3
THE FOUNDING OF
THE ASSOCIATION
TTHE National Association of Secretaries of State is the oldest organization of major public
ocials in the United States. It was formed during the Saint Louis World’s Fair in 1904. During the
fair, Secretaries went to Brookings Hall to get permission and make arrangements to use a facility
at the fair to assemble and meet. An appropriate facility was found and on September 28, 1904, the
Association was formed at a meeting held in the Tennessee Building.
ere are no minutes in the Records of the National Association of Secretaries of State for the
years 1915–1930. ere is, however, a
short history of the association which
was submitted by Enoch D. Fuller,
Secretary of State of New Hampshire,
on August 27, 1953. e history has
appeared in several copies of the NASS
Handbook. is history allows for some
insight into the early years of the asso-
ciation. e following is a reprint of his
paper.
e rst Conference of the Associ-
ation of American Secretaries of State
was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Octo-
ber 21–22, 1915. Stuart F. Reed, Secre-
tary of State of West Virginia, was the
founder and rst president of the Association. e name of the organization remained “e Asso-
ciation of American Secretaries of State” through the rst four Conferences and in 1921 the name
“e National Association of Secretaries of State” was adopted and has been the association name
since that year.
e 1919 conference held at Washington, D. C., voted as follows:
Brookings Hall, where arrangements for the Secretaries to meet were
made -- now part of the campus of Washington University.
An amalgamation of the National Association of State Treasurers, State Auditors
and State Comptrollers and the National Conference of State Purchasing
Agents with the Association of American Secretaries of State was agreed upon
unanimously. Hereaer, the three organizations will hold their annual conventions
together but will act separately.
In 1924 the National Association of Secretaries of State met with the National Association of
State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, and with the National Association of Governmental
Purchasing Agents at Salt Lake City, Utah, as the rst and only conference of the “National Associ-
ation of Financial and Administrative State Ocials.” Harry R. Salter, State Auditor of New Jersey,
4
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
e Tennessee
Building, where
NASS was formed,
as it looked in 1904.
New Jersey, was the president of the National Association of Financial and Administrative State
Ocials. e National Association of Secretaries of State at its separate session at this time elected
the Honorable Mike Holm of Minnesota as president.
Secretaries of State attending the rst conference:
Charles D. Burns, Connecticut
Coleman C. Vaughn, Michigan
B. O. James, Virginia
F M. Rood, South Dakota
R. P. Graham, Maryland
David Mattson, Utah
C. J. Crecelius, Kentucky
J. T. Botkins, Kansas
J. L. Lyon, Oklahoma
John G. McKay, Texas
W S. Allen, Iowa
Charles Q Hildebrant, Ohio
Stuart F. Reed, West Virginia
R R. Sneed, Tennessee
A small booklet and an invitation was sent to each Secretary of State in late August and early
October, 1915, by Stuart F. Reed. e following resolution was adopted at the conference on
October 22, 1915.
We desire to express, and we do hereby express, our appreciation of the eorts of
Honorable Stuart F. Reed of West Virginia in bringing about this rst Conference of
American Secretaries of State.
is resolution, the fact that he extended the referenced invitations and served as temporary
president until his election at the rst conference, indicates that Mr. Reed had the original idea for
the Association.
e following slate was elected at the 1915 conference: President, Stuart F. Reed; Vice President,
Charles D. Burns; Secretary Treasurer, Charles Q. Hildebrant. (is oce could, in the discretion
of the Association, be held by one person.)
Article V of the Constitution and bylaws of the conference is as follows:
e meetings of the Association shall be annual and shall consist of at least four
sessions of not less than two hours each. e time and place of meetings shall be
xed and determined at the next preceding meeting of the Association.
Topeka, Kansas was selected as the place for the second meeting of the association, the time to be
xed by the Executive Committee.
A HISTORY OF NASS
5
HISTORY AND RECORD OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF SECRETARIES OF STATE
To be something, you must do something.
1
—Bill Graves, KS, 1991
TTHIS was not the motto at the formation of the National Association of Secretaries of
State (NASS) in 1904, but it eloquently and accurately sums up a century of NASS activity.
Dedicated originally to the promotion of excellence in public administration, the focus of NASS
broadened considerably over the years, its attention turning increasingly to the democratic pro-
cess.
2
Over the course of this century, as the meetings attracted more and more interest, opportunities
to voice an opinion in policy-making at the state and federal government levels arose.
Early on, NASS developed the resolution process as a means of representing views held by the
association to both federal and state governments. Because of the general duties of the oce,
the Secretary of State is in a position to acquire a thorough knowledge of the entire structure of
government, state and federal. rough participation in the oldest organization of constitutional
ocers, the Secretary is able to play a vital role in public policy-making.
“e National Association of Secretaries of State is equipped to study, and entitled to make
known, its wishes as a group to the state and federal governments. Such matters as elections, the
registration and regulation of corporations, the registration of trademarks and state publishing are
matters almost exclusively within our jurisdiction the country over,” claimed Missouri Secretary
Dwight H. Brown, at the annual meeting in 1940.
3
e long history of NASS is proof that this
statement was not merely one of boastful pride, but one that Secretaries have taken to heart and
acted upon throughout the years. What follows is a look at the evolution of the association from
its beginnings to the substantive organization it is today. Indeed, in order to be a national voice in
the forefront of legislative decisions, NASS has certainly done a great deal.
Beginnings of the Association
“
. . . this Association has been and is and should continue to be a delightfully infor-
mal meeting ground for overburdened state constitution ocers, where each may
learn to know the other as an intimate friend . . .
”
4
—John B. Wilson, GA, 1940
Although there are no minutes from the originating session, NASS history holds that the idea for
the National Association of Secretaries of State, the rst national organization of constitutional
6
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
ocers in the United States, came about at a meeting held in the Tennessee Building at the St.
Louis World Exposition in 1904. Arrangements for that meeting were made in Brookings Hall,
now part of Washington University in Saint Louis. e rst NASS conference was held in
Cincinnati, Ohio, in October of 1915. West Virginia Secretary Stuart F. Reed is acknowledged as
founder of the Association, and served as its rst president. He was responsible for organizing the
rst meeting and sending out the notices and invitations. For the rst ve years of the organiza-
tion, it was known as the “Association of American Secretaries of State”; in 1920, the name
“National Association of Secretaries of State” was adopted.
ere are no minutes for the rst een years of NASS, making it impossible to determine the
specic reasons for its creation. Certain assumptions can be made, however, as to Secretary
Reed’s desire for such an organization. e desire may have been precipitated by the Progressive
Era. In his book, America, George B. Tindall identied the progressive era reform movement as
one that touched on virtually every aspect of society. Political progressives considered themselves
to be “engaged in a democratic crusade against the abuses of urban political bosses and corporate
robber barons.”
5
e primary progressive goals were “greater democracy, honest government,
more eective regulation of business, and greater social justice.”
6
A businesslike and ecient ap-
proach to reform was a hallmark of the era; eciency and organization were strongly emphasized.
