F. t;.. -.":.  '-5  '  J
9 15   '  B   493676..
-  _.  i1   41........,:
-.-,,_  '....
L _  A    _     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~''.-''
=   w   w   _.   a~~~


Y

P&247, - '.. ---;:* I  I


Kt'i
_,,_ _.I


REPORT
ON
SPECIAL EXAMINATION
OF THE


ACCOUNTS AND METHODS OF
THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
OF THE CITY OF.
NEW YORK


DIRECTED BY
Hon. JOHN PURROY MITCHEL, Mayor
OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONERS OF ACCOUNTS
CITY OF NEW YORK 
*      t:    _    -; L.   ' * ' 1' 


LEONARD; M. WALLSTEIN
COMMISSIONER OF ACCOUNTS:.


ii;:
:
r
i
3-;"
~Fa^


I




:.'.:!' -:**  -   r,, I
* s
| THE GIFT OF
i 3  _       -  s   -  X
| <1 9.
t
3  i
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* -_ )If


*




D r, _ --;,
*W13
' \v\S
K-.
t 
J     '|




/   * * t




107


REPORT
ON
SPECIAL EXAMINATION
OF THE


ACCOUNTS AND METHODS OF
THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK
* e
*  e
DIRECTED BY
Hon. JOHN PURROY MITCHEL, Mayor
OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF ACCOUNTS
CITY OF NEW YORK


LEONARD M. WALLSTEIN
COMMISSIONER OF ACCOUNTS




IBROWNF
BINDINOI
w O.


4475-15-1050




C3
3
t9*
i
r
i
r 'd
i
'O
i
i
c
r
"i~.
Q a
rJ!4
Q
g


H


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.


September 4, 1915.


0on. JOHN PURROY MITCHEL,
Mayor:


SIR-On December 11, 1914, at the request of the Honest Ballot Association and the Citizens' Union, you directed an investigation of the accounts
and methods of the Board of Elections of The City of New York.
Though the preliminary gathering of facts was promptly begun, the
pressure of official business then pending in this office made necessary some
delay in undertaking the main investigation. It has now, however, been
completed and a report thereon is submitted herewith.
No attempt has been made to lay the foundation for a general revision
of the Election Law, the administration of which, as it applies to this city, is
vested in the Board of Elections. The scope of the investigation has been
confined rather to ascertaining the methods of administration employed by
the Board of Elections, with consideration of statutory provisions only so
far as the same has been found necessary to locate the fault for defective
methods. The annexed report accordingly confines itself to recommendations the adoption of which lies within the authority of the Board of Elections itself, or which call for amendment of those parts of the statute which
prescribe the membership of the Board or the methods to be employed by
it in the discharge of its duties.
I am pleased to acknowledge with thanks the co-operation which was
rendered in the investigation by Commissioners Boyle and McKee, President
and Secretary, respectively, of the Board of Elections. In several important instances they freely acknowledged defects in present methods and
assisted in the devising of improvements.
Particular acknowledgment for constant and most intelligent co-operation is due to Mr. George W. Kessler, Secretary of the Honest Ballot Association, who brought to my assistance his complete familiarity with the
provisions of the Election Law and his valuable experience as to its operation.
Yours respectfully,
LEONARD M. WALLSTEIN,
Commissioner of Accounts.
297683




ACCOUNTS AND METHODS OF THE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
SUMMARY.
The present statute provides for appointment of the four Commissioners
of Elections by the Board of Aldermen on recommendation of the Democratic
and the Republican organizations of New York and of Kings counties. This
amounts in practice to the actual naming of the Commissioners directly by those
organizations. That result follows inevitably because it is in small political
units like the aldermanic districts that those organizations are most powerful
and because, when the power of appointment is vested in so large a body as
the Board of Aldermen, there is no sense of individual responsibility for the
manner of its exercise.
Such a system encourages the apppointment of individuals who are devoted
to the interests of their organizations rather than to the public interest. It has
permitted the repeated appointment of one individual of proved unfitness (Commissioner Kane) and of another (Commissioner Livingston) who utterly fails to
realize that his.official position renders improper partisan activity which violates
the spirit of the Election Law, the administration of which in this city is in part
entrusted to him.
The system, moreover, has resulted more in "bi-organization " administration of the Election Law than in an impartial administration in the public
interest. The practice has been to give as much patronage and advantage as
possible to the two dominant organizations, at the same time making sure that
the Republican Commissioners gave their organizations no more than the Democratic Commissioners were able to give theirs, and vice versa.
The statutory provisions which govern the Board's performance of its
duties are likewise in many instances designed more for the benefit of the two
dominant organizations than in the public interest.
While in several respects the Board, with the aid of a staff of efficient
employees, has very satisfactorily discharged difficult duties under trying con.
ditions, its subservience to the two dominant organizatons is shown particularly in its unsatisfactory appointment and supervision of 16,000 local election
officers and in its unjustifiable method of selecting 2,000 polling places, both
among the most important branches of its work.
There is imperative need for improvement in the qualifications of many
local election officers. The Board's failure to obtain the services of the best
men available has been due to the following:
Instead of the organizations being utilized as a means of securing
non-partisan election control, the Board of Elections has permitted itself




5


to be utilized as a means of sustaining the organizations. The whole
matter of the selection of local election officers indicates that the Board
has exercised all the discretion committed to it toward making itself an
adjunct of the political organizations rather than an instrument of public
service.
The Board has made no attempt to investigate the character and
previous career of the individuals recommended for appointment, such
recommendations coming in law from the county chairman of the dominant political organizations, but in fact from the respective election
district captains.
The Board has not even kept an adequate record of its own previous
experience with individuals who have served or who have sought to
serve as election officers.
The Board has exercised its discretion to grant wholesale exemptions from the examination which the law requires for the purpose of
ascertaining whether candidates are sufficiently acquainted with the
duties of the local election office to which they aspire. Three-fourths
of the local election officers who serve have been so exempted.
These exemptions the Board has granted on the applicant's own
statement that he had previously served as an election officer, without
any attempt to ascertain the truth of his statement, or, if true, to ascer=
tain the length or quality of his service or whether he had ever passed
an earlier examination.
Exemption from examination has also been granted to those who
had previously served only as emergency officers appointed at the polls,
though such appointments may be and have been given to persons notoriously unfit in character and intelligence. One-quarter of the officers who
serve are so appointed.
Here, too, it should be noted that the present statutory system of
emergency appointment at the polls invites fraud, permits the appointment of dishonest and incompetent persons and facilitates the breaking
down of the scheme of bi=partisan local election boards.
The Board has accepted the viewpoint of the political organizations
which usually regard local election boards as berths for party henchmen
to be distributed among the organization faithful rather than necessarily
among the best qualified in the party. Commissioner Kane contended
that this was legitimate patronage necessary to the existence of the
organizations, since " no party can live without patronage."
The Board has accepted from the organizations the recommenda=
tion of but one person for each position to be filled, and has permitted
them to confine recommendations so far as they could to individuals
who live in the election districts in which they wish to serve, the latter
contrary to the clear intent of the law. This solitary candidate, if not
exempted from examination, the Board often finds acceptable even in the
face of proved unfitness, rather than to test him for qualification or to
subject him to competition with other available candidates for the




6
purpose of finding and selecting the best qualified. Commissioner Kane
was ignorant of the fact that any examinations were given.
The few candidates who are examined are asked a large proportion
of foolish questions and leading questions, and often are passed by false
ratings-that is, they are accepted though the examiner's marks on
their papers (which marks he sometimes tries to erase) show clearly
that the candidate had answered wrongly forty to seventy per cent of
the questions asked, the regulations permitting only 33 1=3 per cent
of wrong answers.
The devices just mentioned represent merely a change from a pre=
vious method (which was denounced by Commissioner of Accounts Fos=
dick) for preventing the examinations from impeding the organizations
in getting the statutory patronage they want for those they want to
have it.
The Board has too little used its power of removing election officers
for incompetence or misconduct, and has made too little effort to keep
itself advised of the manner in which its local officers perform their
duties.
The organizations have grossly abused their statutory power of
summarily removing election officers. The latter have frequently been
so dismissed not for party disloyalty, as the law intends, but on all
sorts of insufficient grounds, such as the officer's removing to another
election district in the same county, or the district captain's dislike of
him, or the district leader's desire to control a primary fight. The power
of removal thus added to the power of appointment clinches the organi=
zation's complete control of the local officer.
This power of summary removal also permits the replacing of
honest, competent and loyal election officers by individuals who are will=
ing to lend themselves to schemes which will facilitate the importation
of "'floaters" and the perpetration of other frauds at primaries and
elections.
Without the slightest justification either in the language or intent of the
statute, the Board has, in the main, abdicated in favor of the two dominant
political organizations its function of designating polling places. By long
standing agreement between the two organizations and the Board, the polling
places in each assembly district have been distributed, in equal numbers, to
persons named by the Republican and the Democratic local organizations. This
has made available to " the faithful " in each organization additional patronage
at the normal rate of $60 per polling place, or over $125,000 annually. This
system has continued so long that Commissioner Kane thought it was required
by law.
The Board has not endeavored to designate the most suitable place which
could be found in the respective election districts, but has tried rather to make
the places recommended by the organizations answer the purpose. Party pull
of storekeepers, not fitness of premises, has been the condition upon which
polling places have been designated. Many inadequate places have been designated in this fashion.




7


This system also has permitted the " hold=up " of storekeepers in payment
for the recommendation of their shops as polling places-a form of " honest
graft " beyond the reach of the penal law.
Under recent legislation, which permits and falls just short of requiring
the Board so far as practicable to use as polling places school houses and other
public buildings, the Board will this year designate but two school houses in
each borough. This is stated to be by way of experiment with the plan, though
the Board, through its then president, has said in 1912 that no experiment was
necessary and though commonly it had been considered that the general use of
school houses for election purposes was delayed only by the need for enabling
legislation which was enacted at the last session of the Legislature.
The Board was remiss in failing to promulgate to local election officers the
opinion of the corporation counsel and the magistrate's decision holding uncon=
stitutional the *" place of stay joker " which purported to qualify " floaters " as
voters.
The proper legal canvass of the vote on election day takes so long and is
so laborious as to tempt violation of the law governing the canvass.
The law makes no adequate provision for safeguarding the signature copy
of the register of voters.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
An amendment to the statute should vest the power of appointing the
Commissioners of Elections in the Mayor, who had that power prior to 1911,
when it was transferred to the Board of Aldermen to insure the reappointment
of Commissioner Kane whom Mayor Gaynor had refused to reappoint. A fur.
ther statutory amendment should provide that incumbent commissioners may
not hold over after the expiration of their terms. This would prevent a person
unacceptable to the Mayor from remaining in office while his organization refused to recommend another and continued in dead=lock with the Mayor. Such
amendments, also, would restore a needed check upon organization dominance
of the Board of Elections.
The number of commissioners should be reduced from four to two, of opposite political faith. Appointment should be made from a list of candidates
recommended by the two leading party organizations in each of the counties
within the city. This would eliminate salary waste, promote efficiency, remove
undue preference for New York and Kings counties and give the Mayor a larger
field from which to select the best men.
As to local election officers, the two organizations should not, as now, in
effect appoint them. The organization should be permitted merely to vouch
for the party membership and loyalty of certain individuals. That result would
be accomplished by the following




