview with Republican State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes.
____________________________________________
MH: Secretary Johnson, first of all welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you for agreeing to do this interview.
To start off, Montanans read in the newspapers last month that you just finished visiting the election offices in all 56 Montana counties in your capacity at the chief election administrator of the state. That was quite an undertaking.
Share with us, if you will, some of your impressions about the state of elections in Montana. What are we doing well, and what are some of the challenges that we face in what promises to be one of the biggest primary and general elections that Montana has seen in quite some years?
Brad Johnson: Montana's elections are some of the cleanest and fairest in the country. When I meet with other Secretaries of State from around the nation, they're always envious of how smoothly elections proceed here. One of the first reasons for that is our paper ballot requirement. While other states around the country are dealing with all the security risks of electronic voting machines, every single vote in Montana is on paper where we can count it by hand if we need to. That was bipartisan legislation for which I was proud to be the first proponent.
Another reason Montana's elections work so well is our system of local control. County election officials make their own decisions about whether to count ballots by hand or using a machine. County Commissioners make their own decisions about ordering a hand recount if they believe there's a problem with the total. We have some of the best election administrators anywhere in the country, and I'm proud to call each and every one of them a colleague.
That was one of the best things accomplished by the tour. I had the chance for real face-to-face interaction with the people on the front lines of our electoral process. County election officials had the chance to tell me directly what they wanted form the state. When they asked for more training on the statewide voter registration database, they got it. When they asked for more communication, they got it.
There are still areas we can fine tune. In the last legislative session, my office worked with Rep. Brady Wiseman on legislation to require random audits of some counties vote counts after an election. That didn't pass, but we hope to return to that issue in the next session. Overall, we've got a great election system here -- one that other states look to as an example.
MH: How did the June primary go from your perspective, given the record turnouts, especially on the Democratic side?
Brad Johnson: There are a number of important points to observe about our primary election. The first is that, for the first time ever, Montana endured the rigors of full fledged modern Presidential campaign. The result? Short, well-managed lines, no challenges to the counts, and timely reporting of the results. In brief, this election proceeded nearly perfectly in process. I think a large share of the credit for that goes to the outstanding local election administrators, who trained hard, worked hard, and delivered results for the people of Montana.
Another important point that I’m happy about is that this year, for the first time ever, the Montana Secretary of State’s office delivered accurate, up-to-the minute results on election night. In years past, our “final unofficial count” has been available at some point the day after. But the simple fact of the matter is that the people demanded better. We delivered it, and I was pleased by that.
Voter turnout was great – just a percentage point or two shy of our office projection. And, I might add, the highest since Congress made changes in how we measure voter turnout.
I think every Republican has to look at the turnout figures on the Democrat side and say some version of, “It’s time to get to work. That’s a large number of people voting in the Democrat primary. Obviously the high visibility of the Obama vs. Clinton contest was driving that, combined with the McCain nomination being long-since settled, but even so, we have to look at those numbers and respond with more work and more ideas. We can take nothing for granted.
MH: Was there anything in the results in Bob Kelleher's win in the Republican Senate race or John Driscoll's race in the Democratic House race that raises any red flags for your office, given how unexpected these results were?
Brad Johnson: We certainly did have questions from some folks shortly after the primary. There were a few who wanted to blame the Kelleher situation on some problem with vote counting machines. But Montana has a number of counties that count their ballots by hand. The simple fact of the matter is that the results of the Senate primary in hand-count counties essentially mirrored those in the machine count counties. Kelleher won. Driscoll won. Figuring out why will be a great opportunity for professors and analysts. But they did win, and it was not a problem with the count.
I will take a moment here to say I believe that’s a trend which is highly destructive to democracy. On both sides – Republican and Democrat – when the results are not what we wanted, we blame the system rather than admit we could have lost. Democrats did it in 2004 in Ohio, a few Republicans have been doing it now in Montana… but what happens if those efforts succeed? What happens if the public comes to believe that the only legitimate election is one where your candidate wins? People will lose faith in the system of self government. That’s something I think we all want to prevent.
MH: You took some flack from the left during the last legislative session when you advocated for election workers and their reasonable proposal to close registration a mere two business days before the election. Did we see the kinds of backed up lines and overloaded staff on election day that we did in the fall of 2006? Will you be advocating for such legislation again, or do you think that we are just stuck with voter registration loading down our election offices on election day itself?
