"Kentucky has an election problem too, one that results in a government less representative of the views of voters and more insulated from challenge by those who could change it. In Kentucky, the equivalent of the butterfly ballot is something we might call the “Kentucky Incumbent Protection System.” " —Martin Cothran Senior Policy Analyst

Special for the Louisville Courier-Journal
 

Martin Cothran  The Family Foundation

About 730 words  First Serial Rights © The Family Foundation

Florida isn’t the only state with an election problem

EVER SINCE THE FLORIDA ELECTION DEBACLE, there has been a lot of talk about election reform. In Florida the problem was largely the kind of balloting system voters had to use—a system which made terms like “butterfly ballot” and “chad”—words formerly known only to a handful of experts and public officials—household words.

Kentucky has an election problem too, one that results in a government less representative of the views of voters and more insulated from challenge by those who could change it.

In Kentucky, the equivalent of the butterfly ballot is something we might call the “Kentucky Incumbent Protection System.”

The Kentucky Incumbent Protection System works like this: In even numbered years, state lawmakers meet in a 60-day General Assembly Session. Although the session begins at the start of January, most important business isn’t taken up until the start of February. Why? Because the filing deadline for those who might challenge incumbent legislators for their seats is in late January.

Why does this make a difference? It makes a difference because many incumbents do not want to draw challengers into their races by casting what might be a controversial vote. Important bills languish in committees until the filing deadline has passed, at which point they are launched at rocket speed and sent toward possible approval by lawmakers.

In other words, the system is designed to hide the actions of sitting lawmakers from voters.

Kentucky has never been known to be particularly progressive in its politics, but this particular relic of the bad old days of politics in this state has for some reason managed to avoid the serious scrutiny of those who are otherwise vigilant in their monitoring of shenanigans by public officials.

The attention now being directed toward election reform, however, offers Kentuckians a golden opportunity to drag another aspect of the state’s political system into the 21st century. But it won’t be easy, since the ones who will have to initiate the change are the very ones with a natural interest in keeping the system the way it is: sitting legislators.

That hasn’t stopped at least on state lawmaker from taking a stab at the issue. David Williams, President of the Senate, has already introduced legislation (Senate Bill 1) to move the filing deadline to where it should have been in the first place: mid-April—after votes have been cast, not before. Although most of the press attention has been directed toward the bill’s other provisions limiting contracts between the state and companies that have made campaign contributions, the bills most significant provision may very well be the one moving the filing deadline.

When the legislature last session pushed for annual sessions, lawmakers advocating the change cited as one reason for the change the fact that the Governor needed to be held more accountable.

The question is, if accountability is good for the Governor, wouldn’t it be good for state lawmakers as well?

Martin Cothran is senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky, a nonprofit educational organization dealing with public policy issues affecting families.