This concept is equally important in the area of elections, where ―the new normal – specifically, the steep drop in already limited funds for election administration – will be the dominant theme in election policy debates in 2011 and beyond.As my colleague Mindy Moretti noted last November, we have already seen mounting evidence of this phenomenon in decisions about special elections: in 2010, West Virginia debated whether and how to incur the costs of an election to replace the late U.S. Senator Robert Byrd and is now engaged in a similar debate about the vacancy created when Gov. Joe Manchin was elected to take Byrd’s seat; Louisiana’s Jay Dardenne postponed his swearing-in as Lt. Governor in order to avoid the need for a special election to replace him as Secretary of State; and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will wait until January to take the oath as California’s new Lt. Governor in order to spare city voters the cost of a special election to replace him.Subtle yet significant changes like this – shifting the discussion about special elections from ―when to ―if and when – are likely to become more common as we adjust to the ―new normal. I would be very surprised if similar shifts don’t occur in other familiar debates like voter ID, electronic and Internet voting, and early/absentee voting and vote-by-mail. Sometimes the changes aren’t so subtle; for example, consider the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which reportedly came very close to extinction during the final days of the 111th Congress. As the 112th Congress comes to town, the EAC’s ―new normal may not be a change in outlook as much as an outright fight for survival.
The "new normal" in election administration
Doug Chapin discusses how the Recession has influenced, and will continue to influence, decisions about election law.