8


CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS:
The Board should require the two leading political organizations to recom=
mend several persons for each position to be filled.
The Board should investigate carefully the character of every person
recommended.
The Board should institute and maintain a thorough system of personal
record, as by alphabetical index, as to the previous careers of former election
officers and of all applicants for appointment as such.
The Board should grant no exemption from examination to any except those
whose known past service shows their ample qualification, and such exemption
should continue for not more than a certain period.
The Board should in no case grant such exemption to those who have previously served only as emergency appointees at the polls, and who have not
previously passed an examination.
The Board should not permit residence in the election district or assembly
district, in which the candidate is to serve, to be a condition to eligibility for
appointment.
The Board should so change the form of its " certificates of service " as to
make them give real information in reference to the official activities of the local
election officers.
Pending the enactment of legislation which will put the Municipal Civil
Service Commission in charge of examining candidates for appointment as local
election officers, the Board should conduct competitive examinations of all can=
didates. Such examinations should be real tests of qualification. Foolish ques=
tions and leading questions should be eliminated. False ratings of examination
papers should be prohibited-prevented where possible and punished where not
prevented.
The Board should more frequently exercise its power of removing election
officers for misconduct or neglect and should keep itself informed as to the
manner in which they perform their duties.
To obtain the maximum of improvement in the qualifications of local election officers, the following are recommended as
CHANGES BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT.
All examinations of candidates for appointment as local election officers
should be conducted by the Municipal Civil Service Commission in such way
as will not violate any of the accepted practices or principles of the merit system




9


or any of the essentials of bi=partisan conduct of elections. Such a way is
outlined in the report.
Emergency appointments at the polls should be made only from reserve
eligible lists of qualified candidates for the respective political parties, and the
restriction of appointment to persons residing in the election district should
be removed.
Independent voters and the public generally should be enabled to prevent
the appointment of demonstrably unqualified or unfit persons.
The organizations' power of summary removal of election officers should
be limited by requiring the approval of each request for removal, at least by the
respective parties' representatives on the Board.
As promptly as practicable the Board should take full advantage of the
recent legislation which empowers the designation of public schools and other
public buildings for use as polling places.
Pending the designation of such polling places, the Board should promptly
abandon entirely its practice of receiving recommendations of polling places
from the party organizations, and should make its sole aim the selection of the
most suitable places available, by whomever proposed.
Amendment of the statute should insure the safeguarding of the signature
copy of the register of voters by requiring its deposit in the interval between
the last day of registration and election day, in the appropriate police station
house.
The Board should promulgate promptly to the local election officers all
opinions of the corporation counsel or adjudications by the courts which relate
to the taking and counting of the votes and the rights of electors.
The Board should undertake as promptly as feasible an investigation which
will result in finding some means to reduce the labor and shorten the time
necessary for canvassing the vote on election day, in accordance with the provisions of law. Part of such investigation should be a study, including tests,
of the practicability of voting machines.
Such changes in the statute and in administrative methods will go far
toward emancipating the Commissioners of Elections from organization domination. Their selection of local election officers, while continuing to be made from
lists submitted by the two leading party organizations, pursuant to the plan
of bi-partisan election control, will be otherwise freed of organization influence.
The selection of polling places will be completely divorced from considerations
of organization patronage. In all phases of administration, the Board will be in
position to make its prime consideration the public interest and not the organizations' preferences.




REPORT.
DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS.
The Board of Elections of the City of New York is " charged with the
duty of executing the laws relating to all elections" held within the city.'
In practice the duty thus generally defined comprises the following more
important items:
Preparation and publication of party enrollments.
Division of assembly districts into election districts and the preparation of maps therefor.
Entering designations for primary elections and nominations for
general elections.
Canvassing the vote cast at primary elections.
Election advertising and publication of registry lists.
Preparation and provision of ballots, stationery, ballot boxes,
booths and other election paraphernalia for all elections.
Examination, appointment and supervision of more than 16,000
election officers to serve at the election district polling places.
Designation of more than 2,000 polling places for the election
districts.
COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD.
The Board consists of four Commissioners of Elections,2 not more
than two of whom " shall belong to the same political party or have the
same political opinion on state or national politics."3  Compliance is insured by the further provision4 that the respective chairmen of the New
York and Kings county committees of each of the two dominant parties
shall certify to the Board of Aldermen the name of a qualified voter of the
city " who is recommended as a fit and proper person to be appointed a
Commissioner of Elections."
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS.
Prior to 1911 appointment of Commissioners of Elections was by the
Mayor, but by statutory amendment in that year5 the power of appointment was taken from the Mayor and vested in the Board of Aldermen. This
1Election Law (Consol. laws, Chap. 17), Sec. 190. It is the Election Law which
is hereafter referred to, unless otherwise specified.
2The present Commissioners of Elections are Edward F. Boyle, of New York
County, President of the Board, and James Kane, of Kings County, Democrats; and
Moses M. McKee, of New, York County, Secretary of the Board, and Jacob A.
Livingston, of Kings County, Republicans. All have held office since January, 1911,
except Commissioner Boyle, who was appointed in January, 1915. James G. Britt
was a member and President of the Board from January, 1911, until his decease in
November, 1914.
'Sec. 190.
'Sec. 194.
'Laws 1911, Chap. 649.




11


amendment followed the decision' of the Court of Appeals which held2
that "the Mayor was not a mere ministerial officer to register the will of
the county committee and to appoint as one of the Commissioners of Elections any person designated by such committee." While the Mayor was
held bound to appoint from a list submitted by the party, he could compel
it to "continue to propose the names of individuals who will be approved
by it until one is proposed which the Mayor is satisfied to appoint."
The occasion of the litigation, which resulted in this decision and in the
statutory amendment referred to, was Mayor Gaynor's refusal to reappoint
Mr. James Kane. Commissioner of Accounts Fosdick had previously reported3 to the Mayor that Commissioner Kane appeared to be ignorant
of the operations both of the Board of Elections and of the Election Law and
seriously questioned his fitness for office. The refusal of the Kings County
Democratic Organization to recommend any other person for appointment
resulted in a deadlock which was followed by the litigation mentioned. After
the amendment which transferred the power of appointment to the Board
of Aldermen, Mr. Kane was reappointed by that body and has since been
twice reappointed by that body and still holds office. The present investigation has shown not only that Commissioner Kane has learned little or
nothing about the law or his Board, but also that his unfitness for office
continues.
The transfer of the power of appointment from the Mayor to the
Board of Aldermen was a distinct step backward.   The theory of the
requirement of bipartisan representation in the Board of Elections is that
the institution of a board so composed best tends to a fair and non-partisan
administration of the Election Law. That theory is sound. The same reason
justifies the requirement4 of bipartisan election boards in the election
districts throughout the city.
It follows, also, that, the plan of bipartisan board membership being
best, it becomes necessary to insure, so far as practicable, that the requirement of bipartisanship shall be more than merely a vague directory provision. Compliance therewith is rendered certain by the further mandate
that the boards, both central and local, shall be composed of persons recommended by the party organizations.5 In this way the loyalty of the
members of the boards to the parties they are intended respectively to
represent is determined and guaranteed by those in best position to know
and having the most selfish reasons for seeing to it that no mistake is made.
'Matter of Kane v. Gaynor, 202 N. Y. 615, affg. 144 App. Div. 196.
2The language quoted is from the Appellate Division opinion of Mr. Justice
Burr upon which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
'Report of a Special Examination of the Accounts and Methods of the Board
of Elections, by the Commissioner of Accounts, Dec. 28, 1910.
'Sec. 302.
Sections 194, 303.




12


"BI=ORGANIZATION " DOMINANCE.
The obvious danger of such a scheme of bipartisan boards manned by
"organization" personnel is that the boards so constituted will be not
merely bipartisan but "bi-organization "-that is, that the law will be administered not only in the public interest of fair elections (which alone the
bipartisan plan is intended to secure), but also or even more in the selfish
interest of the two political organizations as distinguished from that of the
rank and file of members of the dominant and other parties and of the
public generally. Under such a perversion of the plan intended, bipartisanship serves merely to insure that both organizations shall get all they can
and that one organization shall get as much as the other.
Keeping in mind that the members of the central Board of Elections,
as well as the local boards, owe their official positions to recommendation of their political organizations, it is easy to realize the pressure to which
the Commissioners of Elections must be subjected by their respective organizations for such "consideration" as may be obtainable.  The importunities for such consideration need call for nothing corrupt or unlawful.
There is a substantial field within the law and within the range of discretion
granted by the law to the Board, in which the latter may " take care of " the
organizations at the expense of the public, which receives as the result an
administration less serviceable than the law makes possible.
THE MAYOR SHOULD APPOINT.
The only available check upon such administration in the interest of the
organizations existed formerly in the fact that, though the organizations
recommended, the Mayor appointed the Commissioners of Elections. Holding conspicuous executive position and aware of the facility of fastening
upon him responsibility for a bad appointment, the Mayor of The City of
New York is likely to insist upon party recommendations of qualified persons before he will appoint. Certainly, he is likely to refuse to appoint an
individual who has no qualification beyond the fact that he suits the organization despite his incompetence. That was precisely the course followed by Mayor Gaynor in rejecting Commissioner Kane.
Not only does appointment by the Mayor tend to the selection of better
men. By reason of the part which the Mayor has in their selection, the
Commissioners, when appointed, realize that they owe their positions not
only to their organizations but also to the most important public representative in the local government. By so much their power of resistance to their
organizations is increased.
It was this check upon the Board's possible administration in the interest of the organizations that was removed when the law transferred the
appointing power to the Board of Aldermen. It is axiomatic that appointment to administrative office is properly an executive and not a legislative
function. When a legislative body of many members, like the Board of




13


Aldermen, is vested with appointing power, all sense of individual responsibility is destroyed. It is also a fact of practical politics that in small
districts like the aldermanic districts the political organizations are most
powerful. Therefore, vesting in the Board of Aldermen the power of appointing individuals recommended by the political organizations is tantamount in effect to vesting not only the power of recommendation but the
power of appointment itself in the organizations. This is well illustrated
by the Aldermen's repeated reappointment of Commissioner Kane. The
organization thus becomes not merely the partial but the sole appointing
power and the Commissioners, when appointed, feel responsibility chiefly
to their organizations. Organization dominance of administration accordingly becomes inevitable.
It is not enough merely to restore to the Mayor the power of appointing Commissioners of Elections. The Public Officers' Law1 should be so
amended, or its application to Commissioners of Elections be so excepted by
provision of the Election Law, that an incumbent will not hold over after the
expiration of his term until his successor has been appointed and qualified.
Otherwise, there would be lacking the self-interest which Mr. Justice Burr
held2 "would require the county committee to use its best endeavors to
propose an acceptable person." In the absence of such an amendment a
political organization could well persist in its refusal to propose a person
acceptable to the Mayor, for so long as the dead-lock continued its previous
nominee, who might as before be an unacceptable person, would continue in
office. With the amendment in effect, the party would do as the court
believed self-interest would lead it to do at the risk of being without complete representation on the Board.
A MORE REPRESENTATIVE BUT SMALLER BOARD.
The power of recommending individuals for appointment should not be
confined, as now,3 to the party organizations in New York and Kings
Counties. That restriction has resulted, quite naturally, in the recommendation always of residents of Manhattan and Brooklyn, respectively. It originated at the time of consolidation when Manhattan and Brooklyn were the
only substantial boroughs in the city. Queens was then negligible, and
Bronx County was included as part of New York County. The rapid
growth of both Queens and the Bronx and the political severance of Bronx
from New York County require the establishment of a more equitable
method in the choice of Commissioners of Elections, a method which will
give to each of the boroughs at least the chance of having a resident thereof
appointed to the Board of Elections. Moreover, if the county organizations
of the dominant parties in each of the counties within the city were to
recommend for appointment, there would be that degree of competition
1Consolidated Laws, Chap. 47, Sec. 5.
2Matter of Kane against Gaynor, 144 App. Div. at p. 207.
'Sections 194, 195.