7
Secretaries, and their counterparts throughout the United States, such as Lieutenant Gover-
nors and Elections Directors, were grappling with elections, trademark registration, corporation
regulation, and other miscellaneous administrative duties. e spirit of reform, marking the pro-
gressive era and subsequent period of political reform in state governments, may have convinced
Secretary Reed of the need for the Secretaries to interact in order to solve these common problems
eciently. Major targets of national reform, such as elections and regulation of corporations, were
the rst areas under discussion at NASS meetings.
Formed for the purpose of reforming and improving public administration in the elds in
which the Secretaries work, the organization has established facilities for the exchange of infor-
mation among the Secretaries and provides a means whereby formal and informal cooperation
among the state governments can be furthered and nurtured.
e Early Years
“And this value of our Association to the advancement of public
administration . . . must remain our greatest contribution.”
8
—Gov. Dennis J. Roberts, RI, 1952
e “contributions” began at the rst annual conference on October 21, 1915. Unfortunately, there
are no records of the early conferences, so what was accomplished there is unknown. It is proba-
bly safe to say, however, that the general framework of the meetings and topics of discussion were
established during those early years.
By the time of the rst documented conference in 1931, it is obvious that the men and wom-
en of NASS had accomplished Secretary Reed’s rst goal—that of developing friendships, free of
political bias, within which context valuable information could be shared. e Secretaries exhibit-
ed a rapport that showed their obvious enjoyment in seeing old friends again and discussing new
topics of public administration.
A HISTORY OF NASS
7
Good-natured jokes and stories about “my great state” are sprinkled throughout the early tran-
scripts, along with the more serious and timeless topics of elections, corporations, motor vehicle
registration, and trademarks. e “delightfully informal meeting ground” was rmly established.
e irties, in the memory of many people, remain one of the darkest periods in the history of
the United States. is tragic period exemplies the failure of an unregulated market economy.
e Secretaries of State supported government intervention and control, but at the state level.
Secretary Richard J. Beamish of Pennsylvania “expressed the view favoring a federal statute gov-
erning corporations and also expressed the need for more stringent laws regulating corporations.”
9
He also suggested “the tendency was toward federal regulation.”
10
Several Secretaries acknowl-
edged the tendency but rejected the practice. is example is the rst recorded rejection of usur-
pation of their power, but certainly not the last. e Secretaries supported measures that would
increase hiring and reinvigorate the economy.
e Association reected a movement that would gain momentum when it supported measures
designed for the protection of corporations and consumers. During this decade, discussions were
initiated dealing with the rights of the individual in relation to corporations. It was believed that
“corporations were articial persons and that there could be criminals among them the same as
among natural persons, and that where they showed criminal records they should be punished.”
11
Measures ranging from registration and licensing of corporations to registration of trademarks
and trade names were taken to protect both parties.
e decade of the thirties was a time of economic rebuilding and rejuvenation. It was also a
time when federal and state governments intervened in what had previously been a private sector.
e respective Secretaries of State, in many instances, were forced to choose between what was
best for them and their administrations and what was best for the lagging economy. In all instanc-
es, the Secretaries weighed the immediate advantages against the precedents that would be set by
enabling the federal government to intervene in state and local sectors.
One example was a proposal for federally licensed corporations, which was ultimately thwarted.
Public sentiment during the Depression forced Congress to give the president almost unlimited
power. e Secretaries sought not only to promote an economic recovery, but to preserve the Con-
stitutional powers which rightfully belonged to the states. e members of the National Associa-
tion of Secretaries of State can be seen as guardians of the rights of individuals and corporations
and their interaction.
War and Voting
“e care of all of us is that the individual shall be informed. e
concern of all of us is that every voter shall vote.”
12
—Frederic Cook, MA, 1937
Also rmly established in the early meetings was the intense determination on the part of the
Secretaries to preserve the fundamental right of voting for those eligible.
In most states, Secretaries have responsibility to administer election procedures. Armed with
this duty, and with the rm conviction that election day is the “real Independence Day,” the Secre-
taries set out to protect and encourage the fundamental liberty entrusted to their care.
13
8
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
It is in the area of elections, including voter education and fair election practices, that NASS made
some of its greatest and longest-lasting contributions. As state elections ocers, the Secretaries
were in a position to understand the problems citizens encountered when exercising their vot-
ing rights. By vocalizing these concerns to the U.S. Congress, NASS encouraged several election
reforms, including lowering the voting age, shortening residency requirements for federal election
voting, registration reform, work on uniform poll closing, and limitations on campaign nance ex-
penses. Election reform debates began as early as the 1930s, when Massachusetts Secretary Freder-
ic Cook summed up the situation in 1930s election practices by referring to the complete “. . . lack
of uniformity of election laws in our states.”
14
Although a reason for this early interest in election procedures by NASS cannot be ascertained,
it is a legitimate interest, for it falls within the scope of responsibility of the Secretaries of State.
Secretary of State Earl Grith of Ohio stated, “By virtue of the laws of our state, the
Secretary of State of Ohio is the chief election ocer and the supreme election authority. It is his
primary obligation and duty to direct the election machinery, to preserve the integrity of the ballot
and to safeguard the rights of electors.”
15
Possibly the fervor of NASS members in support of strong, enforceable and uniform election
codes stemmed from their desire to forever place in the past the extensive political corruption wit-
nessed at the turn of the century. America was moving toward a predominantly urban existence,
and the need for reform was evident. e primary and convention nomination systems came
under scrutiny along with the Corrupt Practices Act.
e Secretaries sought new and innovative ways to wipe out corruption. Indeed, as early as
1939, the possibility of using voting machines was discussed.
16
Procedural changes were demand-
ed with regard to recounting ballots. Even the voting age was questioned some 37 years before it
was lowered.
17
e importance of elections within the oce of the Secretary of State is evidenced
by the recurrent discussion of this topic throughout NASS conferences.
As America withstood the turbulence and change of the irties a new storm arose on the
horizon which would further try human endurance, ingenuity and commitment. Few will disagree
that the decade of the Forties was the single most important era in the United States’ “rise to glo-
balism.” is period forced drastic changes in the outlook of the public and altered the position of
the United States on the world scene.
With the threat to American allies in Europe, Americans in 1939 became aware of an ominous
tide originating in Germany. Still feeling the eects of World War I, many were leery of any over-
tures which might require participation in this latest conict in Europe. Certainly many citizens
remembering the horrors of “the Great War” were vocal advocates of an isolationist policy.
Astute individuals began to perceive the threat of Hitler’s National Socialist Party (Nazi) was one
that could not be ignored. Many, witnessing the buildup and rearmament of Germany, were vehe-
mently opposed to America’s passive isolationist policy.
As early as 1934, Secretary Beamish of Pennsylvania observed the promotion of the govern-
mentally supported youth movement by Chancellor Adolf Hitler in Germany. is youth move-
ment was the seed for Hitler’s later aggression, and Secretary Beamish “called attention (to the
fact) that the three great autocracies of the world, Russia, Italy and Germany, were stressing the
youth movement with relation to government while the three great democracies of the world,
America, England and France, have not done much in this line except the Boy Scout work.
