Saturday, November 23, 2024
33.0°F

Finding: Scientists broke Montana election laws

by Richard Hanners Hungry Horse News
| May 13, 2015 3:26 PM

Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl recently issued his findings on whether political scientists at Stanford University and Dartmouth College violated Montana campaign laws last fall.

In his May 11 decision, Motl said the scientists broke the law by failing to register, report or disclose their expenditures when they performed an experiment on Montana voters. Motl referred the matter to the Lewis and Clark County Attorney’s Office but said he expected it would be “waived back” to his office.

The scientists sent 102,780 postcard-type mailers to 15 percent of voting Montanans, each with line graphs indicating the liberal or conservative positions of four Montana Supreme Court candidates, Jim Rice, W. David Herbert, Mike Wheat and Lawrence VanDyke.

According to the researchers’ own abstract, the experiment was aimed at seeing if information provided to voters in nonpartisan elections could influence how they vote.

Motl also found that the researchers violated state law by using the Great Seal of the State of Montana to make the mailers look like official Montana state documents.

Informal complaints streamed into Motl’s office within days after the flyers showed up in Montana mailboxes on Oct. 22, 2014. Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch filed a formal complaint about misuse of the Great Seal on Oct. 24.

Motl hired Carroll College political science professor Jeremy Johnson to analyze whether the Stanford and Dartmouth scientists followed proper procedures. Johnson’s six-page report accompanies Motl’s decision.

Colleges are expected to review experiments that will have an impact on human beings by submitting them to an Institutional Review Board, a process defined by federal law, Motl said, but the IRB process “was improperly engaged by the Dartmouth researcher and ignored completely by the Stanford researchers.”

Johnson, however, went further by noting that the IRB process “is inadequate for questions associated with political research.”

“Concerns about human subjects in the aggregate often do not even occur to researchers, faculty and staff involved in the IRB,” Johnson said.

Motl determined that the mailers fell under candidate-related advocacy, which must be reported to his office, rather than issue advocacy, which does not require reporting. Motl quoted the response of Stanford’s attorney that the scientists sent the mailers to more liberals than conservatives because “the researchers anticipated that turnout of liberal-leaning individuals would be so much lower than that of conservative-leaning individuals.”

Stepping back and looking at the matter from outside the academic world, Johnson noted that “the most appalling aspect for many voters, the intent to manipulate vote totals that could potentially change the outcome of an election, was absent as a consideration in the process.”

Johnson concluded by asking why we should care about such political experiments. He cited the letter of apology sent by the Stanford and Dartmouth presidents in which they said, “We genuinely regret that it was sent and we ask Montana voters to ignore the mailer.”

“The myopia demonstrated by the researchers, the Dartmouth IRB and the Stanford University response is emblematic of how academics have fallen short in showing respect for the communities and institutions they study,” Johnson said.

Attorneys and officials for Stanford and Dartmouth responded to 27 questions posed by Motl. Both colleges claimed the experiment fell under issue advocacy that does not require reporting. Stanford said the mailers were “purely informational and explicitly nonpartisan,” and Dartmouth said the mailers were part of “an academic research project” without “partisan purpose.”

Stanford spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said the experiment was protected by the First Amendment and claimed no election laws were broken. Dartmouth spokeswoman Diana Lawrence also disagreed with Motl’s decision but said the college plans to improve its review process.