14


which, with the appointing power in the Mayor, would result in the recommendation of the best men.
The necessity for four Commissioners of Elections rather than two is
not apparent. For several years the Commissioners who have been the
Board's President and its Secretary, respectively, have done nearly all of its
work. Certainly, they alone, so far as can be found, have initiated improvement in administrative policy. To administrative detail, likewise, the other
Commissioners appear to have contributed nothing. With the Board's staff
of subordinates divided into a central office and five borough offices, each
supervised by a chief clerk, its routine work has been done well, with the
assistance almost exclusively of the Board's President and its Secretary.
Commissioner Kane's complete lack of qualification has already been
mentioned and will be referred to again. Certainly, his total uselessness
demonstrates the superfluity of his place on the Board. Likewise the place
of Commissioner Livingston appears to be of no public use. During the past
session of the legislature, particularly, he was so largely occupied as an
organization leader (he is chairman of the executive committee of the Kings
County Republican Organization) interested in matters of legislation (not
on behalf of the Board of Elections) that little constructive thought could
have been devoted by him to his duties as Commissioner of Elections.
The chief activity which Commissioners Kane and Livingston appear to
have shown in connection with Board matters has been to attend meetings
of the Board once a week, except during some periods, when meetings or
hearings were held oftener. Though usually present at these, their usefulness there is not apparent. This is not merely personal to them. With able
and industrious men filling the other two commissionerships, as has in recent
years been the case, there is nothing left to be done by two of the four
incumbents. They serve only as obstructions, particularly since enforced
idleness in official matters gives them ample time to devote to organization
interests.
One phase of Commissioner Livingston's political activity in connection
with the election of 1914 is illuminating. Being a Commissioner of Elections and also executive committee chairman of the Kings County Republican Organization, he is at the same time, and for two years has been,
the Republican executive committeeman, or leader, of the Twenty-second
Assembly District in Kings County.
HOW   THE LAW   MAY BE PERVERTED.
The Election Law' contains elaborate provision by which independent
bodies of citizens may nominate local and other candidates for election under
a party name and emblem, which they may designate upon their so-called
independent certificate of nomination. The purpose, of course, is to faciliLArticle 5.




15
tate the nomination of individuals and representatives of political doctrine
other than those nominated or espoused by organized political parties.
In the conduct of practical partisan politics, however, it has not infrequently occurred that district leaders of existing political parties have perverted these provisions of the Election Law to the advantage of their own
parties and its local candidates. The procedure in such instances has been
to appropriate the political name and emblem of an independent body and
to circulate nominating certificates among individuals who are not enrolled
members of existing parties. By those certificates the party procures a
second nomination of the individuals who are its party nominees for office,
and then files the complete certificate of nomination, thus nominating its own
candidates under the name and emblem of the independent party in advance
of the filing of any other certificate designating the same political name and
emblem. This perversion is made possible either through the absence in a
given district of the independent body's hastily formed organization, or
by reason of its tardiness in getting under way.
The district leader having thus appropriated the name and emblem of
the independent body for his own candidates, is then in position to nominate
them on two tickets, that of the party and that of the independent body. Or,
by controlling the so-called committee to fill vacancies, which is supposed to
act when the individuals nominated by the independent certificates decline
the nominations, he may prevent the independent body, if the committee to
fill vacancies should fail to act, from having any candidates on the local
ticket. The district leader then follows the expedient best conducive to the
election of his candidates.
THE "AMERICAN PARTY" IN COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON'S DISTRICT.
In the record of this investigation is a letter which Commissioner Livingston testified bears his signature. It reads as follows:
"HEADQUARTERS
of the
TWENTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT REPUBLICAN CLUB,
of Kings County
236 Barbey Street
Brooklyn, N. Y., October 13, 1914.
----—, Esq.,....................
[Name and address deleted in original].
Dear Sir:Please get as many of these petitions as possible signed by voters
who are not enrolled republicans, and return them to Mr. Spencer at




16


this club house not later than TEN  O'CLOCK WEDNESDAY
EVENING, OCTOBER 14, 1914, because they must be filed by
midnight.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) J. A. LIVINGSTON."
While Commissioner Livingston testified that "these petitions" referred to in the letter "might not apply to petitions" of the American
Party, which was the name of an independent body of citizens, he was able
to recall no other independent petition or certificate of nomination to which
his letter could have referred. Independent certificates or petitions of
nomination were the only ones which had to be filed by midnight of
October 14, 1914.
The conclusion is inevitable that the Livingston letter referred to
American Party petitions which nominated the same individuals who
were the Republican candidates respectively for Congressman from the
Tenth Congressional District, New York; State Senator from the Tenth
Senatorial District, Kings County, and member of the Assembly from the
Twenty-third Assembly District, Kings County. The Tenth Congressional
District and the Tenth Senatorial District included Mr. Livingston's own
district, the Twenty-second Assembly District, in which, also, American
Party petitions were circulated nominating under the name and emblem
of that body the same Republican candidates for Congressman and Senator.
In both these petitions there was named as the committee to fill vacancies
three individuals, all of whom, the evidence shows, could be safely counted
upon to act in the interest of the Republican candidates.
These American Party certificates of nomination which nominated
the Republican local candidates were duly filed with the Board of Elections.
Four minutes before the expiration of the time for the filing of declinations of nomination the Republican candidates named in the American
Party certificates declined that nomination. There was no further time
for the circulation of an American Party certificate of nomination for other
candidates for the same offices, and the safely Republican committee to
fill the vacancies created by the declination of the Republican candidates
named in the American Party certificate of nomination neglected to fill
the vacancies. Result: the American Party had no candidates on the
ballot in opposition to Commissioner Livingston's local Republican candidates.
The significance of the performance just outlined lies not so much in
the fact that it indicates the leisure which Commissioner Livingston's official
duties leave for his engaging in practical politics at a time of pressure in
the Board's work, as in the fact that it illustrates the facility with which
an official who is not continuously engrossed in the performance of his
official duties may lapse into the doing of things not in keeping with his




17


official position. As a member of the Board of Elections it was Commissioner Livingston's duty to administer not only the letter but the spirit of
the Election Law. It was, therefore, improper for him to participate or to
permit himself to be drawn even partially into participation in a perversion
of the intention of the Election Law, however completely his action was
within the letter of the law. In his insistence that though a Commissioner
of Elections he had "all the rights of an American citizen," Commissioner
Livingston's testimony as to this transaction shows his lamentable obtuseness as to the proprieties incident to the holding of public office.
Another fact in this relation is that when certain questions with reference to administration of the Election Law were put to Commissioner
Livingston as a witness in this inquiry, he was careful to ask before answering whether he should answer as a Commissioner of Elections or as a
politician. His precision in differentiating between the dual aspects of
his personality leads to a realization of the difficulty which must confront
him when required, as a member of the Board, to settle important matters
of administrative policy.
LOCAL ELECTION OFFICERS.
The appointment, supervision and discipline of local election officers
is among the most important branches of the work committed to the Board
of Elections and is, at the same time, one of the branches in which the
Board's administration has been most unsatisfactory.
There is genuine need for improvement in the personnel of the local
election boards. The Board of Elections has been too content to accept
the organizations' candidates without adequate inquiry into, or test of their
qualifications. This does not mean that the organization representatives
in the local boards have in general been either dishonest, corrupt or stupid.
Under any system of selecting 16,000 individuals many such are likely to
slip in. The conclusion, however, is unavoidable that the methods of the
Board have not been such as to tend to the selection of persons best
qualified in character and intelligence for this service.
The need for improvement in this regard is generally conceded by the
most enlightened of the political leaders and by the most thoughtful of
the Commissioners. Thus, Mr. Samuel S. Koenig, president of the New
York County Republican Committee testified that the calibre of the men
ought to be improved and that he had found Republican representatives had
been selected who were not competent to carry out the duties of the office.
Mr. Koenig had, indeed, discussed with Commissioner McKee the matter
of improving the personnel of the local election boards. He stated his
belief that it was "up to " the Board of Elections to increase the test for
efficiency, which also had been the subject of conversation between him
and Commissioner McKee.




18


The failure of the Board to obtain a better grade of local election
officers is readily explained by the methods it has followed with reference
to each step in the procedure by which they are selected.
APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION.
The law provides' that the Board of Elections must appoint four
inspectors of election, two poll clerks and two ballot clerks for each election
district. They constitute the local election boards. The appointments as
to each class of officers are equally divided between the two dominant
parties and are made from a list of persons furnished by each of said parties,
such list being authenticated2 by the chairmen of the respective party
county committees within the city.3
The organization recommendations for appointment as local election
officers are made upon application blanks furnished by the Board of Elections, which are filled in and verified by the applicant for appointment, and
countersigned at the end of formal recommendation with a rubber-stamped
signature of the party chairman. Two qualified voters usually certify, also,
on the application blank to the good character of the applicant. Often the
same individuals certify to the good character of large numbers of applicants.
In practice, the recommendations for appointment as local election officers are made by the party district captains in each election district, who
forward their recommendations to the assembly district leader, and he in
turn transmits them to the county headquarters, where somebody affixes the
rubber-stamped signature of the party chairman and sends them en masse
to the office of the Board of Elections.
NO EFFORT TO LIMIT ORGANIZATION DOMINANCE.
There is nothing to indicate any attempt by the Board of Elections to
verify either the good character of the applicant or the standing of his two
sponsors, who are usually associates in his district political organization,
happy to affix their signatures to a statement which they regard as an empty
form. So, also, the Board accepts without attempt at verification the applicant's statements as to his residence, his previous service as an election
officer, his employment during the preceding three years, his statement as to
whether he was discharged or removed by any preceding employer, and if
so, the cause thereof, and whether he had ever been arrested for felony or
misdemeanor, etc. Again, the Board has made no adequate attempt, by
means of alphabetical index to keep itself in position to be readily informed
'Sections 302, 303.
'Section 304.
'Laws of 1915, Chap. 678, amended this section in such way as to have the
party list authenticated by the chairman of the county committee instead of by the
chairman of the executive committee, as was formerly provided. It is said that this
amendment was secured by Commissioner Livingston, who being also the chairman
of the Kings County executive committee, is said to have felt embarrassment in recommending as party leader candidates to be appointed in part by himself as one of the
members of the Board of Elections.




19


of its past experience or information previously obtained with reference to
any individual who applies for or becomes a local election officer. As the
result, incompetent and otherwise unqualified individuals have served even
after their disqualification was known by the Board or was matter of public
knowledge or record. The seriousness of this omission was recognized by
some of the Commissioners in their testimony in this investigation, and it is
entirely likely that it will shortly be remedied, if that has not already been
done.
The fact is that the political organizations have usually regarded local
election boards as berths for party henchmen to be distributed among the
party faithful rather than necessarily among the best qualified in the party.
Unfortunately, this also has been the prevailing view of the Board of
Elections. This is amply shown by the Board's administration, while Commissioner Kane openly espoused the organization viewpoint when he testified to his belief that the parties should designate the inspectors and the
polling places as matters of legitimate patronage necessary to maintain the
existence of the organization, since " no party can live without patronage."
Here was a curious inversion. Instead of the organizations being utilized as
a means of securing non-partisan elections, the Board of Elections was to be
utilized as a means of sustaining the organizations.
EXEMPTION FROM EXAMINATION.
The law provides' that the qualifications required for election officers,
namely, that they shall be able to speak and read the English language
understandingly, to write it legibly and to possess a general knowledge of
the duties of the office to which they are appointed, shall be determined as the
result of an examination by the Board of Elections.
It is further provided2 "that if the person recommended shall have
served as an election official at any previous election, it shall not be necessary for him to be examined."
The Board of Elections has never obtained from the Corporation
Counsel or from the Attorney General any opinion as to what constitutes
"previous service " within the section just quoted, nor has it ever promulgated its own definition, if any has been adopted, of that provision. No
legal advice has been asked as to whether the effect of the provision is to
confer mandatory exemption from examination upon candidates for appointment who have served previously. The two Brooklyn Commissioners
testified that in their opinion the section was mandatory in granting exemption, while the Manhattan Commissioners held to the contrary view, Commissioner Boyle stating, "You would have to torture the English language
to make it mandatory."
In practice, the Board, even without authoritative definition of what
constitutes previous service, has accepted as final the statement of the appli1Section 302.
SSection 305.