18
He
further “expressed the view that reducing the voting age, while not a complete answer, was the be-
ginning of an answer.”
19
Beamish’s astute observance of Germany’s youth movement foreshadowed
events to come.
A HISTORY OF NASS
9
e National Association of Secretaries of State maintained an active role in the overall security
of the United States and its national defense policies. On August 27, 1941, less than four months
before Pearl Harbor, the Association held its annual conference. At this meeting, NASS was ad-
dressed by Professor Samuel C. May, director of the Bureau of Public Administration, University
of California, on “e State as an Agency for National Defense.” Professor May stated that “the
policy of our government has always been to keep political organization on a small scale and to
decentralize so far as possible. In an emergency, the entire structure must be organized on
a national scale in order that there may be the fullest mobilization.”
20
is is the essence of the na-
tional policy. Too many people were lulled into complacency by the upswinging economy and the
historic invulnerability of the United States.
e primary responsibilities of the respective states included assisting in production conver-
sion, civilian defense, airplane warning service, the dra, rationing and civilian morale. ese
responsibilities were set forth in a memorandum to the State Council of Defense on August 2,
1940. Professor May pointed out the problems at that time: “Generally speaking, there is no di-
culty in maintaining morale at a high level once a nation is actually engaged in war. In the present
emergency, however, the problem is very dicult because of our proneness to maintain business
as usual.”
21
e 24th conference is a testament to the timely action of the National Association of
Secretaries of State.
With the declaration of war on December 10, 1941, the United States entered into one of the
most complex administrative and logistical undertakings in history. Topics of the 25
th
conference
focused entirely on the war eort and the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State. e member-
ship of NASS was committed not only professionally but morally and ethically to the fulllment of
their increased duties precipitated by the war eort. Secretary ad Eure of North Carolina, acting
president of the Association, stated emphatically:
is is no time for beautifully prepared manuscripts with high-sounding rhetoric . . . We as-
semble now for conference, discussions and planning for immediate action. Despite global warfare
of such extraordinary proportions as to confound our imagination, we have been able to change
our tempo from one of armed expectancy to total warfare, with accompanying shi in viewpoint
and rmer determination of purpose.
22
ere was much consternation and discussion during the executive committee meeting as to
whether the conference should convene. e executive committee concluded that it could best
serve the respective states if the Secretaries could meet and reach an agreement on a course of
action and operating procedure.
23
And meet they did, with the usual atmosphere of camaraderie and goodwill but with an over-
riding resolve and sense of purpose. Secretary Eure expressed the charge of the conference when
he stated:
ere can be in this hour just one keynote to our conference. at is: We as individ-
uals and as executives and administrative ocers in the governmental setup of the
various states in our Republic, and as an organization pledge the full weight of our
thought, inuence and energy to the prosecution of this war to victory—a victory
which will mean the destruction of forces seeking the enslavement of liberty-loving
peoples the world over.
24
10
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
e total sense of united commitment and devotion during World War II had, up to this point,
never been realized. Although political factionalism was sparse in the early years of the Associa-
tion, it was nonexistent during World War II.
Just as the soldiers sought to protect the United States and preserve the freedoms guaranteed
under the Constitution, the guardians of the electoral process felt that the voting rights of United
States soldiers around the world should be maintained. e Secretaries realized that it was im-
perative that soldiers be able to participate in the process they were defending with their lives. At
the time of the 25th conference, all but three states had some form of absentee voting laws. ese
states were subsequently asked to develop standardized procedures. As the Secretaries began to
think about the magnitude of the logistical problem of ensuring the voting rights of each soldier,
they discovered problems from the outset.
Obtaining a list of servicemen and their established residency posed a problem. Until cooper-
ation could be secured from the War Department, election ocials had to rely upon sometimes
unproven sources including newspapers, local ocials and local dra boards. ese lists were not
comprehensive even when cooperation was obtained. e diculty in obtaining these lists was
compounded by the fact that each branch of the service represented its own personnel. ere was
no central agency controlling soldier voting.
Additional problems existed which were very broad in scope and not easily resolved. Who
would control the voting process, the Adjutant General or the respective Secretaries of State?
Who would provide information on elections and their procedures? Who would deliver and
return ballots? Who would pay the postage? What type of ballot should be used? Who, if anyone,
would notarize the ballots? What about primaries? And nally, who would answer these ques-
tions?
A central controlling body was needed. Several bills were introduced in Congress attempting
to rectify this problem. On September 16, 1942, the Ramsey Act was adopted, encouraging ser-
vicemen to utilize the absentee ballot of their respective states. is act promoted the use of state
“war ballots” but met little success, for it did not address the many other problems surrounding
servicemen’s surage. Policymakers and legislators alike debated several proposed bills, to little or
no avail. In 1943, the members of NASS deliberated over proposed legislation which, among other
things, would create a central organization known as the United States War Ballot Commission.
Many members felt this bill was a direct usurpation of the states’ constitutionally granted
powers. Others felt that adoption of such a measure was inevitable and refutation of this proposal
would negate any positive inuence the members of NASS could provide. Other members be-
lieved that the “end justied the means.” Secretary Frederic W. Cook of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts embodied the latter belief when he stated:
Much as we dislike this sort of resolution and much as we dislike that the Federal
Government is going to dictate, we are given an opportunity of working this out
here . . . is is a question of liberty, and it is a vital question, the subject of a ballot,
and we should work out some denite answer here. e world is looking to us for a
solution of this. Here are our boys in the fox holes, risking their necks while we are
at home, safe, and arguing this point.
25
A HISTORY OF NASS
11
ere is some indication that much of the debate was rather heated as the record shows periods
of “o record discussion.” e Secretaries nally reached a consensus and a recommendation was
then forwarded to the appropriate powers. e proposed legislation creating the War Ballot
Commission was soon aer adopted by the United States Congress. e membership of this cen-
tral body included the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, Administrator of the War,
Shipping Administrator, an executive ocer and an administrative ocer.
26
e commission served all branches of the military. Its powers were extremely limited and the
majority of responsibility still lay with the respective services. e basic responsibilities of the
commission were “1, to consult with the state ocials . . . and 2 aer the elections, to report to the
Congress on the administration of the law.”
27
Although this commission was far from perfect, it
succeeded in providing satisfactory answers to many questions that plagued soldier and sailor
voting procedures. e commission was successful in handling certain problems that were dicult
for the various states to overcome, such as postage, informing soldiers, securing cooperation of
military personnel and the timely transportation of ballots.
When the same problems arose in the early 1950s with soldiers stationed in Korea, Louisiana
Secretary Wade O. Martin reminded NASS of the actions taken during World War II. “At the
outbreak of World War II the question of soldier-sailor voting and military voting was paramount
in this nation . . . ,” he remembered, adding, “e laws passed by Congress relative to the trans-
mission and return of ballots . . . tied in very nicely with the laws of the states; so in a large mea-
sure the success of the military soldier voting laws was due to this Association.”
28
NASS used the
occasion of the war in Korea to improve “Soldier Voting” statutes and sought to establish some
uniform laws concerning voting in federal elections.
