Secrecy will fuel suspicion about Mercer Co. elections
Brian Beader, chairman of Mercer County commissioners, is to be commended for proposing the creation of an independent panel to investigate Election Day foul-ups that made national news. But Beader must know that his desire to cloak the panel's deliberations in a veil of secrecy will simply fuel the fires of suspicion that have been burning since the night of Nov. 2.
What went wrong during this most important of elections is every voter's business. Having the investigative panel meet behind closed doors, then issue a report to the county commissioners, who will then make the findings public is tantamount to filtering the news. Beader and his colleagues should be aware that such perceived censorship will pique the interest of the national press and worsen the black eye Mercer County received last week.
Openness is the cornerstone of elections. Other than the secrecy surrounding the act of casting a ballot, everything else related to an election is in the public domain. From the meetings of the boards of elections, to the tabulation of votes, to the review of disputed ballots, a system of checks and balances keeps the process honest -- or it should.
The Mercer County Board of Elections is under the gun to explain why the vote count was not completed until 3:30 a.m. Nov.3.
Then there is the issue of Jim Bennington, county director of elections, misprogramming computers. That resulted in machines' shutting down. The investigate panel can't ignore the fact that Bennington's being a Republican has surfaced as an issue. Robert Lark, chairman of the Democratic Party, has demanded that he resign because most of the machines that failed were in predominantly Democratic precincts.
Chance to explain
The director of the board of elections must be given every opportunity to explain in detail what went wrong overall and what mistakes he specifically made. But he should have his say in public.
Likewise, the fact that 51,818 total ballots were cast in Mercer County but only 47,707 were recorded in the presidential race warrants an in-depth review. But it also should be conducted in public.
Beader would like the investigative panel to have five or seven members, with each political party getting one representative. The parties would also be able to have a lawyer present. A representative of the Mercer County League of Women Voters and someone from the local colleges could be invited to participate.
Beader and his colleagues must recognize a truth about elections: Credibility is everything.
That is why an examination of the hiccup in Mercer County heard around the country must be conducted in the open.
Several years ago, there was a major flap in Mahoning County over a race for statewide office. Voter intent was at the heart of the clash between Republican and Democratic members of the elections board. The disputed paper ballots were reviewed one by one -- in the presence of reporters and representatives of organizations such as the League of Women Voters.
The hearings were not disrupted in any way, and elections board members acknowledged that having the press on hand gave them credibility.
What Mercer County's election system needs to redeem itself is an open investigative process.