20


cant upon his application blank that he had served before. Also, it has
been the practice of the Board to exempt from examination those applicants
who state that they have previously served, except that applicants for appointment as inspectors or as poll clerks who state that they have previously
served only as ballot clerks, are required to take an examination.
EXTENT AND EFFECT OF EXEMPTION.
The grant of exemption has been so extensive that annually 12,000 applicants, or 75 per cent of the total number employed, have been appointed
without examination. The seriousness of this is realized when it is kept in
mind that of the 12,000 who thus are appointed annually without examination, many are exempted on their own unconfirmed statements as to previous
service. Their statements may well refer to emergency service by appointment at the polls' for a period of not more than a single day or a single
hour, and as a prerequisite to which no examination was ever required.
This method of administration, while obviously in the interest of organization patronage, in that it tends to facilitate the appointment of persons
recommended by the organization leaders, cannot be justified. If the Board
had been more disposed to insure the qualification of its local officers than
to facilitate the appointment of organization candidates, it would at the very
least have requested an authoritative opinion from its legal adviser as to the
meaning and effect of the statute in question. Certainly, its contradictory
interpretation of that provision, in conferring exemption upon certain classes
of election officers and withholding it from others, cannot be based on any
interpretation which holds the provision to be mandatory. If it is upon the
construction of the section as discretionary that the Board has adopted the
practice of exempting candidates for appointment as inspectors and poll
clerks, who state that they have previously served in either capacity, and of
requiring examination of candidates for those positions who have served
only as ballot clerks, then the basis upon which the discretion has been exercised is arbitrary and unsound. It includes no effort to ascertain the
actual previous experience or qualification of those to whom the exemption
is granted and it takes no account of the fact that previous service as an
inspector on registration day furnishes but negligible experience in the duties
of an inspector or poll clerk on election day.
The correct construction of the statute is that it confers discretion upon
the Board to exempt from examination those applicants for appointment as
local election officers whose previous experience as such satisfies the Board
of their qualifications, moral and mental. In any event, there should be an
immediate stop to the practice of exempting from examination applicants
who have served only as emergency appointees at the polls. This is conceded by all the members of the Board. Yet, though three of them have
held their positions since 1911, they had not up to the time of this in4,000 officials, or 25 per cent of the total number, are so appointed annually.
This subject is considered again hereafter.




21


vestigation seen fit to limit the field of organization patronage by discontinuing this practice.
APPOINTMENTS.
The law provides1 that each political party entitled to representation in the local boards may file with the central Board of Elections '"an
original list of persons, members of such party duly qualified to serve
as election officers," such list2 to be authenticated by the county committee chairmen, and the persons so proposed for appointment to be
examined3 as to their possessing the requisite qualifications. The selection of election officers is made by the Commissioners who represent the
same political party as those which the local officers represent.4
The uniform practice has been that the parties have recommended
one person for each position to be filled, the recommendation originating
with the election district captain. If the individual recommended fails upon
the examination or for other reason is found unqualified, the parties recommend one other person in his stead, though the law permits5 a supplemental list of " not more than 10 names " for each such office to be filled.
Accordingly, while there is nothing in the law which requires that the
examinations shall be competitive, there is likewise nothing in it which prevents the Board in its discretion from requiring that they shall be.  A
method of administration which preferred to insure the appointment of
the best qualified men rather than to assist in the distribution of party
patronage would have required the organizations to recommend more than
one person for each position, would subject all to a competitive examination,
and would select the party representative who received the highest rating.
This course, however, has not been followed by the Board of Elections,
its only excuse being ancient custom to the contrary.
The Election Law provides6 that a person may be appointed a local
election officer to serve in any district within the county in which he
is a qualified voter. The practice of the political organizations has been,
so far as possible, to recommend for appointment to positions in the various
election districts only residents thereof and seldom to go outside of the
assembly district. In support of this practice the party leaders urge that it
tends to insure fair elections to have the polls manned by residents of the
neighborhood, who by their mere presence deter impostors from presenting
themselves. Assuming that there is some basis for this argument, without
considering the opportunities for fraud that may likewise lurk in intimacy
between the local political organizations and the local election officers,
it would still appear that a vast improvement in the qualification of local
'Section 303
'Section 304.
8Section 305.
'Section 306.
'Section 303.
'Section 302.




22


election officers would be obtained, if the party organizations were required
to submit for examination the names of more than one candidate for each
position. Then the candidate who obtained the highest rating might be
appointed for the election district in which he lived, where possible. The
others who passed the examination, but not with the highest rating, could
be appointed in the order of their eligibility, to serve in other election districts in the county when there is difficulty in finding properly qualified men
and in which even now appointments must occasionally be made from
outside the assembly district.
EXAMINATIONS.
The inclination of the Board to place no obstacle in the way of the
organizations' distribution of patronage is evidenced, however, not only
in the wholesale grant for exemption from examination and in the unjustified
restriction of the number of those from whom selection of local officers is
made.
From previous references to examination of candidates, it may be
assumed that this examination was a real test of qualification, something
which in fact ascertained whether the candidate possessed " a general knowledge of the duties of the office "1 to which he aspires. Such an assumption is unfounded. The examinations are still a farce.
Commissioner Fosdick in an earlier report, already referred to, stated2
that "examinations of proposed election officers have been allowed to
become farcical." The particular method which he found to have been
employed is indicated by the following extract from his report:3
"The testimony taken in the investigation showed that the candidates not only conferred with one another during the examinations,
as to the answers to be written upon their papers, but did so with the
full knowledge of the officials in charge. Several inspectors and
clerks who served in recent elections testified that a written list of
answers was handed to them by the same official who gave them the
examination paper. In many instances, lists of answers appear to
have been placed upon the desks where the candidates tried their
examinations. This condition seems to have been most flagrant
in the Brooklyn branch of the Board of Elections. In the Second
Assembly District of Kings County, twenty or more inspectors have
recently been indicted for their conduct of the Democratic primary
in September, 1910. The examination papers, filed for this and
other Brooklyn districts, show that in scores of cases all the answers
are identical, word for word, ditto mark for ditto mark. One man
who evidently had received the wrong examination paper copied a
'Section 302.
2Page 2,
'Pages 2-4.




23


list of answers which did not correspond in any respect with the
questions on his paper. Although the fraud was obvious, this paper
was accepted and the candidate declared to be qualified. Conrad
Thompson, a clerk in the Brooklyn branch office of the Board of
Elections, entrusted by the Board to pass upon the qualifications
of candidates, admitted that he made it a practice to approve examination papers without even glancing at the answers therein contained.
The fact that in 1909 and 1910, only 123 candidates were rejected
of 28,310 who tried the examinations is in itself almost conclusive.
In both Brooklyn and Manhattan, candidates were constantly passed
as being qualified when they had given to questions, concerning the
use of ballots, answers indicating acts, which, if committed, would
have been felonies or misdemeanors.
"The members of the Board of Elections appear to have had
ample knowledge of this condition.  On July 27, 1910, the board
received a communication from the City Club calling attention to
the situation herein disclosed. By a vote of the board, this communication was ordered to be filed without investigation."
EXAMINATION PAPERS.
In an attempt to ascertain whether the same method of conducting examinations has persisted since the publication of Commissioner Fosdick's
report, the production of the examination papers of candidates for appointment in 1914 was requested. Those for the Borough of Manhattan had been
destroyed, it is said, by direction of the late Commissioner Britt at a date
unusually early, so that they were not available for inspection after this
investigation began in December, 1914. The examination papers for Brooklyn were, however, produced. They showed the adoption of a new way to
remove uncertainty from the minds of organization candidates and to prevent the examinations from impeding the fulfillment of organization desires.
The Board adopted a rule that not less than two-thirds of the ten, eleven
or twelve examination questions must be correctly answered to pass the
candidate. Not infrequently included in the questions were such as these:
"By whom are you employed, in what capacity and at what
address?
"How long have you resided at the above given address?
"Are you willing to serve in any election district of the county
in which you reside to which you may be assigned?"
Other questions were often leading. Then, too, there was found the
convenient system of rating by check mark or cross mark over each answer,
indicating that the question was rightly or wrongly answered. Yet, though
it often appeared on the face of the paper that the examiner had marked as
wrong half or more of the answers, he passed the candidate, sometimes
endeavoring to erase some of the marks which indicated a wrong answer.




24


RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FARCE.
Failure to observe and to terminate this situation is chargeable against
the Board. The law, however, must share some of the responsibility. It
provides' that "the members of the Board charged with the duty of appointing election officers who represent the same political party, shall have
the exclusive right, or be charged with the exclusive duty, of selecting from
the list submitted * * * the members of such party who are to be appointed as election officers." Under this provision the Board delegates the
examination and rating of papers to a clerk of the same political faith as the
respective sets of candidates. It is not unnatural for an examiner, who
probably owes his appointment to the same political leader or organization
which sponsored the applicants whose papers he is examining, to "stretch
a point " in his effort to qualify those applicants. Commissioner Livingston,
when shown specimens of examination papers bearing marks sufficient in
number to indicate the failure of applicants, who none the less were passed,
admitted that it looked as if there was a desire rather to pass the candidates than to test their qualifications.
The statutory provision which thus invites such a burlesque rating of
examination papers serves no real purpose. It should be repealed. So long
as candidates must be sponsored by the respective party organizations, there
is no real danger that the scheme of bipartisan membership of the local election boards can be defeated, even if the appointment of local officers and the
rating of the examination papers were made either by the Board as a whole
or by any of its subordinates without regard to the latter's political faith.
This whole matter of the selection of local election officers indicates that
the Board has exercised all the discretion committed to it toward making
itself an adjunct of the political organizations rather than an instrument of
public service. At the time of Commissioner Fosdick's report it appears
that nearly all candidates for positions as election officers were examined.
After his report had directed attention to the absurdity of examinations in
which the answers to questions were furnished in advance and in which candidates were permitted unlimited copying of answers, with the result that of
28,310 persons examined in 1909 and 1910 only 123 were rejected, new devices had to be created, lest organization patronage be jeopardized. Then
began the wholesale grant of exemption from examination, followed by fake
rating of the papers of those who were examined. Ingenuity was not lacking thus to bring about a change of method with identical result.
AN INSTANCE OF COMMISSIONER KANE'S IGNORANCE.
Commissioner Kane's complete ignorance of the fact that any examinations were given indicates the degree of thought which he must have
devoted to the matter of making them effective tests of the candidates' competence. He testified as follows:
'Section 306.