Soldiers were not the only ones living with the threat of disfranchisement. During World
War II, concern was voiced for the soldiers’ families and displaced factory workers who were
not eligible to vote because moving from one factory job to the next made adhering to residency
requirements dicult, if not impossible. NASS developed model legislation, to be modied on
the individual state level, which would preserve voting rights for displaced Americans voting in
the general election for President and Vice-President.
29
It was agreed that while residency require-
ments were necessary for informed voting decisions in local elections, the opportunity to hear the
issues on the national level existed and was available to any citizen.
e United States Congress enacted the Federal Voting Assistance Act in 1955, providing for
absentee voting in federal elections, in peacetime and war, by the military, overseas federal gov-
ernment employees, members of religious groups or welfare agencies attached to the armed forces,
and for spouses and dependents. e Act also made recommendations to the states that voting
laws be amended in order to provide a simplied method of absentee registration and voting in
any state election and that the states accept a unied federal form as an application from such
voters for both registration and the ballot.
30
While some states did not totally agree with the con-
gressional act, NASS’s untiring and vocal eorts on the behalf of disfranchised voters played an
important role in its development and subsequent amendments.
e Defense Department recognized NASS in 1959 with a special citation for its eorts in
supporting soldier voting and the absentee ballot. Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Finucane
declared, “e Federal Voting Assistance Program is a great national asset, both to the Armed
Forces and to the country which they serve.”
31
He went on to express the ocial thanks of the De-
partment of Defense for NASS assistance in making the program a success.
12
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
More praise for NASS eorts in the area of voting was forthcoming. In 1962, Assistant Secretary
of Defense Norman S. Paul commended NASS, saying, “In the eld of absentee voting, in particu-
lar, the men and women who serve America in its Defense forces have beneted from your fre-
quent support of improved and simplied legislation . . . ”
32
By that time, thirty states had accepted
all or a major portion of the recommendations contained in the Federal Voting Assistance
Act, and the other twenty states had modied their laws in some way to accommodate the absen-
tee voting program.
33
NASS continues work today with the Department of Defense on overseas
voting to allow those in the armed services, and other U.S. citizens living abroad, the means to
participate in the election process.
34
Today, each state provides for absentee voting in each election
and all accept the Federal Post Card Application form as a request for registration and/or ballot.
e Secretaries of State were also involved in the rights of non-citizens. During the war with
Japan, it was unfortunately deemed necessary to take certain security precautions with regard to
“aliens” or rather those non-citizen residents in the United States. e federal government pursued
measures to help ensure the security of the United States against internal subversion and sabotage
from persons classied as “enemy aliens.”
Under this federal program there were subdivisions in the “enemy alien” classication which
would more accurately depict the actual severity of the subversive concerns.
35
Under the program,
there were certain to be inherent abuses and it was so recognized. Earl G. Harrison, commission-
er of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Department of justice, enlisted the assistance
of the membership of NASS to help in prevention of prejudice and discrimination against those
classied as “enemy aliens.” Commissioner Harrison recognized the inuence wielded by the
Secretaries and seized upon the opportunity to secure their assistance in attempting to reduce this
predestined problem of discrimination against “aliens” friendly or otherwise. Commissioner Har-
rison realized the delicacy of this matter when he stated “As is true of so many national ‘problems,’
whether peacetime or wartime, any problem which involves the non-citizen requires the fullest
understanding and agreement on the part of federal, state, and local governments.”
36
e membership of NASS was composed of analytical men who were experienced, knowledge-
able leaders with vision. eir prosecution of “Every American is duty-bound to live and think
and ght for his nation . . . no matter if he be in uniform or out” the war eort with the sin-
gle-minded determination toward victory was inspiring. Realizing the inevitable end of the war,
the Secretaries began planning for the postwar era. Preparation for the ultimate victory to come
can be seen as early as 1942.
During the 25
th
conference, a session was scheduled for a discussion on “Post War Planning.”
Sidney omas, chief of the State and Local Programming Section, National Resources Planning
Board, addressed the conferees restating the policies of the NRPB and recommending certain
goals that would facilitate postwar transition:
1) Assume the leadership in preparing well thought-out programs of public works,
developing such programs for the state itself.
2) Make available to localities the assistance and advice of state planning or other
agencies so as to encourage and aid them to do the same.
A HISTORY OF NASS
13
During the conference of 1943, there was again discussion of the “Post War Problems of the
States.” Frank Bane, executive director of the Council of State Governments, addressed the Secre-
taries on this topic. e presentation was centered on two issues that had been recently passed by
Congress: War powers for governors and surplus nancing by the states. ese topics proved to be
as controversial as they were necessary for the Congress. It was felt that for reasons of expediency
and security, the governors should have extended powers during time of national emergency and
postwar economic revitalization. Surplus nancing was necessary for reconstruction aer the war
had been won.
Expansion of services was not the only form of action taken with regard to postwar economic
reconstruction. ere was discussion on limiting powers held by major corporations. It was the
general feeling that in order to promote economic growth, both legislative and administrative
action needed to be taken. Because of corporate patent rights and corporate formation of cartels,
maximum economic recovery was inhibited. Secretary omas Elmo Jones of Maryland delivered
a report on cartels and their role in postwar planning. He pointed out that many of the largest
cartels seemingly operated as separate states following their own statutes and rules of decorum.
He noted that in Europe and especially Germany, the use of cartels as an instrument of the gov-
ernment was common. He described attempts by German-owned cartels to implement a defacto
embargo on war items, particularly synthetic rubber, to the United States. Secretary Jones stated
that the same power leveled against the United States could be used against other corporations by
takeovers, prohibiting entrance into industry and monopolizing patent rights. For these reasons, it
was deemed necessary to enact certain legislation and administrative rules that could bring these
cartels under rein. e Senate’s special Post War Economic Planning Committee recommended
that the following action be taken:
3) Accumulate nancial reserves rather than succumb to the temptation to dissipate
growing surpluses or reduce taxes during the war period.
4) Enact legislation which will permit local governments to likewise put their nan-
cial houses in order and to participate to the fullest extent in the postwar eort.
37
1) Enact a federal charter law to dene the powers and responsibilities of corpo-
rations, so drawn as to enable big and small businesses to bring to the market the
goods and services which must be produced if the national debt is ever to be paid.
2) Revise patent laws to limit the monopolistic use of patents.
3) Undertake a thorough study of incentive taxation to stimulate the investment of
private funds in productive enterprise.
38
Senator O’Mahoney, who presented the Senate report, states, as related by Secretary Jones, that
“private enterprise cannot endure competition of either monopoly or government.”
39
In 1943, NASS was honored by the presence of Senator Harry S. Truman from Missouri. Sen-
ator Truman had distinguished himself by his investigation of military spending, but was not yet
cognizant of just how important a role he would play in the years to come when he delivered his
message on the “Post War Worlds.” He was introduced as a “man who in the years he has served
the nation and in the Senate has become international copy.”