Brad Johnson: In the political world, we have a big debate going on about “everyone should be able to participate in an election, even if they forget to register up until the last minute” vs. “Voting is a responsibility, if you can’t be bothered to pay attention you should not take part.” I believe in voting as a responsibility, and I work every day toward increasing people’s informed, prepared participation. I also believe in increasing participation. That’s why I think HB281 in the 2007 session was such a good compromise. It still opened up the process much more – from 30 days before the election down to three. But it asked for just a little bit of prior preparation.
But none of that takes into account the technical part of election work. One thing that frustrates election workers everywhere is how little people outside the business understand what we do. The simple fact is that late registration is very, very hard for county election workers to implement in a way that preserves a smooth election process for the rest of the voters and also maintains the integrity of the process. But people outside don’t see that. They just see the “participation vs. responsibility” debate.
I have a responsibility to see the election workers’ perspective though. And their opinion was near-universal. 55 out of 56 county election administrators wanted to roll back the date of late registration. I won’t name names, but HIGHLY partisan Democrat election administrators wanted to see that deadline rolled back. On the other hand, relatively politically inactive Democrat election administrators also completely supported rolling back the date for late registration. As well, Republican election administrators supported rolling back the date. Election administrators of no party also supported it. Among the most highly-regarded election administrators in the state – of all political stripes – all said the deadline should be rolled back.
It’s not that I don’t understand the Democrats political position. What I don’t understand is why they were so unwilling to listen to a universal consensus from the people in the field.
And after all that, it absolutely must be said: we did far, far better this year. My office undertook a campaign of public service announcements – that never used my name, face or voice, I should add – encouraging voters to register early. As well, the major Presidential campaigns were all working on getting voters registered early. County election offices worked on getting voters registered early. And the team effort worked. Lines were shorter to non-existent in some counties. They moved faster. It was a good result. But we’d have an even better result if we closed registration on the Friday before the election.
MH: Some states are enacting measures to decrease the chances of voter fraud, such as photo ID's. Another concern in many states that isn't yet an issue in Montana but that may become one in the coming years is the possibility of illegal immigrants voting in our elections. Do you have any thoughts about these and other voter fraud concerns in Montana and how the legislature might take action? It is the position of Montana Headlines that every fraudulent ballot cast disenfranchises a voter who followed the rules. Any thoughts on that?
Brad Johnson: In the last legislative session, I testified on behalf of a bill that would have made it a felony to knowingly falsify information for the purpose of registering to vote. The Democrats killed it. That’s one step the legislature could take right away that would address many of the concerns you mentioned. I share your position that if voter fraud happens, it disenfranchises honest voters.
It should be pointed out that the non-partisan Legislative Audit Division identified instances of individuals who attempted to vote more than once, but those attempts were thwarted by the statewide voter registration database. The numbers of such attempts were small, but recent Montana elections often include very close races. Just this June, we had a House primary decided by one vote. Every attempt at violating election law is significant, and I would like to see the Legislature strengthen the penalties for it.
MH: A final election followup -- how far away are we from going to vote-by-mail in Montana? We've heard some pretty convincing arguments that fraud would actually be more difficult to perpetrate with an all-mail system as opposed to our current mix of absentee ballots, in-person voting at the precinct level, and early voting at election offices.
Brad Johnson: Montana’s local election officials tend to be strongly in favor of mail ballots. I think their arguments have merit – especially in regard to the savings to the taxpayer that could be realized. But I also think we don’t want to be too hasty about this. There are questions that need to be answered. Is the county paying for the return postage? Or the voter? If we make the voter pay for the stamp, is that the same thing as charging people money to vote? If not, then where does the money for postage come from? And does the expense of postage eat up the hoped-for savings?
More than all that, I’m not sure we can completely take away a traditional in-person polling place because it offers accommodations for Montanans with disabilities that simply can’t be offered with a mail ballot. And finally, there are just some folks like me who like doing things the old fashioned way, and voting in person.
So there are two sides to the story, and we don’t know the answer yet. I’d like to see us be quite thorough in studying the issue before making any decisions.
Read Part 2 of the interview with Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson here.