25


" Q. Are you acquainted, Commissioner, with the procedure with
reference to the examining of applicants for positions as election
officers?
"A. Yes.
"Q. What is your understanding of those who are exempt from
examination?
"A. Exempt?
"Q. Yes.
"A. I don't know-I don't think the county committee would
recommend any one who was exempt. I don't know as there has
ever been any one presented, the names, that has been exempt.
"Q. That is, your understanding is that everybody who is
recommended for the position"A. So long as he qualifies.
"Q. How does he qualify?
"A. Well, he has to fill in a blank sheet, a printed sheet"Q. Yes"A. And after he qualifies why he is sworn in.
"Q. That is all that is necessary for him to become an election
official?
"A. He has to be sworn in, that is about all.
"Q. Doesn't he have to take any mental examination?
"A. He has to fill out this paper.
"Q. That is the application blank for appointment?
"A. Yes, the application blank.
"Q. Aside from that there is nothing else he need do?
"A. No.
"Q. Your understanding then is there are some that take a
mental examination and others that do not?
" A. There is not any one who takes a mental examination. He
has to fill out his blank sheet.
"Q. Well, now, there are these examination papers like those I
show you now.
"A. Yes.
"Q. Are these the application blanks you refer to?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Well, now, won't you look at these papers, Commissioner,
and see if they are not the questions and answers upon the mental examination that the candidates are subjected to; that is the mental
examination paper, isn't it?
"A. Yes, that is the examination paper."




26


SELECTION OF ELECTION OFFICERS IN NEW JERSEY.
The New Jersey law' and practice in the matter of choosing local
election officers present an interesting contrast to the New York system. In
New Jersey, as in New York, the election district is the smallest political
unit. It, too, contains a maximum of 400 voters. There are four instead
of eight election officers appointed for each election district and appointments are for a period of two years.
One representative of each of the two leading political parties is appointed
each year, with the result that there are always two experienced men on
each local board. The county chairmen of the dominant parties are required
to recommend for examination men of good moral character and more than
the number to be appointed. The examination is then conducted by the
State Civil Service Commission in each county. Applicants are examined as
to their ability to distinguish ordinary colors, to read the English language
in nonpareil type, to add and substract correctly and to write legibly and with
reasonable facility. They are particularly examined as to their knowledge
of the Election Law.
The State Civil Service Commission certifies to the judge or judges of
the Court of Common Pleas in each county and to the County Board of Elections therein, the applicants who pass the examinations. The applicants so
certified are then placed on what is known as the " eligible list," i. e., the
list of applicants who are qualified and eligible for appointment from each
party. The applicants so certified become eligible to appointment for six
years thereafter without further examination.
If there is not a sufficient number of names on the "eligible list" for
an election district, or if for any reason a vacancy occurs in a district, the
judge or judges of the Court of Common Pleas select, without civil service
examination, a member for each such vacancy from the voters of the proper
political party in that election district, certify the same to the County Board
of Elections, and it appoints the men so certified. Any voter is permitted
to present to the judge or judges of the Court of Common Pleas recommendations to assist him in filling the vacancies.
A unique feature of the New Jersey system is the provision that any
voter may petition the court for an order annulling appointments upon the
ground of irregularity in making them or of disqualification or ineligibility
of the appointee. Upon the filing of such petition the judge is required to
make a summary adjudication after notice to the County Board of Elections and to the persons concerned. If the petition is sustained, the judge
names a new appointee to serve for the unexpired term of the officer
removed.
There are certain features of the New Jersey system which are defective. Those points, however, which have been mentioned can profitably
be adapted to meet some of the needs presented by the situation in this city.
'Laws of New Jersey, 1911, Ch. 183.




27


RECENT LEGISLATION CHANGING HOURS OF REGISTRATION.
The last session of the Legislature did much to assist the Board in improving the quality of its local officers. The days and hours of registration
previously provided,l Friday and Saturday of two successive weeks from
7 A. M. to 10 P. M., were such as to discourage the service as local election
officers of many well qualified persons who could not remain absent from
their usual occupations during the hours of registration. By act of the last
session,2 registration periods were made 5.30 to 10.30 every evening of a
specified week, except Saturday, and 7 A. M. to 10.30 P. M. on that day.
This change should attract offers of service from a large number of young
men engaged in clerical or professional occupation, whose experience best
fits them for service as election officers. The Board of Elections should do
all it can to induce the political organizations to recommend as many as
possible of this new class of men thus made available.
REMOVAL OF ELECTION PARAPHERNALIA.
An apparently slight thing which the Board has power to do and which,
if done, would assist in getting more intelligent local election officers, is to
request the Police Commissioners to detail patrolmen to assist the local
officers at the close of the canvass, in compliance with law,4 to deposit the
ballot boxes in the precinct station house. The task involved in dragging
these boxes, often a considerable distance, as is now the practice, deters many
men, unwilling to do this work but otherwise well qualified, from offering
their services on the local boards.
APPOINTMENT AT THE POLLS.
The law provides5 that if at the time for service there is any vacancy
in the personnel of the district election boards, "the inspector present who
shall be a member -of the same political party as the absent inspector shall
appoint a qualified voter of the district, who shall also be a member of
the same political party as the absent inspector, to act in the place of such
absent inspector for the whole of that day." Similar provision is made
for the filling of all possible vacancies in the district election boards on
primary, registration or election days.
The purpose is to provide a method for insuring the bipartisan character of the district election boards. But the operation of the statute
shows the need of amending it.
In 1913 there were 1950 such emergency appointments at the polls, and
4483 in 1914. There was, of course, no opportunity for determination
of the mental or character qualifications of those emergency appointees.
'Section 158.
'Laws of 1915, Chap. 678, Section 11.
'Section 199.
'Section 374.                                                 i ' 
'Section 313.:




28


Under the Board's system of exemption from examination they became
in many instances ever after immune from such examination. Again,
nothing in the law preventing it, there were among such emergency appointees in 1914, 54 persons who had been rejected after mental examination
by the Board, of whom 11 served in Manhattan, 25 in Queens, 1 in Richmond, and 17 in Brooklyn. Further, in that year one individual, a Democratic captain of the 15th Election District of the 26th Assembly District,
Manhattan, was sworn in as an emergency Republican poll clerk on election
day, despite the fact that he was then under indictment for conspiracy to
promote fraud at a previous election in that same district. Likewise at
the same election in the 15th Election District of the 35th Assembly District,
Bronx, one Jones, a Democrat, was sworn at the polls as a Republican poll
clerk, so that during almost the entire day the district had two Democratic
poll clerks.
Under the provision for such emergency appointments it becomes easy,
also, for leaders in districts in which the two organizations may for the
time have combined for their common profit, to supply to the central Board
of Elections the names of dummies, who may or may not take and pass the
Board's examinations, and afterwards to have those individuals absent
themselves from duty on election day, so that their places may be filled
at the polls by more pliant representatives. The statute, in addition, facilitates the appointment of individuals at the polls whose inability to pass
a mental or character test is notorious. In short, the present statute invites
fraud, permits the appointment of dishonest and incompetent persons,
and opens the way to breaking down the system of bipartisan district
boards, upon which, alone, rests the public's assurance of fair and honest
elections.
Every proper purpose of the statute would be subserved and its
defects eliminated, if it were so amended as to permit the central Board
to maintain a reserve list of persons residing anywhere in the county and
qualified morally and mentally, as determined by competitive examination,
such reserve force to be held in readiness at the Board's borough offices for
assignment as and where they were needed. The vice of the present provision is quite generally conceded by the Commissioners of Elections, and
Commissioners Boyle and McKee expressed their approval of an amendment
such as has been indicated.
DISCIPLINE AND REMOVAL.
Local election officers may be removed by the central Board as follows: First, for cause after notice in writing to the officer to be removed
setting forth the reasons for his removal, except for improper conduct
while the officer is actually on duty on a registration or an election day,
when the Board has summary power of removal. Secondly, it is the duty
si'.:: 'Section 308.
* i




29


of the Board to remove forthwith such officer "without preferring any
charges and without notice to such officer, upon the written request of
the official of the political party who certified the name of such election
officer or his successor."  Thirdly, it is further provided' that for
failure to take and subscribe the oath of office, or for willful neglect or
refusal to discharge his duties, an election officer may be fined a hundred
dollars, to be sued for and recovered in a court of record. The practical
futility of this last provision has rendered it a dead letter.
REMOVAL ON MOTION OF THE BOARD.
The purpose of the provision for removal by the Board after notice and
hearing is similar to the purpose of like provisions in relation to other administrative offices. Specially adapting the usual administrative power
of removal to the exigencies of election service, the Board is given the power
summarily to remove local election officers while on duty, since otherwise, if
the customary provision for notice and hearing were required, removal
could not be effected in time to prevent the recurrence or continuance of
misconduct.
Until recently the Board had used but little its power of removal on
charges. It cannot, however, be assumed that this has been due to the
fact that there has been no occasion for the exercise of such disciplinary
power. The contrary is indicated in part by the fact that 22 local election
officers who served at the special election of April, 1914, were indicted and
pleaded guilty to violations of the Election Law. The information upon
which these convictions were obtained was furnished to the District Attorney,
not by the Board, but by a vigilant voluntary organization, the Honest
Ballot Association. Again, following reports received by the same organization from its watchers at the general election of 1914, it filed with the
Board complaints of incompetency against election officers in 291 election
districts. These complaints the Board heard exhaustively, with the result
that 614 election officers were disciplined-52 being removed, 282 reprimanded and 280 cautioned. Among the removals were five cases which
were referred by the Board to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution.
Clearly, there is need not only for the exercise of the Board's disciplinary power, but also for the institution by it of some system by which
its representatives or members of the police force stationed in or near
the various polling places should be required to keep it informed of the
manner in which local election officers perform their duties. The Board
should not be content to rely so completely upon the watchfulness of
unofficial agencies or to ignore the manner of its subordinates' performance
of their duties at the local polling places. Certainly, the Board should not
discourage appeals to its disciplinary jurisdiction as it did when, prior to
'Section 310.




30


the announcement that this investigation had been directed, it declined
to issue and serve its subpoenas upon witnesses and dismissed complaints
upon the non-appearance of witnesses whom the Honest Ballot Association
could only request to attend the Board's sessions.
CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE.
In this connection, too, it should be stated that the so-called "certificates of service" which the Board requires in order to learn whether its
local officers have served at their stations, are singularly unilluminating.
They should provide at least for a statement of the periods of absence
of each local officer, together with the reason for and duration thereof.
Also, in relation to officers appointed at the polls, they should show the
hour of appointment and the exact period during which service continued.
SUMMARY REMOVAL AT PARTY REQUEST.
Some provision by which the political parties may guard against the
disloyalty of previously designated representatives on the local election
boards is essential to safeguarding the bipartisan system. The existing
provision, however, while it serves that purpose, lends itself readily to
abuse. As has been seen, the law makes no requirement that the official
must serve in the election or assembly district in which he lives. Indeed,
the contrary intention of the Legislature is clearly shown by the fact that
earlier provisions making such requirement were specifically amended so
as to extend eligibility for service in any election district to any resident of
the county in which the election district is located.
Political leaders, nevertheless, have testified that, with no question of
party loyalty involved, they have frequently secured the summary removal
of election officers for no reason other than that the latter had changed
their residences either from one election district to another in the same
assembly district, or from one assembly district to another in the same
county.
ABUSE OF SUMMARY REMOVAL AT PRIMARIES.
The records show, too, numerous instances of summary removals
at party request on the eve of primary elections. President Koenig of
the New York County Republican Committee freely admitted that, prior
to the primaries of 1912, in the 7th Assembly District of Manhattan, he
had caused the summary removal of every Republican election officer previously and regularly appointed for that assembly district. This he did,
as he testified, not by reason of any question of the officers' competence
or their loyalty to the Republican Party, but only by reason of an impending
factional contest within the party. President McAvoy of the New York
County Democratic Committee indicated quite clearly the possibility of
similar action by local leaders of his party.