40
Truman stated:
14
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
is is no time for petty thinking or narrow programs. Every American is du-
ty-bound to live and think and ght for his nation, no matter what his sphere of
service—no matter if he be in uniform or out.
41
Truman has been recognized as a man of more-than average ability with the skill to get to the
heart of the matter. Indeed, he recognized the importance of those members of the conference
when he stated:
We meet today at a critical time in America’s history. You are the architects of the
wartime functions of our 48 states. What you decide at this convention, therefore,
will shape our national destiny more than any of us realize. I believe that your
deliberation held here in wartime, will do far more than solve your own immediate
problems. I believe your decision can aect the outcome of the war.
42
Senator Truman oered to the membership of NASS the following recommendations:
1) Carry unity of the states into the postwar period.
2) End the ‘Washington will do it” attitude.
3) Encourage patterns of cooperation between states.
4) States can “Become arsenals of the spirit that will win the war and ensure a just
and lasting peace.”
43
Less than two years later, Truman was elevated into the oce of the president by the death of
Franklin Roosevelt.
At the 27
th
annual conference in August of 1944, the end of the war was in sight. is brought
about increased fervor for reconstruction planning.
In an address from William L. Batt, vice chairman, War Production Board, the members of
NASS were once again called upon to address existing and forthcoming problems. Vice Chairman
Batt outlined the problems of wartime production explaining that “to too many of us, the war is in
the bag”
44
Mr. Batt indicated that this type of thinking was inaccurate and potentially dangerous.
Problems existed in the supply of manpower because of the depletion of men caused by the dra.
He then outlined the many problems confronting the postwar reconstruction period including the
surplus of materials that would never be used by a civilian economy. He discussed the industries
created by the federal government and what might be done to ensure that these plants were uti-
lized by private industry for the benet of all parties. Mr. Batt touched on other facets of economic
revitalization that would have to be realized before the postwar recovery would be complete.
45
Postwar recovery was taken up in the regular session under the heading “Organizing the States
for the Future.” e discussion included several reports, one of which was delivered by Secretary
Frank M. Jordan of California outlining his state’s preparation. California had experienced an in-
crease in population of 22 1/2%, some 500,000 people, since 1940.
46
Secretary Jordan outlined the
program as follows:
1) $25 million appropriation for postwar buildings and roads, not including parks.
A HISTORY OF NASS
15
2) $30 million land issue for veterans’ homes and farms.
3) $20 million for additions and improvements for state prisons, hospitals, etc.
47
He prophetically understated, ‘We are going to have a big state out there in a few years.”
48
Secre-
tary of State J. A. Brophy of New Jersey outlined his state’s policy:
e time is approaching when the postwar world will be a reality. Its problems will
be as real as the problems of war, and their solution will likewise be largely of our
own making. If we are to solve them wisely, we must make preparation for them
now.
49
Secretary Brophy told of the creation of an Economic Development Department which would
encompass the Division of Veterans’ Services, a Division of Planning and Engineering, a Division
of Municipal Aid, a Division of Commerce, and any division that the commissioners might see t
to add. e Economic Development Department would basically oversee and supervise compre-
hensively the economic recovery programs.
50
Ruth M. Miner, the Executive Deputy Secretary of State of the state of New York, gave an over-
view of what New York had done in the way of postwar recovery. She stated that “New York State
had formed a Division of Commerce in 1941—this was before Pearl Harbor—because we not only
saw that war was inevitable, but we saw that we could not be surrounded by war without having
tremendous problems within the state.”
51
eir program was similar to New Jersey in its purpose
and function. Economic recovery was foremost in the minds of those who believed that victory
was inevitable.
By the 28
th
annual conference held in October, 1945, the surrender of Germany and Japan was
complete. Economic recovery programs were in full motion. e lack of discussion with regard to
the war indicates a desire to put the horrors of war in the past and move forward with the more
traditional role of the Oce of Secretary of State. e Secretaries displayed a tremendous amount
of cohesion and dedication during the four-year ordeal. e decisive action and enthusiastic pros-
ecution of the war program oers a glimpse into the depth of character that denes the members
of the National Association of Secretaries of State.
roughout the years of the Great Depression and then continuing on through the duration of
the war, there was a growing trend toward federalism. Much of this trend was due to the extreme
circumstances of the time; however, it was felt that the national emergencies had ended and the
time for state retrenchment was at hand. e members of NASS had maintained that the creation
of bureaus and commissions with sweeping executive, judicial and legislative jurisdiction had been
best for the country during the turbulent years of the Depression and war, but those times had
passed. e Secretaries lost no time in expressing their unhappiness with the unnecessary “usur-
pation of rights that had previously been reserved for the states.”
52
Secretary of State Walter Wood of Mississippi delivered a report on the “Miscellaneous Prob-
lems of the Secretary of State.” In this report, he discussed the loss of certain powers and those
rights reserved for the states. Secretary Wood stated:
Our forefathers were wise in writing into the United States Constitution Article 9 in the
following words: ‘e enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’ By doing this they said
forcefully to our national government that its powers were only those enumerated in the
Constitution, and unless they are enumerated therein the power remains in the people.
53
16
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Secretary Wood pointed out the changes in the loss of state jurisdiction and its direct conict
with the constitution. At this time there was a movement in Washington for the reorganization of
the federal government. ese changes would include the creation and consolidation of bureaus
and commissions that would oversee many functions previously performed by the state. e
Secretaries expressed a fear that these bureaus and commissions would do the one thing that they
did best—grow. Secretary Wood stated, “We have entirely too many boards and commissions
overlapping the constitutional authority of departmental heads of state government.”
52
It was felt
that these boards and commissions were out of touch with the people and therefore their ability to
serve them impaired.
Secretary Wood drew attention to two areas of federal expansion that would later explode into
national controversy—education and transportation. In reference to the attempted expansion into
the realm of education, Secretary Wood declared:
Education is one of the major departments of state government. No doubt you are aware
of the growing agitation for national legislation on this subject. National legislation would
be ne if it was such as to safeguard the rights of the states. e danger in this kind of
legislation is the encroachment on the national government of states’ rights. Any such
legislation or appropriation should be such as to assist the various states in educating their
children without any control by our national government except to see the money is eco-
nomically and honestly spent.
54
Federal intervention in education as early as 1945 foreshadowed events that would build to a cre-
scendo by 1954 with Brown vs. the Board of Education.
Secretary Wood spoke against control of transportation programs referring to the federal
government charge to “assist” the states. He believed that the federal government should prevent
abuse and extravagant spending but program administration should be a state responsibility.
55
In the 29
th
annual convention held in 1946, a forum was held on the question: “Should State
Governments be Streamlined?” e forum was in response to a resolution passed by Congress
to allow the president to appoint a commission to study the failures and inequities of the current
federal programs and to make subsequent recommendations on how they might be alleviated.
It was suggested that the states, too, would be included and possibly forgotten in this “streamlin-
i n g .”
56
Executive Deputy Ruth Miner led the discussion by pointing out that streamlining was needed,
but at the federal level. She intimated that the federal government had grown into a clumsy, mus-
cle-bound colossus of unmanageable size.