____________________________________________
MH: Secretary Johnson, first of all welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you for agreeing to do this interview.
To start off, Montanans read in the newspapers last month that you just finished visiting the election offices in all 56 Montana counties in your capacity at the chief election administrator of the state. That was quite an undertaking.
Share with us, if you will, some of your impressions about the state of elections in Montana. What are we doing well, and what are some of the challenges that we face in what promises to be one of the biggest primary and general elections that Montana has seen in quite some years?
Brad Johnson: Montana's elections are some of the cleanest and fairest in the country. When I meet with other Secretaries of State from around the nation, they're always envious of how smoothly elections proceed here. One of the first reasons for that is our paper ballot requirement. While other states around the country are dealing with all the security risks of electronic voting machines, every single vote in Montana is on paper where we can count it by hand if we need to. That was bipartisan legislation for which I was proud to be the first proponent.
Another reason Montana's elections work so well is our system of local control. County election officials make their own decisions about whether to count ballots by hand or using a machine. County Commissioners make their own decisions about ordering a hand recount if they believe there's a problem with the total. We have some of the best election administrators anywhere in the country, and I'm proud to call each and every one of them a colleague.
That was one of the best things accomplished by the tour. I had the chance for real face-to-face interaction with the people on the front lines of our electoral process. County election officials had the chance to tell me directly what they wanted form the state. When they asked for more training on the statewide voter registration database, they got it. When they asked for more communication, they got it.
There are still areas we can fine tune. In the last legislative session, my office worked with Rep. Brady Wiseman on legislation to require random audits of some counties vote counts after an election. That didn't pass, but we hope to return to that issue in the next session. Overall, we've got a great election system here -- one that other states look to as an example.
MH: How did the June primary go from your perspective, given the record turnouts, especially on the Democratic side?
Brad Johnson: There are a number of important points to observe about our primary election. The first is that, for the first time ever, Montana endured the rigors of full fledged modern Presidential campaign. The result? Short, well-managed lines, no challenges to the counts, and timely reporting of the results. In brief, this election proceeded nearly perfectly in process. I think a large share of the credit for that goes to the outstanding local election administrators, who trained hard, worked hard, and delivered results for the people of Montana.
Another important point that I’m happy about is that this year, for the first time ever, the Montana Secretary of State’s office delivered accurate, up-to-the minute results on election night. In years past, our “final unofficial count” has been available at some point the day after. But the simple fact of the matter is that the people demanded better. We delivered it, and I was pleased by that.
Voter turnout was great – just a percentage point or two shy of our office projection. And, I might add, the highest since Congress made changes in how we measure voter turnout.
I think every Republican has to look at the turnout figures on the Democrat side and say some version of, “It’s time to get to work. That’s a large number of people voting in the Democrat primary. Obviously the high visibility of the Obama vs. Clinton contest was driving that, combined with the McCain nomination being long-since settled, but even so, we have to look at those numbers and respond with more work and more ideas. We can take nothing for granted.
MH: Was there anything in the results in Bob Kelleher's win in the Republican Senate race or John Driscoll's race in the Democratic House race that raises any red flags for your office, given how unexpected these results were?
Brad Johnson: We certainly did have questions from some folks shortly after the primary. There were a few who wanted to blame the Kelleher situation on some problem with vote counting machines. But Montana has a number of counties that count their ballots by hand. The simple fact of the matter is that the results of the Senate primary in hand-count counties essentially mirrored those in the machine count counties. Kelleher won. Driscoll won. Figuring out why will be a great opportunity for professors and analysts. But they did win, and it was not a problem with the count.
I will take a moment here to say I believe that’s a trend which is highly destructive to democracy. On both sides – Republican and Democrat – when the results are not what we wanted, we blame the system rather than admit we could have lost. Democrats did it in 2004 in Ohio, a few Republicans have been doing it now in Montana… but what happens if those efforts succeed? What happens if the public comes to believe that the only legitimate election is one where your candidate wins? People will lose faith in the system of self government. That’s something I think we all want to prevent.
MH: You took some flack from the left during the last legislative session when you advocated for election workers and their reasonable proposal to close registration a mere two business days before the election. Did we see the kinds of backed up lines and overloaded staff on election day that we did in the fall of 2006? Will you be advocating for such legislation again, or do you think that we are just stuck with voter registration loading down our election offices on election day itself?