31


If honest and fair general elections can be secured only by means of
rigid adherence to the principle of securing bipartisan personnel at the polls,
the same would seem to be true with reference to primary elections. Certainly, there should be nothing in the law which facilitates the control
of the personnel of primary election boards by a single faction in districts
in which there are contests.
Much toward remedying this situation was accomplished by recent
amendments to the Election Law,' which require that election boards in
charge of primaries shall be identical with those in charge of general
elections, and that the primary district shall be coterminous with the election
district. Yet, even under the law as amended, if the parties' summary
power of removal continues unchecked, it is quite likely that abuse similar
to that just mentioned will occur again. It is not unknown in practical
politics in this city for certain factions in both the dominant parties in
a given district to unite in order to defeat at the primaries a contestant
for control in one or other of the parties. In such a situation the purposes
of the combined factions could well be effected, even under the new statute,
through the removal by each of unfriendly election officers.
OPEN DOOR TO INEFFICIENCY AND FRAUD.
The procedure by which the county chairmen of the parties exercise
the power of summary removal is similar to that by which they exercise their
like power of recommending candidates for appointment. The requests for
removal, like the recommendations for appointment, originate with the
election district captains, who pass them on to the assembly district chairmen, and they in turn transmit them to the county chairman. This is upon
the theory that the district captain is best qualified to know the party
loyalty of the party election officer in his district.
Such a system, however, lends itself quite readily to the arbitrary removal of an election officer because of personal dislike or other motive
which has no relation either to the party loyalty or to the competence of
the officer whose removal is desired. This possibility is the more emphasized by the testimony of the county chairmen to the effect that they seldom
made any investigation as to the reasons which prompted the district captain
to request the removal of local election officers. It thus becomes easy for
an unscrupulous local party leader to replace honest, competent and loyal
election officers by individuals who are willing to lend themselves to a
scheme, for instance, which will facilitate the importation of "floaters"
and the perpetration of other frauds at primaries or elections. The system,
also, invites undue party domination of the local officer's performance of
his duties, and discourages the efficient officer. Altogether, the parties'
summary power of removal as now provided and exercised is not in the
public interest.
'Laws of 1915, Chap. 678, Sections 70, 74, 78.




32


The remedy is beyond the power of the Board of Elections. The
Board,recognizes the defects of the present system and quite without statutory authority at its meeting of September 28, 1914, Primary Day, adopted
a motion that "all applications for the removal of election officers when
there are no responsible and proper persons to be put in their place, be
rejected," not however, until after Commissioner Kane had demanded a
roll call and voted against the motion.
Commissioner Boyle suggested that the exercise of the parties' summary
power of removal should be subject to the approval of the Board of Elections, which should then be held responsible for ascertaining the sufficiency
of the parties' reason for requiring the removal. Such a check would tend
in some measure to prevent abuse of the statute or to fix official responsibility for abuse, while, since both parties are represented fin the membership
of the central board, it would at the same time leave unimpaired every
legitimate purpose of the present provision.
POLLING PLACES.
In its effective service to the interests of political organizations in
the matter of local election officers, the Board of Elections had some color
of justification in the fact that it was merely exercising its discretion in the
direction of a precedent established by the constitution and the statute.
Such justification, however, is entirely lacking for the Board's method of
selecting polling places. As to them there is no statutory patronage prescribed.
The statute provides1 that the Board of Elections shall designate
the polling places for each election district. Each room so designated is
required2 to be of sufficient size to accommodate inside of the guard
rail four inspectors, two poll clerks, two ballot clerks, two watchers from
each party or independent political body, and a peace officer, in addition
to the furniture and equipment of the polling place, of which the booths
(there is one for every 75 registered voters) and ballot boxes must be at least
six feet behind the guard rail. The other furniture and equipment referred
to consists of enough tables and chairs to accommodate eight election officers
and the books, blanks, ballots and other miscellaneous election paraphernalia. In addition, it is provided3 that "each room so designated shall
be of reasonable size, sufficient to admit and comfortably accommodate
at least 10 voters at one time outside of the guard rail."
EXTRA-LEGAL ORGANIZATION PATRONAGE.
It will be noted that in the statute quoted there is, singularly enough,
no intimation that the political organizations shall have any part, by recommendation or otherwise, in the selection of polling places. Obviously, how'Section 299.
2Sections 316, 317, 351 and 352.
'Section 299.




33


ever, the choice of polling places has no relation to the bipartisan plan of
election control. Yet, the fact is that for years the Board has in the main
abdicated its function of designating polling places in favor of the two
political organizations, thereby affording to "the faithful" just so much
additional desirable patronage at the normal rate of $60 per polling place, or
a total of over $125,000 per year. So long established, so firmly intrenched,
and so completely developed has this system been that Commissioner Kane
thought the law required it.
COMMISSIONER KANE'S POINT OF VIEW.
Incidentally, he revealed his whole notion of a proper administration of
the Election Law. He testified:
"The law compels us to designate those places recommended by
the county committeeman-the chairman of the county committee."
"It (the choice of polling places) is very little political patronage,
and an organization cannot live without patronage."
*     *    *     *     *     *    *     *     *    *     *
"A. I believe the parties should nominate the inspectors, designate the inspectors, and name the polling places.
" Q. As a matter of legitimate patronage necessary to maintain
the existence of the organization?
"A. That's right. No party can live without patronage.
"A. We are interested in all party patronage, of course. Each
party is looking for what belongs to it.
"Q. So as I understand you, the Board is interested in seeing
that each party has all the patronage the party would like to have?
"A. Why, of course.
"Q. You think that is one of the purposes of the Board of Elections, constituted as it now is?
"A. I don't know what the purpose is. The law is there. It is
a bipartisan Board and that is" Q. As a bipartisan Board you mean you would see to the distribution of the patronage equally?
"A. Yes."
Clearly, Commissioner Kane has had no desire to improve the opportunity for emancipation from the organizations which the law offers in the
matter of polling places. The practice of the Board, though not so clearly
avowed, has not been inconsistent with Commissioner Kane's view.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
In general, the Board has made no attempt to secure as polling places
the best quarters available. With but scant consideration of the convenience




34


of the local boards, party watchers and challengers and the voting public,
the Board has been content to accept any place that can be made to do, establishing merely the rough requirement that the floor space must be 300 square
feet. Insufficient attention has been given to the proportion of length to
breadth, an important consideration in the selection of polling places. The
same is true with reference to ventilation, lighting facilities, ease of access,
nature of premises, their other employment during the time of official use,
and their proximity to or remoteness from undesirable surroundings. Occasion requiring even the 300 feet minimum floor space requirement has been
waived.
DISTRIBUTION OF POLLING PLACE PATRONAGE.
The reason for this has been that the political organizations have been
permitted to recommend polling places and the Board has desired as little as
possible to go outside of those recommendations. By agreement of long
standing between the organizations and the Board, the election districts in
the various assembly districts throughout the city have been divided according as their number was odd or even, the polling places in the even-numbered
districts going to the Republican organization and those in the odd-numbered
districts to the Democratic organization. This procedure has been taken so
much as matter of course and so much in the nature of something required,
that the files of the Board contain batches of recommendations for polling
places neatly segregated, tied together and labelled, according as they were
Republican or Democratic designations.
Here, too, as in the case of the recommendation of local election officers,
the designations originate with the election district captains, who pass them
on to their respective assembly district leaders, and they in turn file them
with the Board. The direct filing by the assembly district leader removes
even the opportunity for check which would exist if the lists were filed by
the county chairmen. There is an apparent intent that the polling places
shall be particular matter of local organization patronage rather than of
county organization patronage.
Upon receipt of the parties' lists the Board distributes them among the
appropriate police precincts for verification as to size and location by a police
officer, who files his report with the Board. As Commissioner Fosdick
found, the examination by the police is superficial, with the result that the
information imparted to the Board is often inaccurate, the same polling
place not infrequently being reported vastly larger or smaller in different
years.
With few exceptions the Board takes no step to ascertain the adequacy
of a polling place proposed or designated until complaint is filed by an indignant citizen or by a vigilant private organization.
INADEQUACY OF POLLING PLACES.
The result of thus making the selection of polling places part of political
patronage has been not only that the best available places have not been




35


secured, but that in many instances entirely inadequate places have been
designated. While Commissioner McKee testified that the normal registration for an election district was between 250 and 300, for which there
should be a minimum available floor space of 300 square feet, instances were
found where the registration was 381 and the floor space 240 square feet;
registration 457, floor space 264 square feet; registration 394, floor space
252 square feet; registration 370, floor space 258; registration 388, floor
space 224; registration 362, floor space 252; registration 360, floor space 266.
Commissioner McKee conceded that all of these places were inadequate, and
yet they are only a few which were selected from one of the five counties
under the Board's jurisdiction.
In Manhattan alone in 1914 there were 80 polling places accepted,
although the police reports show them to contain less than 300 square feet.
Of these, 32 had been used in 1913, so that the Board had ample opportunity to be informed of their inadequacy. In addition to these, there were
34 others in Manhattan reported by Patrolman Houlihan to contain exactly
300 square feet. The same year the Honest Ballot Association complained
to the Board of the inadequacy of 82 polling places throughout the city, only
4 of which are included in the 80 mentioned above in Manhattan. The designation of so many unfit polling places results from a condition that would
never have existed if the Board had made its own designations in accordance
with the requirements of the law. The political organizations are not interested in securing the best rooms as polling places. Their interest is to
distribute this patronage of over $125,000 annually where it will do the
organizations the most good.
POLLING PLACE GRAFT.
One other serious aspect of the Board's surrender to the organizations
of its power to designate polling places must be considered. The election
district captain is not a public officer. He may demand and receive as
commission" a portion of the rental paid for the use of premises as a
polling place, in compensation for his recommendation thereof. He is not
thereby guilty of a crime. Evidence in the record makes the conclusion
unavoidable that such commissions have occasionally at least been asked
and paid, and that, when they were asked and not paid, the result has been
the captain's recommendation the following year of different premises.
One witness, a Manhattan barber, testified that a district captain designated his barber shop as a polling place on his promise to pay the captain
$10. A Brooklyn barber was the victim of similar treatment by another district captain in 1913. Following is the latter's testimony:
"Q. How did your place come to be hired as a polling place?
"A. The captain from the district-that was captain —
"Q. What is his first name?
"A.. He called me up into his store and he says, 'Well,




36.


Mr. -, you want to have the polling place for election?' I says,
'Yes, why not?' He says, 'If you want to have the polling place in
your place, then it is worth for you to pay the money-you take the
money and you pay to me.' I told him, 'Why should I give you all
the money?' He says, 'Because I give to the club.' Then he told
me, 'All right, I make you for $25. You give me $25 and the rest
of the money is for you.' * * * He says,' Give me now $15 and
the $10 you give me the day of election.' I says, 'I couldn't give you
now $15.' He took from me $10 and then when there was the day
of election I give him the rest-$10-and he says, 'Where is the
other $5?' I know that some barbers give him nothing and I
says, 'Why should I give you $25? That is plenty enough for you$20,' because I heard some give to the club only $10. He says, 'I
want to have $25; give me the $10,' and he took the $10. He says,
'All right, you give me two weeks after, a month after,' and I don't
give him the $5 and he says, 'All right, I'll fix you in the election,
because you wouldn't have no more polling place.'
" Q. And you didn't have it any more?
" A. I didn't have it any more because he took it away from me."
FAILURE TO PAY FORFEITS RECOMMENDATION.
The following year this captain, intent upon getting his $25, did not
designate the witness's shop but found a new victim in another barber, to
whose shop he had the polling place transferred. The following is from the
second barber's testimony:
"Q. What did Mr. -      say to you when he first spoke to you
about the matter of having your place used as a polling place?
"A. He simply told me that I could have it for the price of $25.
"Q. That is, that you be paid $25 for it?
"A. No, that I should give him $25 and I could have the polling
place.
"Q. And what did you say to him when he said that to you?
"A. I didn't know anything about it. He said the people wanted
to give me half the price and he would make a bargain for me. He
said, 'You pay me $10 down and the rest when you get your
money.'
"Q. And you agreed to that?
"A. I agreed until I find out that I am not supposed to give him
any money.
"Q. Well, did you give him the $10?
"A. Yes, I give him the $10.
"Q. At that same interview?