57
e exact duties and jurisdictions of the innite num-
ber of bureaus and commissions were not oen discernible. It was also believed that the blurred
federal jurisdictional boundaries had crossed into state government territory. Miss Miner believed
that the federal government could streamline itself aer the example set by the state governments.
She oered as an example of self-admitted ineciency, the creation of a joint committee in Con-
gress to look into its own organization and possible plans for reorganization. Miss Miner stated
that:
ere is a denite, claried line in state governments with a denite commitment to sim-
plicity and responsibility to the people a willingness to submit their endurance and their
suerance to the choice of the people, and I feel that the spirit of the individual states is
certainly sure and wise and hopeful.
58
A HISTORY OF NASS
17
Miss Miner’s report and the conference’s posture with regard to expanding federalism shows a
rearmation of the Secretaries’ commitment to the preservation of states’ rights.
e period following the war was a time of high hopes and great expectations. It was a time that
America was again strong militarily and economically. Many Americans believed that because of
a victory in the war, America stood astride the world beyond dispute. Americans were aicted
with a chronic case of hubris which would be abruptly shattered in the years soon aer the war. It
became obvious to most Americans that the expectation of the spoils of war were in fact illusions.
e relationship with the Soviet Union became increasingly frigid as it became apparent that the
Russian designs on the world were of a grand scale. e failures of several conferences, including
Yalta and San Francisco, fueled the skepticism and suspicion already surrounding Soviet leader-
ship.
e events in Asia involving Chinese Communists caused America to begin to look for reasons
for America’s loss of face. e division of Korea by the United States and the Soviet Union result-
ed in the existence of two separate governments. Four months prior to the 31
st
convention, the
Soviets blockaded Berlin forcing the hand of the United States. It became apparent that the United
States was not in control of the world scene, as many had believed. Americans began to question
why America had fallen from her place in unitary prominence. One explanation oered, and
quickly espoused by the unquestioning masses, was the conspiracy theory. Many astute individuals
pointed out that communism had gained the upper hand in several countries through inltration
and subversion, suggesting that the same thing might be occurring in the United States. Indeed,
these beliefs were given validity by the United States government through the creation of a Loyalty
Review Board.
In 1940, prior to the declaration of war, Secretary Robert A. Gray of Florida expressed a con-
cern over the participation of “unrecognized” parties in their primary elections. In the case of
Secretary Gray he was speaking, not of the Nazi Party, but of the Communist Party which was a
signicant force during this time. Secretary Gray stated “some of you are doubtless having trouble
with the Communist Party.”
59
e Secretaries were somewhat less concerned with subversion than
they were with the disruption of the established political process, but this concern was juxtaposed
aer the War.
e Secretaries of State reected the fears of the country at their convention in 1948. Secretary
of State George G. Hatcher of Kentucky made the observation that “there has been and still is at
present a great amount of inltration into state governments of people and groups who are trying
to destroy the State Constitution or have them amended, in order to secure power for these peo-
ples or groups.”
60
ese concerns were echoed by several other Secretaries. A representative from
Ohio stated “Communism in Ohio is an obvious thing, and not something that is hiding in fear.”
61
In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy stated “e reason we nd ourselves in a position of impo-
tency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but
rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this nation.”
62
He added, “e State Department was infested with communists.”
63
Six months later, NASS held
its 33
rd
conference and passed a resolution stating that it would combat communism in all forms
and would prohibit this party from appearing on the ballot. To the credit of the association, there
was little mention of the “perceived” infestation of communism in America aer the initial hys-
teria. ere were more real threats to the American way of life that needed the attention of the
Secretaries. e threats posed by communist subversion and inltration were as fabricated as the
threat of atomic war was real.
18
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
In 1949, the Soviet Union detonated its rst atomic bomb, and with it exploded America’s nu-
clear monopoly. No longer was America the only country toting an atomic visa. e strain on So-
viet/U. S. relations had grown to belligerence. From recent events, America had gained a distrust
for and apprehension about Soviet designs. It was believed that with this newly acquired capability
the Soviets would not hesitate to initiate a nuclear war.
e situation in Korea further exacerbated the strained Soviet-American relations. e Secre-
taries of State used the opportunity of the Korean War to improve their “Soldier-Voting” statutes.
ey had, during the period between wars, worked to guarantee the right of franchise to soldiers
and sailors across the sea. Korea was not viewed with the same intensive nationwide concern as
was World War II. As U. S. involvement increased and Soviet backing became increasingly evi-
dent, the fear of communist takeover and Soviet attack grew. Among the resolutions passed at the
conference in 1950 was one pronouncing “whole-hearted opposition to one person or political
party that advocates the overthrow of our form of government . . . .”
64
e contention preceding
the resolution stated:
Whereas, the United States together with other members of the United Nations are now
engaged in a battle with Communism; and Whereas, many of our sons have paid the su-
preme sacrice in Korea ghting to preserve our freedom. . . .
65
Believing that an attack was imminent, the United States began to take measures in preparation.
NASS responded quickly. As early as 1950, preparation for nuclear war could be seen. Among top-
ics of discussion at the 33
rd
annual convention was a “Plan for Mutual Aid Compacts Between
States.” e realities of nuclear war, its scope and devastation can be seen in a letter urging NASS
to develop a mutual aid plan. In the letter, James H. Du, Governor of Pennsylvania, asserts:
It has become crystal clear to us that Communism, the atom bomb and the H-bomb adds
up to total war, in which civilians are totally involved. Americans must not be lulled into
a false security by recent military successes. e United States is not free from the danger
of a sudden, cruel and catastrophic attack. Such an attack would be against all the people,
and therefore the defense against it must require the coordinated eort of all the people.
66
At the 34
th
annual conference, the threat was evidenced through the discussion of microlming
and preservation of records. It was believed that an attack would occur at any time and measures
should be taken to facilitate reconstruction following the attack. “Civil Defense has turned into a
tremendous factor—going into millions of dollars, and one of the items which is being stressed is
the reproduction of your vital documents for safekeeping.”
67
In 1961, NASS was addressed by a representative from the Oce of Emergency Planning,
which had recently been changed to the Oce of Civil Defense. Mr. Frank Burton Es addressed
the conference in a feverish tone. As an appointee of President Kennedy, he sought to strengthen
the bargaining position of the United States by making the public less vulnerable to nuclear anni-
hilation. Mr. Es pointed out the stark contrast between the level of preparedness of each country.
He made a passionate appeal to NASS members for their assistance in promoting civil defense.
Bringing the true gravity and timely nature of the eort toward preparation for war, Mr. Es
pointed out:
A HISTORY OF NASS
19
President Kennedy has made it very plain that since Laos, since the crisis in Cuba,
since the diculties and trouble in other areas of our trouble-ridden world, the
President has decided . . . that there will be no backup in Berlin.
68
And indeed there was “no backup” in Berlin. Mr. Es went on to point out: ‘We did not create the
situation that exists there. It was created by Krushchev and it is he who has put us on a collision
force (sic).
