Kerr County is once again discussing whether to create the position of Election Administrator. Before county leaders take that step, they should ask a simple question: what problem are we trying to solve?
I’ve spent more than twenty years working in election law in Texas. I’ve represented candidates, political parties, and election officials. I served as General Counsel to the Texas Secretary of State, the state’s chief election officer, and later as Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that successful elections are not the product of government organizational charts. They are the result of good people doing their jobs, following the law, and being accountable to the public.
Under the current system, election responsibilities are divided among officials who answer directly to the voters. The County Clerk and Tax Assessor-Collector both stand for election and can be held accountable if citizens believe they are not performing their duties properly.
Creating an Election Administrator changes that dynamic. Authority is transferred from elected officials to an appointed employee who is not directly accountable to the voters. That may not seem like a meaningful change on paper, but it is a momentous change in practice.
Supporters of an Election Administrator often argue that it would make elections more professional or more efficient. Perhaps that sounds appealing, but Kerr County is not Harris County. We are not trying to manage elections for millions of voters spread across one of the largest metropolitan areas in America.
More importantly, simply creating a new position does not automatically improve elections.
I’ve worked with election officials across Texas and have seen counties operate under both systems. In my experience, there is no magic that comes with the title “Election Administrator.” Good elections depend on competent staff, proper training, sound procedures, and leadership that takes the responsibility seriously.
In fact, some of the most publicized election controversies in Texas over the last several years have occurred in counties that employ Election Administrators. The position itself is not a guarantee of efficiency, competence, or public confidence.
If there are specific concerns about how elections are being conducted in Kerr County, let’s address those concerns directly. If additional training is needed, provide it. If staffing needs improvement, improve it. If technology needs upgrading, invest in it. But creating an entirely new layer of government should not be the default solution.
Cost is another consideration. An Election Administrator’s office requires salary, staff support, equipment, and administrative resources. At a time when taxpayers expect local governments to spend responsibly, county officials should be able to clearly explain what benefits justify those additional expenses.
Most importantly, voters deserve to know who is responsible for running elections. Clear accountability builds confidence. When responsibility becomes spread among multiple offices, commissions, and administrators, it becomes harder for citizens to know where the buck stops.
Kerr County has a long history of responsible local government and civic engagement. Before replacing a system that has served the county well, we should be certain that the proposed alternative will solve a real problem rather than simply create a new bureaucracy.
As someone who has spent much of his professional life working in election law, public confidence is strengthened when government remains as transparent and accountable as possible. The current system provides that accountability.
Unless someone can clearly demonstrate that Kerr County’s election system is broken, there is little reason to fix it.