37


"A. No, I gave him the $10 when he took me up to the headquarters to make my application for the polling place.
"Q. And what did he say when you told him you wouldn't give
him the other $15?
"A. Well, simply he said, 'If you don't want to give me thisif I want to get even I'll collect my $15.' "
One of these cases was referred to the District Attorney, who replied
that it afforded no evidence of the commission of a crime-not necessarily
because the facts were not proved, but probably because an election district
captain not being a public officer, the penal law fails to reach the case.
It is true that in recent years the Board has endeavored to prevent this
particular variety of " honest graft" by sending to its lessors notices to the
effect that they need not pay to anybody any part of the rental which they
receive for polling places. While it is not intended to imply that the testimony quoted illustrates cases that are either typical or common, yet, if it
did, the expedient followed by the Board does not reach to the root of the
problem. The Board ought itself to designate the polling places with the
assistance of its subordinates, whose leisure during the year is ample for
that purpose.
That is the position taken by Commissioner Boyle, who testified that
" the ultimate control, of course, should be lodged, as it is lodged
now, in the Board of Elections, and if they don't provide the proper
places it's the fault of the Board. * * * I would accept the full
responsibility, and if there was a polling place that didn't measure
up to the mark I would feel that it was up to me to explain why.
* * * I think it would be perfectly feasible for the Board, with a
whole year at its disposal for the selection of polling places, to make
recommendations in first instance."
POLITICAL LEADERS DISCOURAGE COMPETITION.
Under the system now in operation it is so well known among storekeepers whose premises would be available for use as polling places that it is
futile to try to have them designated as such unless " they stand in " with the
district captain to whose organization the polling place in the district is
allotted, that competition for the designation of polling places has disappeared. This is quite natural, since the testimony of the political leaders
sustains the assumption that the designation of polling places is handled as
matter of political favor and patronage. Thus President Koenig testified:
"Wherever possible we prefer Republicans to have Republican
polling places."




38


President McCooey, of the Kings County Democratic Committee testified also:
" Q. As matter of fact, under the practice that has grown up, the
selection of the polling place has become a matter of politics?
"A. Precisely, there is no question about that."
President McAvoy, of the New York County Democratic Committee,
testified:
" The polling places are divided between the two parties. One
takes the odd and the other the even, and that is given to the captain,
who is lucky enough to have the polling place in his district, to hand
out to anybody he favors."
Commissioner Kane's similar view is sufficiently shown by quotations
from his testimony already given.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AS POLLING PLACES.
The way for vast improvement in the matter of polling places and for
divorcing it entirely from the organizations is opened by legislation of the
last session.1 It was provided2 that in the city of New York
"a schoolhouse or other public building may be designated" as a
a polling place, "provided that the board of education consent and
that the use of the same as a registration and polling place shall not
interfere with their customary use. * * * Whenever a school
or other public building is located in an election district and the
registration and polling place of such district is not located in a
school or other public building, a statement of the reason for not
designating such a building must be entered by the board or officer
charged with the duty of making such designations in the minutes
or other record making the designation."
Corresponding change was made with reference to the public copy of
the register3 by providing that
"when the place of registration is in a schoolhouse, or other public
building (the) public copy shall be left in the custody of the janitor
or some other person in charge of the building, who shall be responsible therefor, and a notice shall be kept publicly posted stating
how inspection thereof is to be obtained."
Similar change was made in the requirement4 that the same polling places
as were used the year before be designated for primaries, where practicable,
by creating an exception to that requirement where schools or other public
buildings are designated as polling places.
1Laws of 1915, Chap. 678.:Eection Law, Section 299, as amended.
8Section 177, as amended.
'Section 74, as amended.




39


THE BOARD'S POSITION.
This legislation was the result of long agitation and had been recommended for several years in annual reports of the Board of Elections. As
early as 1912 the then President of the Board wrote that the matter of
the use of public buildings as polling places ""does not require any experimentation. We believe the public schools and * * * public libraries
could be at once designated as polling places if certain absolute powers were
conferred on the Board of Elections by statute." The Board of Education
has always shown every desire to co-operate in the matter.
In March, 1915, prior to the enactment of the amendments to the
Election Law both as to the use of schoolhouses as polling places and as to
the days and hours of registration,1 the Board of Elections had determined to test the practicability of using schoolhouses as polling places by
selecting two in each borough for such use at the approaching election
season. The decision to experiment with but two schoolhouses in each
borough was based not only on the absence of enabling legislation at that
time, but also upon an estimate which had been submitted by the Superintendent of School Buildings of the Board of Education as to the cost of
making necessary alterations in schoolhouses if they were to be used for
election purposes simultaneously with their usual use. The estimated cost
of making such repairs was prohibitive of any general use of schoolhouses
as polling places.
Though the enabling legislation was thereafter enacted, and though the
change of the hours of registration also effected by the statutory amendment of the last session removed the necessity for nearly all of the expensive
alterations to which reference has been made, the Board appears to have
adhered to its original intention of using but two schoolhouses in each
borough for election purposes this year. It had been hoped that the way
was cleared to the more widespread, if not the general, use of schoolhouses
and public buildings. The Board's position is, however, that, in order to
test thoroughly the practicability of using public buildings as polling places,
it is necessary to experiment first with the limited number of school buildings
selected, thus obtaining a fund of information based upon actual experience
which will be available as a guide for the future more widespread application of the plan, if the experiment is satisfactory.
WORK WHICH THE BOARD HAS DONE WELL.
Consideration has thus far been devoted to those matters in which
the Board's method of administration has been over attentive to the desires
of the political organization to the detriment of the public interest-in some
instances, under compulsion of statutory provision. It must not be assumed,
however, that the Board has been inefficient in all of its work. That is
'See page 27, infra.




40


not the fact. Many of its duties, difficult and onerous, it has performed
with remarkable intelligence, thoroughness, and dispatch. Thus, the preparation for taking enrollments, the transcribing thereof, and the formulation
and publication of enrollment lists, and the correction thereof have been
promptly and carefully done. Again, in relation to the primaries, the
Board's handling of designating petitions, declinations and objections, its
preparation of primary ballots, publication of notices of primaries, supplying
paraphernalia and canvassing of results have in general been admirable,
especially as to the last, in view of the short period (120 hours from midnight of primary dayl) within which the canvass must be made. This
period should be lengthened. Likewise, the board's conduct of its business
in the matter of independent certificates of nomination, objections thereto
and declinations, has been beyond criticism. So, too, has been its supplying
of paraphernalia in advance of elections, publication of designations for
polling places, nomination and election notices, and its reapportionment and
preparation of maps of election districts within the assembly districts.
In connection with all of these matters, the time within which the board
must act is extremely limited, and the good results it obtains are often
astonishing.
EFFICIENT EMPLOYEES.
The Board has been assisted in accomplishing these results by a staff
of employees who in most instances are more than usually efficient. They
have remained so despite the attempt of the Legislature,2 quite unjustifiably, to emphasize considerations of party patronage by requiring equal
representation of the dominant parties, not only in the Board itself but
also among "the employees thereof." The amendment has not operated to
impair the efficiency of the staff by reason of an opinion of the Corporation
Counsel rendered to the Municipal Civil Service Commission,3 in which
it was held "that a fair interpretation of the language of section 196 of
the Election Law, as amended by chapter 820 of the laws of 1913 would be,
that the employees of the Board of Elections concerned (thereby) are
those whose positions have been classified as in the exempt class." The
Corporation Counsel advised therefore that "with respect to positions classified * * * as in the competitive class," the same course should be pursued as theretofore.
PRINTING OF UNNECESSARY BALLOTS.
The law provides4 that the Board shall have printed for the primaries
of each party official ballots for each election district equal in number, as near
as may be, to one and one-third times the total number of enrolled voters
of the party in the election district; also, that sample ballots shall be provided
'Section 89.
'L. 1913, Ch. 820, Sec. 62, amending Election Law, Sec. 196.
'July 13, 1914.
'Section 79.




41


by it for each party for each election district equal in number, as near as may
be, to 25 per centum, of the number of official ballots required to be furnished for such party for such election district. In connection with the
1914 primaries, an exact compliance with this provision would have resulted
in the printing of 882,720 official ballots and 193,180 sample ballots. Instead, the board had printed 1,049,770 official ballots and 279,410 sample
ballots, being a total excess of 363,280 official and sample ballots beyond the
legal requirements, or 27.33 per cent of the total number ordered.
Commissioner McKee testified that there had been no effort at literal
compliance with the law, the practice being to order a number of official and
sample ballots equivalent to the enrollment, in round numbers, of the party
having the highest enrollment in any election district within an assembly
district. He stated further that according to information received from
the printers, the counting of the ballots to conform absolutely with the law
would cost more than the printing of the fixed number for each party for
each election district within an assembly district. With a view to testing
the accuracy of this, the Board has this year provided in its contract for
alternative bids, one based on the literal requirement of the law and the
other upon the Board's former practice.
COUNTING OF VOTE ON ELECTION DAY.
The Election Law' contains minutely detailed provisions to govern the
counting of the votes on election day. Literal compliance with those provisions, with the present form of Massachusetts ballot, is practically impossible,
unless the period occupied by the canvass is unduly protracted. Moreover,
election officers who have been continuously at work from six in the morning are in no physical condition, after the closing of the polls at five in the
evening, to perform all of the separate operations provided by the statute
for canvassing the vote.
The inordinate delay incident to strict compliance with the statute was
amply demonstrated by a test canvass which the Board of Elections conducted during the pendency of this investigation and which was witnessed
by representatives of this office. That test reproduced the conditions at an
ordinary polling place, in which 375 general ballots and 375 ballots for
delegates to the constitutional convention had been cast. It was found that
the performance of all the operations required by the statute consumed
14% hours for the canvass of the general ballots and 3 hours and 55 minutes for the canvass of the constitutional convention delegates' ballots, or
a total of 18 hours and 25 minutes. If this canvass had been begun immediately upon the closing of the polls on election day, it would have continued
until 11:25 the following morning, without affording any opportunity for
rest or refreshment. Of course, at elections the local boards in few if any
instances attempt to comply with the requirements of the statute, and no
1Secs. 366-373 inc.




42


one is in position to know whether it is the more important or the less
important of the statutory operations which are omitted.
This situation can be remedied only by statutory amendment, preliminary to which the board should, along the lines of its experimental canvass, make investigation for the guidance of the legislature. Section 319
of the law provides for compensation to local officers specifically for the
canvass of the vote. It may be that the appointment of separate officers
to canvass the vote will help to solve the problem, without additional cost.
Or investigation may develop that the use of voting machines is otherwise
practicable, so that the count of the vote would become automatic.
SIGNATURE COPY OF REGISTER.
The law providesl that there shall be one public copy of the register
of voters which shall be left prominently displayed in the place of registration until election day; that one copy shall be filed with the Board of
Elections and there retained permanently, and that the other two copies
shall be kept in the custody of the inspectors who made them. Of the four
copies of the register, one is the so-called signature copy containing the
autograph signature of the voter to assist in identifying him on election
day and thus preventing the perpetration of fraud. The copy permanently
filed with the central board cannot, of course, be the signature copy because the latter must be at hand at the polling place on election day. The
public copy should not be and never is the signature copy because its public
exhibition would facilitate the forging of signatures. Yet while an election officer is thus entrusted with the signature copy, there is no provision
in the law to insure his safeguarding it.
Unquestionably the opportunity for fraud would be substantially
diminished if the law were so amended as to embody the suggestion made
by Commissioner McKee in his testimony, viz.: that the signature copy be
required to be deposited in the police station of the precinct in which the
polling place is situated, to be returned to the polling place on election day.
"PLACE OF STAY" PROVISION.
As to one other important matter of administration not yet considered,
the Board is fairly subject to criticism.
The legislature of 1913 in special session2 amended section 162 of the
law, which prescribes the qualifications of persons entitled to vote, so as to
define the term " resident," in part, as " a person who has any place of stay
from which he intends to vote." This amendment has been commonly known
as the "place of stay joker " by reason of the fact that, if effective, it constituted an invitation to " floaters."
The Board requested an opinion as to the effect of this amendment from
the Corporation Counsel, asking him in addition whether he did not agree
'Secs. 177, 178.
'L. 1913, Ch. 821.