69
Mr. Es outlined his request to the membership of NASS and pointed out what they could do
to prepare for nuclear war. He asked that full cooperation be given to the Department of Defense
engineers. He then asked that the Secretaries urge the population to build their own shelters by
oering monetary incentives in the way of low-interest loans through the many banks over which
the Secretaries maintain inuence. Finally he appealed to the Secretaries to build their own shel-
ters. Mr. Es’ concern for increasing the bargaining power can be seen when he stated, “I hope
in a year from now that when Dean Rusk sits at the conference tables of the world that he can say
a hundred million people in America will survive.”
70
Mr. Es, in a statement which had already
been proven, believed that “. . . we are in for a long period of extended cold war . . . . ”
71
From the question-and-answer session that followed Mr. Es’ appeal, it is apparent that the
threat was as real as the cooperation that was given. e Secretaries posed questions with rela-
tion to shelters, microlm storage and temporary seats of government. Mr. Es’ presence and the
charge which he granted to the members of NASS are evidence of the stature and credibility main-
tained by the Association. e inuence of the Secretaries was believed to be at both the grassroots
and administrative levels and indeed it was. It is certainly evident today that there is no single
branch of state government that can reach so far up and down. e responsibility and inuence of
the Oce of Secretary of State is wide-ranging.
Tensions with Russia continued in the same vein through the Sixties during America’s involve-
ment in Southeast Asia. Mr. Es mentioned in his address at the 44th conference that General
Maxwell Taylor had recently been sent to Viet Nam. Mr. Es embodied the feelings and motiva-
tion of the country when he stated:
e Russians are continuing to put pressure on us. ey probably felt that, because
of the big Berlin noise, we’d pay no attention to our southeast Asian commitments.
But we are going to stick by our SETO (sic) Alliance and our SETO friends . . . .
72
Neither Mr. Es nor the members of NASS appreciated the full signicance of this statement.
During the 48
th
conference held in 1965, a resolution was presented supporting the American
policies in Viet Nam. e resolution evoked endless controversy due to certain language that was
perceived to be oensive. As presented in its entirety the resolution reads:
Whereas, there has been much controversy in the newspapers, magazines and
other news media over Viet Nam—some contending that the United States’ partic-
ipation was too great, and others that the United States commitment was too little;
and
Whereas, there have been numerous demonstrations by the unpatriotic, unin-
formed, and publicity-seeking, irresponsible groups and ill-advised organizations;
and
20
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Whereas, it is necessary that all economic and military eorts should be made to
prevent the spread of the cancer of communism; and
Whereas, traditionally the United States has aided small nations in the preser-
vation of their sovereignty and has decried exploitation of them by large or small
powers, and inltration of them by tyrannical “isms,” and so long as the
United States constitutes a nation, it shall continue to do so; and
Whereas, the members of the National Association of Secretaries of State sin-
cerely believe that all local citizens and recipients of our country’s bounty should
not hesitate to express their feelings on the situation and should make known that a
solid majority of the citizens of the United States support the United States policies
in Viet Nam;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Association of Secre-
taries of State, in meeting assembled, that it hereby expresses its complete approval
of the policies of the United States in carrying on its operations in Viet Nam; that it
condones no interference in them and that, if necessary, it hopes that additional aid
is oered to bring an early and victorious end to the conict; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Presi-
dent of the United States by the President of the National Association of Secretaries
of State and, upon returning to their respective states, each member of the National
Association of Secretaries of State send a copy of this resolution which expresses
unanimous feelings to their respective Senators and Representatives in Congress.
73
Heated discussion followed but the second paragraph created the most tension. e language
could be seen as rather subjective. Many Secretaries found the resolution too oensive to support
as written. Amendments to delete and rephrase the resolution were oered but to no avail. is
resolution was neither passed, tabled, nor failed. It was the judgment of the chair that it should be
removed from consideration. e topic proved itself too volatile to be addressed by the associa-
tion. e ambiguity of NASS cannot be criticized, for it was this same ambiguity that had engulfed
the country.
In 1966, Secretary of State John Lomenzo of New York presented a resolution that would in
essence call for an investigation into certain abuses. e rst paragraph stated:
Whereas, responsible news media have reported that much of the American aid
and assistance for the economic rebuilding of Viet Nam as well as American mili-
tary supplies had been misappropriated and misused. . . .
74
e resolution met with a formidable and vocal opposition. e faction which opposed the reso-
lution felt that, although the news organization which had conducted the investigation (the Asso-
ciated Press) was reputable, the resolution would cast undue suspicion and negative feelings upon
the Department of Defense. Secretary Lomenzo’s vehement defense of his resolution pointed out,
From ocial reports, in the rst two years, as much as 40 percent of the total sup-
plies sent to Viet Nam in the form of aid to the South Viet Namese people, as well
as military aid, have turned up in the open black market.
75
A HISTORY OF NASS
21
e conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State was split; both factions main-
tained valid arguments. e resolution was ultimately tabled again illustrating the ambivalence of
the association and America in general, with regard to the prosecution of the war in Viet Nam.
During the nal session of the conference, a resolution was submitted which partially stated,
“We support our president and the policies of the American government in Viet Nam.”
76
e resolution passed unanimously. It appeared that, although the prosecution of the war was
in question, the actual policy of the United States was wholeheartedly supported. Although Viet
Nam was foremost in the minds of many Americans, for others the attainment of civil rights was
the most important issue.
***
Civil rights became a major reform movement during the late Fiies and early Sixties. Both
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson pledged their administrations to the promotion of civil rights.
In 1964, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was ratied which prohibited a state poll tax in
federal elections. Although the poll tax was eliminated to correct discrimination, it was seen by
some of the members of NASS as an encroachment on states’ rights. Secretary of State Wade
O. Martin from Louisiana delivered the report of the election committee and at several points he
commented on the perceived encroachment. At one point he stated:
While your committee feels that qualications for registration and other prereq-
uisites for voting should remain the sole function of the individual states, require-
ments for voting should be reasonable and logical.
77
Although very aware of the encroachment on states’ rights, the members of NASS were also
sensitive to the much-needed progress in the realm of civil rights.
e Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in public accommodations, empowered
the Attorney General to bring cases on behalf of individuals and strengthened eorts to register
black voters. e Secretaries of State pledged their cooperation during the 48
th
conference held in
1965. e Secretaries assisted the civil rights movement by:
Assuming a posture of leadership within their respective States to the end that all of
our citizens shall enjoy the full rights and privileges of citizenship without regard to
color, creed, or national origin.
78
e resolution was unanimously adopted.
Concern for the advancement of civil rights was again evident at the NASS golden anniversary
convention in 1967. Dr. Frank Stanton, president of CBS, addressed the conference. He stated,
“We are justly disturbed that, for all reasons, more than four million Negroes of voting age cast no
ballots in 1964.”
79
In 1969, Heber Ladner, Secretary of State from Mississippi, made what he called a “plea for
reason.” He believed
. . . that if we do not change our course . . . this nation will become so involved in
riots, in arson, in every form of crime that we’ll do just as did the great civilization
of Rome: We’ll fade from the picture as the leader of the nations.
