“As election officials, we serve as the referees. We know what the rules of the game are, we have to call the shots…. [but] the fans look down and they see that I’m wearing my favorite team’s jersey, and sometimes that raises some questions.”
This observation from Brian McKenzie, County Clerk of Davis County, Utah, gets at a surprisingly overlooked question about American democracy: should the officials who administer partisan elections be chosen in partisan elections? That question was front and center on a recent podcast from Utah’s leading think tank, the Sutherland Institute, featuring County Clerk McKenzie and Election Reformers Network Executive Director Kevin Johnson.
Most Americans couldn’t name the chief election official in their county. Depending on the state, the position may be called county clerk, county auditor, registrar, or supervisor of elections. Whatever the title, these officials administer our elections—from registering voters and preparing ballots to managing polling places and tabulating results. Their job is fundamentally administrative. They’re expected to apply the law fairly, regardless of which party wins.
Yet in 25 states, these officials run as Republican or Democratic candidates to win and keep their positions. This isn’t simply an odd feature of American democracy; it creates a structural tension that deserves far more attention than it receives.
Essentially, we ask county clerks to do two jobs.
First, we ask them to run as partisan candidates. To do so, they must seek endorsements, raise campaign funds, win a partisan primary, and develop close relationships with party leaders and activists. Once elected, they have status within their party that can require involvement in party functions, even consideration for higher office.
Second, we ask them to set all of that aside and administer elections with complete neutrality—not only in fact, but in appearance, during a time of growing political division and suspicion.
Over the past two years, Election Reformers Network has conducted confidential interviews with local election officials from across the country to better understand how they approach this challenge. As explained in our report, officials frequently described trying to create greater distance from partisan politics, even while operating within a system that pulled them toward it.
Many of the officials we interviewed described dangerous pressures to demonstrate they were “on the team.”
Some received pressure from party leaders to publicly validate election narratives they knew were misleading. Others faced criticism—or even primary challengers—for refusing to echo false claims about elections. Still others spoke about quieter, everyday pressures: expectations to signal loyalty to their party or publicly endorse candidates running in elections they oversee.
What stood out most was not the pressure itself—but how election officials responded to that pressure.
Some stopped attending party meetings altogether. Others limited their interactions with political organizations or attended only in a strictly informational capacity. Several changed their candidacy status to run as independents, despite knowing that doing so could make re-election much more difficult. One official explained simply, “The job isn’t worth it for me to run as a party member.” Another reflected that if given the choice, “my office for sure would be nonpartisan because you’re running elections for all your constituents—Democrats and Republicans and Independents.”
We learned that many election administrators want to be just one thing, neutral referees, not two things, referees and players on one of the teams.
Various approaches are already in use to address this problem. For example, some states appoint their chief local election officials, while others elect them in nonpartisan elections. Some jurisdictions—including Montana and Minnesota—allow local governments to choose different selection methods. The point is not that every state should adopt an identical model, but that states have meaningful options for reducing this unnecessary conflict of interest while preserving accountability to voters.
The principal argument against ending partisan election of election officials is the claim that “there's no such thing as a nonpartisan.” This view assumes election officials will inevitably support one side, so voters needed to know which side they are on. To many election officials, that idea is insulting, and it’s wrongheaded for several reasons.
First, administering elections requires following the law, not deciding for oneself who should vote or who should win. A hidden partisan trying to throw an election for their party is extremely unlikely and highly illegal. Second, parties have ample means to prevent any such malfeasance and protect their side. They can observe every phase of elections, call for recounts, and challenge results in court. Those roles are the logical place for partisans, not in the actual running of elections. Third, plenty of Americans are in fact not partisan, and a plurality demonstrate that by registering as unaffiliated.
The “no-such-thing-as-a-nonpartisan” claim is an argument we do not make in many other areas of public life that require fairness and impartiality. We expect auditors to maintain independence from the organizations they examine. We expect judges to recuse themselves from cases involving personal interests. We expect referees to have no stake in the outcome of the game. Election officials want and deserve the same.
In a healthy democracy, we shouldn't ask the officials who run our elections to spend their careers proving they are above politics after first succeeding because of politics. Our institutions should make neutrality easier to demonstrate, easier to trust, and easier to sustain. That’s good for election officials, good for voters, and good for democracy itself.