43


with its position "that it is not within the province of our duty or functions
as a board to issue any instructions to election officers which in effect would
be an interpretation of the statute." The Corporation Counsel replied that
the clause had no effect to change "the qualification in respect of the residence of the voter as prescribed by the constitution," or, in other words, that
it was of no effect, and concluded his statement of opinion with the following:
" I find no express provision requiring you to notify the election
officers as to their duties in the premises, and the course which you
have adopted (deciding not to notify election officers) is in my opinion
one entirely within your discretion."
Thereafter, the Board denied repeated requests to promulgate the Corporation Counsel's opinion, and failed, also, to make known to local officers
the decision of Magistrate Freschi, in October, that the clause in question
was unconstitutional.
Questioned in this connection, Commissioner McKee took the position
that it was not the Board's duty, even after the receipt of the Corporation
Counsel's opinion, to promulgate it, because the Board had to administer the
law as provided by the Legislature.
The Board's position is untenable. Clearly, if the "place of stay"
clause meant what it seemed to say, the way was opened to a multitude of
otherwise illegal votes. Any authoritative interpretation of the statute, such
as the opinion of the Corporation Counsel, the Board's legal adviser, in advance of judicial adjudication, and certainly such judicial adjudication as
Magistrate Freschi's decision, was of sufficient importance to warrant its
promulgation to all election officers subject to the Board's jurisdiction. That
course would tend not only to the holding of a fair and honest election but
also to the conduct of an orderly and expeditious election. Nothing in the
concluding paragraph of the Corporation Counsel's opinion precluded such
promulgation. Quite properly he indicated that the question of publishing
his opinion to the Board's subordinates for their guidance was matter of
administration within the Board's discretion. It was his function to give
legal advice and not to assist in the administration of the Board's office, and
that, in effect, is all that the concluding paragraph of his communication
means.
Commissioner McKee recalled no other instance in which the opinion of
the Corporation Counsel interpreting the provisions of the Election Law had
not been communicated to the local election officers. On the other hand, in
the " Instructions for Election Officers," circulated by the Board in advance
of the general election of 1914, appears the following in red ink:
"All qualified electors in line at a polling place, whether inside
or outside of such polling place before 5 P. M. on Election Day, are
entitled to vote. (Excerpt from an Opinion of the Corporation Counsel, dated October 9th, 1914.)"




44


This refers to the provision in section 291 of the Election Law that
" electors entitled to vote who are in the polling place at or before five o'clock
in the afternoon shall be allowed to vote."
The provision, therefore, as to which the Corporation Counsel's opinion
was thus prominently brought to the attention of the local officers was precisely of the same nature as the "place of stay" clause, the Corporation
Counsel's opinion as to the meaning and effect of which the Board was so
persistent in its refusal to promulgate. Both sections have to do with the
matter of those entitled to vote. The correct application of both sections was
equally important in the interest of orderly and honest elections, yet, in its
discretion, as a matter of administration, the Board saw fit to promulgate
one opinion and to refuse to promulgate the other.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
There is imperative need for change of administration or legislation,
sometimes both, with reference to certain important features of the Board's
work. The Commissioners of Elections should be emancipated from organization domination. Their selection of local election officers, while continuing to be made as now, from lists submitted by the two leading party
organizations as an essential part of the plan of bi-partisan election control,
should otherwise be entirely freed of organization influence. The selection
of polling places should be completely divorced from organization patronage.
In all phases of its administration the Board should make its prime consideration the public interest and not the organizations' preferences.
COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTIONS.
The power of appointing the Commissioners of Elections should be
vested in the Mayor by necessary amendment to section 191 of the Election
Law. Such appointment should be from among recommendations by the
chairmen of the party committees in all the counties within The City of New
York, amending section 194 accordingly. Section 190 should be amended
so as to reduce the number of Commissioners from four to two. Section 191
should be further amended by providing that the Commissioners shall not
"hold over" after the expiration of their respective terms of office. Such
amendments will restore the check upon organization control which was
removed when the appointing power was vested in the Board of Aldermen.
At the same time that they broaden the field from which choice may be made,
they will tend to improve the quality of the men from among whom the
Mayor will be able to select his appointees. Also, they will save the waste
involved in the salaries of two unnecessary members of the Board.
LOCAL ELECTION OFFICERS.
As to local election officers, the organizations should be confined to the
single functions intended by the law to be entrusted to them. They should




45


be permitted not in effect to designate the officers, but merely to vouch for
the party membership and loyalty of certain individuals, of whom the best
qualified should be selected for appointment. To accomplish this result the
following improvements in point of administration should be instituted:
The Board should investigate carefully the character of every person
recommended and should reject those whom it finds unqualified in point of
character or as to whose good character it is not satisfied. The applicants'
statements upon their application blanks should be carefully checked by independent investigation. The Board should institute and maintain a thorough
system of personal record, as by an alphabetical index, for quick and ready
reference, as to the previous career of all former local officers and of all
candidates for appointment as such. There should be no exemption from
examination except to those whose past service, known to the Board of Elections, shows ample qualification. In no instance should exemption from
examination be conferred upon those who have served only as emergency
appointees at the polls and who have not previously passed examinations.
The Board should require the party organizations to make multiple recommendations, where practicable, on both their original and their supplementary
lists for each position to be filled, and should not permit the restriction as to
persons recommended to those who reside in the election district or in the
assembly district for which the appointment is to be made. Full advantage
should be taken of the broad provision of law which extends eligibility to all
residents of the county.
Pending the enactment of the legislation shortly to be mentioned, the
Board should conduct competitive examinations of all candidates, such examinations to constitute real tests of their qualifications, fool questions and
leading questions to be omitted. There should be real rating of the examination papers and appointment of candidates in the order of their rating on an
eligible list prepared separately for the representatives of each party. The
Police Department should be requested to assist in the removal of paraphernalia after the canvass on election days. The Board should more frequently
exercise its power of removal for cause, and should keep itself fully informed
as to the manner in which the local officers perform their duties. The form
of the certificates of service should be so changed as to afford real information with reference to the officers' activities and provision should be made
for penalizing delinquents by deductions from their pay.
The maximum of improvement in the matter of election officers is
attainable only with the aid of the Legislature. So long as the conduct of the
examinations of local election officers is left in the hands of the Board of
Elections, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate organization
importunity in that connection. There will always be the tendency either to
make the questions so simple as to afford no real test of the candidate's
knowledge of the duties which he seeks to perform, or to make the rating of
his papers an absurdity. The only essential to the plan of bi-partisan election boards is that the two party organizations shall establish the party




46


fidelity of those who are to represent them in the local boards. This is
accomplished by requiring party recommendation as a condition of eligibility
to take the examination. The examination should then be conducted and
the papers rated by the Municipal Civil Service Commission. This would
take the formulation of the questions and the rating of the answers out of
the atmosphere and influence of organization politics. The investigation of
the characters of the candidates could also with advantage be committed to
the Civil Service Commission.
There is no justification for the mischievous provision of section 306
of the Election Law by which only the Democratic or the Republican Commissioners are permitted to participate in the appointment of local election
officers to represent their respective parties. That provision should be
repealed.
In order to avoid any violation of the letter or purpose of the constitutional and statutory provisions which prohibit the Civil Service Commission
from paying any heed to the party affiliations of those whom it examines,
provision should be made requiring the names of the candidates to be submitted by the Board to the Commission without designation as to party
membership and after the examination has been held and the ratings made
the findings should be returned by the Commission to the Board again without designation as to party membership. The Board should then formulate
two eligible lists, one Republican and one Democratic, from which to appoint
representatives of the respective parties. The eligible lists should stand
for a certain period and not less than once in six years all officers should be
required to take an examination in order to insure that they are acquainted
with amendments of the law affecting their duties. In performing this
function the Civil Service Commission would act as in New Jersey, merely
as the agency to conduct examinations without violation of any of the
accepted practices and principles of the merit system.
Further legislation should be enacted to permit emergency appointments at the polls to be made from reserve lists of eligibles and to remove
the present restriction that such emergency appointees must be residents of
the district in which they are to serve. The first part of this could be attained without legislation if the organizations would consent to such a plan
of reserve lists for emergency appointments. But that is not likely. Likewise, provision should be made adopting that part of the New Jersey system, by which citizens may effectually prevent the appointment of demonstrably unqualified or unfit persons. In addition, the summary power of
removing election officers now conferred on the party organizations should
be limited by requiring the approval of each request for removal at least by
the respective parties' representatives on the Board. With the party representatives on the Board, this would involve no risk of the retention of a
local officer disloyal to the party he is intended to represent, but would tend




47


to prevent the abuse of the existing summary power by placing upon public
officers responsibility for failure to prevent such abuse.
POLLING PLACES.
No further legislation is required in order to permit the selection as
polling places of the very best quarters available. As promptly as practicable the Board should take full advantage of recent legislation which empowers it to designate the public schools and other public buildings for this
use. Careful study should be made of available public buildings and the
experience of other cities should be considered.
Pending the designation of a school house or other public building as
the polling place for every election district in the city, the Board should
without further delay abandon entirely its practice of accepting recommendations of polling places from the party organizations. The sole aim
in the selection of polling places should be to designate the most suitable
place available. To find such places the Board should employ its own staff,
abandoning all artificial standards of fitness and making certain to obtain
those places which combine large floor space, ample light and ventilation,
central location and ease of ingress and egress.
MISCELLANEOUS.
The Legislature should amend the statute with reference to the custody
of the signature copy of the register by requiring its deposit, in the interval
between the last day of registration and election day, in the appropriate
police stations.
The Board should promulgate promptly to all local officers all opinions
by the Corporation Counsel and all adjudications by the courts which relate
to the taking and counting of the vote and the rights of electors.
Likewise, the Board should undertake as promptly as feasible an
investigation which will result in finding some means to reduce the labor
and shorten the time necessary to canvassing the vote on election day. Part
of such an investigation should be a close study, assisted by tests, of the
practicability of voting machines.
CONCLUSION.
The enactment of the legislation and the institution of the administrative reforms included in the foregoing recommendations will accomplish
substantial improvement in the conduct of elections in The City of New
York. Bi-partisan membership of the central Board of Elections and of
the local boards in the election districts will be preserved. Existing party
organizations will be utilized, so far as they are of assistance, for that purpose. They will, however, so far as possible be prevented from continuing
the system by which, to an unnecessary and injurious degree, they have
dominated the administration of the Election Law in this city.




I                                       }




.f




i


I";- -I*-~:
r
~:g —;
i~-i:-_. F
"::; 41
-i r
Vili
~i
';-;~o
i:j-.....a:r
i
r;l
ti,


I




JS           x..w...Q....(...it.)................
1238            Commissioners of.A73           accounts.
1 9 1 5..........................................................  /
-                R et.........................................
297683                              -a/.     '
//7
/





I 1
~'-~ ac,
t
cI~
r
-r;i
I: