In baseball, when a player drops the ball, it's scored as an error. In the city bureaucracy, an error can cause you to lose the game before it starts. That's the lesson of what happened to a councilman seeking higher office.
Bill de Blasio's campaign team collected 125,000 signatures to get him on the ballot in the September Democratic primary for public advocate. This was far more than the 7,500 signatures he needed.
But the Board of Elections kicked him off the ballot because he submitted a cover page with his signatures, stating that there were 131 folders. Somebody counted them at the Board of Elections and said there were actually 132 folders. For that allegedly grievous error, the board decided to kick de Blasio off the ballot!
Protests erupted, not only from de Blasio and his supporters but from three of his rivals in the public advocate race. De Blasio and his lawyers appealed to the board, arguing that the board's staff had made a mistake. They apparently can't add. The board reversed itself. De Blasio's original count was correct -- and he was restored to the ballot.
The Board of Elections, which consists of 10 members, half from each major party, has long been criticized for inefficiency and incompetence. It has become a symbol for what critics regard as an archaic electoral system, dominated by political hacks.
The board deserves some credit for quickly admitting it erred. But apparently some staff members need a refresher course in addition and subtraction.
De Blasio said: "I appreciate that the board did the right thing today and fixed their own error. But that doesn't change my fundamental belief that our election laws and the practices of our electoral system are still too often focused on keeping people off the ballot, rather than helping people stay on."
He's right, but it's easy enough to criticize the system after it wounds you. Where has the City Council been all these years on the issue of a major overhaul of the electoral system?
Board of Elections President Frederic Umane said: "It was our own process that negatively impacted the candidate."
I would say that stands as an admission of bureaucratic guilt.