Brad Johnson: In the political world, we have a big debate going on about “everyone should be able to participate in an election, even if they forget to register up until the last minute” vs. “Voting is a responsibility, if you can’t be bothered to pay attention you should not take part.” I believe in voting as a responsibility, and I work every day toward increasing people’s informed, prepared participation. I also believe in increasing participation. That’s why I think HB281 in the 2007 session was such a good compromise. It still opened up the process much more – from 30 days before the election down to three. But it asked for just a little bit of prior preparation.
But none of that takes into account the technical part of election work. One thing that frustrates election workers everywhere is how little people outside the business understand what we do. The simple fact is that late registration is very, very hard for county election workers to implement in a way that preserves a smooth election process for the rest of the voters and also maintains the integrity of the process. But people outside don’t see that. They just see the “participation vs. responsibility” debate.
I have a responsibility to see the election workers’ perspective though. And their opinion was near-universal. 55 out of 56 county election administrators wanted to roll back the date of late registration. I won’t name names, but HIGHLY partisan Democrat election administrators wanted to see that deadline rolled back. On the other hand, relatively politically inactive Democrat election administrators also completely supported rolling back the date for late registration. As well, Republican election administrators supported rolling back the date. Election administrators of no party also supported it. Among the most highly-regarded election administrators in the state – of all political stripes – all said the deadline should be rolled back.
It’s not that I don’t understand the Democrats political position. What I don’t understand is why they were so unwilling to listen to a universal consensus from the people in the field.
And after all that, it absolutely must be said: we did far, far better this year. My office undertook a campaign of public service announcements – that never used my name, face or voice, I should add – encouraging voters to register early. As well, the major Presidential campaigns were all working on getting voters registered early. County election offices worked on getting voters registered early. And the team effort worked. Lines were shorter to non-existent in some counties. They moved faster. It was a good result. But we’d have an even better result if we closed registration on the Friday before the election.
MH: Some states are enacting measures to decrease the chances of voter fraud, such as photo ID's. Another concern in many states that isn't yet an issue in Montana but that may become one in the coming years is the possibility of illegal immigrants voting in our elections. Do you have any thoughts about these and other voter fraud concerns in Montana and how the legislature might take action? It is the position of Montana Headlines that every fraudulent ballot cast disenfranchises a voter who followed the rules. Any thoughts on that?
Brad Johnson: In the last legislative session, I testified on behalf of a bill that would have made it a felony to knowingly falsify information for the purpose of registering to vote. The Democrats killed it. That’s one step the legislature could take right away that would address many of the concerns you mentioned. I share your position that if voter fraud happens, it disenfranchises honest voters.
It should be pointed out that the non-partisan Legislative Audit Division identified instances of individuals who attempted to vote more than once, but those attempts were thwarted by the statewide voter registration database. The numbers of such attempts were small, but recent Montana elections often include very close races. Just this June, we had a House primary decided by one vote. Every attempt at violating election law is significant, and I would like to see the Legislature strengthen the penalties for it.
MH: A final election followup -- how far away are we from going to vote-by-mail in Montana? We've heard some pretty convincing arguments that fraud would actually be more difficult to perpetrate with an all-mail system as opposed to our current mix of absentee ballots, in-person voting at the precinct level, and early voting at election offices.
Brad Johnson: Montana’s local election officials tend to be strongly in favor of mail ballots. I think their arguments have merit – especially in regard to the savings to the taxpayer that could be realized. But I also think we don’t want to be too hasty about this. There are questions that need to be answered. Is the county paying for the return postage? Or the voter? If we make the voter pay for the stamp, is that the same thing as charging people money to vote? If not, then where does the money for postage come from? And does the expense of postage eat up the hoped-for savings?
More than all that, I’m not sure we can completely take away a traditional in-person polling place because it offers accommodations for Montanans with disabilities that simply can’t be offered with a mail ballot. And finally, there are just some folks like me who like doing things the old fashioned way, and voting in person.
So there are two sides to the story, and we don’t know the answer yet. I’d like to see us be quite thorough in studying the issue before making any decisions.
Read Part 2 of the interview with Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)