80
22
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Secretary Ladner went on to say: “e Holy Scripture says you can come at the eleventh hour
and be saved. And the time is here for these ocers—y Secretaries of State—to stand up and be
counted.”
81
Secretary Ladner expressed the exasperation felt by many leaders during this turbulent
time. is was a time of race riots and war protests, a time of generation gaps and lost hopes. It
was pointed out that there were in excess of one million young men and women in America who
“we refer to . . . as beatniks and freeknicks.”
82
Secretary Ladner expressed what many in the Asso-
ciation believed, that the moral discipline in America had deteriorated to a point as to present a
danger to the country as a whole.
An appeal was made to the Secretaries to plead with their congressmen, tell them “Let’s right
these great wrongs!”
83
e turbulence of the Sixties reached its pinnacle in 1969 and slowly but
surely began to subside. e concern and eorts of many leaders helped to turn the tide. e Na-
tional Association of Secretaries of State mirrored the genuine concerns expressed by many great
leaders during this period.
During the Viet Nam War there was a movement to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. Age
requirements had traditionally been a matter of state jurisdiction. Proposals to lower voting age
requirements were presented to the NASS conference in 1935 and 1953, but met with little inter-
est. Now, it appeared, to the Secretaries that Congress would once again overstep its constitution-
ally granted rights and pass legislation making an across-the-board reduction in the voting age.
Some states had already lowered their own voting age requirements. e nation had been engulfed
by a youth movement and greater awareness of constitutionally granted civil rights. is would
compounded by the fact that men, or rather boys, had been ghting and dying for a government
in which they could not actively participate as voters.
On July 1, 1971, the 26
th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was
ratied. is amendment enabled those American citizens 18 years of age or older to vote in feder-
al elections. It presented several problems to those who were to administer the laws. Problems of
domicile and registration presented themselves and were eventually overcome by the Secretaries
during work sessions with much dialogue at the NASS conference.
Further election reform dominated the decade of the Seventies. Discussion topics included the
Electoral College which was reviewed through several of the NASS meetings and eorts by
Congress to create a national voter registration system.
e members of NASS took oense at the federal government’s encroachment on states’ rights
in election procedures. e members once again chose to be pragmatic rather than needlessly
proud and chose to support the best option oered, ever mindful of the source of the options.
Aer extensive debate, the Association came to the conclusion that it would support the “concept”
of registration by mail but only as one of the viable options. It was felt that congressional interven-
tion in the area of election laws infringed on the rights of the states.
It would be more prudent to participate in the formulation of the law that would greatly aect
the Secretaries rather than abstain and be mandated an illogical policy formulated by those with-
out practical experience.
In 1975, a report by Secretary of State James C. Kirkpatrick of Missouri, chairman of the
NASS Federal Election Committee, suggested grants-in-aid should be provided to improve the
states’ registration systems. e imperative nature of the registration was precipitated by mandate
of the federal Attorney General’s oce. At the 58
th
annual conference, Secretary Kirkpatrick made
a poignant statement with regard to urging individuals to vote by mail. He stated:
A HISTORY OF NASS
23
In 1970, the Harris Poll reported that 17,400,000 Americans over the age of eigh-
teen are functionally illiterate. ere are approximately 40 million unregistered
voters, thus proving that nearly 45% of the people we seek to encourage to vote with
a mail form will not be able to read it.
In 1978, Senate Bill 708, otherwise known as Public Law-95-593, was discussed. is law
basically prohibited imposing a federal, state or local tax on citizens that seek to vote in a federal
election. It also provided for free postage to military personnel but not from them.
Many sessions centered around the voter, ever mindful of educating and accommodating the
electorate and the problems of how the elderly might be better served. ere were discussions on
locations of voting places, whether election days should be federal holidays, campaign spending
limits, contribution limits and more disclosure requirements.
During the 58
th
conference held in 1975, NASS was approached with the question on the
Equal Rights Amendment. At the time, 34 states had approved the amendment. Ms. Joan Growe,
Secretary of State of Minnesota, authored the resolution which declared the Association in favor of
ratication of the Equal Rights Amendment.
84
Several NASS members lent their vehement support
to the passage of this resolution. Debate grew out of the appropriateness of the resolution within
NASS. Mrs. Pat Perkinson, Secretary of State from Virginia, declared:
I do feel that it is perhaps inappropriate for us to adopt a resolution on a matter
that is really a concern of the legislators and has nothing to do with the functions
of our oce. It’s a very controversial issue in the states where it has not passed as of
this date, and as the resolution is worded, it commits members of this organization
to support the ERA. I submit to you that I would not want to speak for you in this
regard, and I appreciate you not speaking for me in this regard. I would like to see
this defeated.
85
Others expressed this same concern, but to the majority, the content and message of this resolu-
tion was of overriding importance. is resolution was ultimately passed.
e following conference reects NASS’ commitment to anti-discriminatory policies. e
Constitution and Bylaws Committee proposed that ‘Wherever the word ‘he’ or ‘him’ appears to be
changed to ‘his/her.’ ”
86
Several meetings in the Seventies held discussions on the role of notaries public and their
regulation. A Notary Committee was created and reported on the qualications needed to be a
notary. e background investigation was questioned as to its constitutionality. Many Secretaries
expressed a concern about granting notary public commissions to persons with “pecuniary or
built-in conicts of interest.”
87
ere were questions surrounding the use of witnesses. Dan L.
Kirby, general counsel for Western Surety Company, supported NASS conclusions that a $10,000
surety bond was a minimum requirement for all notaries public. He stated that lower bonds did
not aord the protection to citizens that was needed. ese discussions oen precipitated change
throughout the various states that beneted from attendance at the conference, and ultimately
beneted the public served by the Secretaries.
24
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
roughout the history of the National Association of Secretaries of State, the minutes reect
an acute awareness of the forces of change that directed the American evolution. From its incep-
tion, NASS served a single and overriding purpose: to assist the respective Secretaries of State in
making decisions that would further America toward the destiny envisioned by the framers of the
Constitution of the United States. e men and women of NASS displayed a tremendous amount
of camaraderie, cooperation, altruism and deep-seated convictions while acting and reacting to
the growing pains of the nation in the 20
th
Century. e Secretaries of State were, by choice, elevat-
ed to a position that demanded service on two levels. ey were answerable to their constituents,
the people whom they served. ey were also largely responsible for the ecient operation of the
government in which they were involved. ese members were and are the pillars of public service
on which a strong democracy is preserved. e achievements realized at the NASS conferences
over the years would certainly have pleased Stuart F. Reed of West Virginia. From the Depression
to World War II, from the Uniform Commercial Code, to Trademark legislation, the men and
women of NASS have acted quickly and deliberately in the execution of their duties.
But more important, and certainly less evident, was the knowledge and motivation gained
through discussions and casual interaction. ese conferences provided an invaluable service to
their members. ey acted as the lubricant needed for the proper functioning of an ever-chang-
ing machine. ey shared the experience and knowledge of veteran Secretaries with newcomers,
assisting them in avoiding years of trial and error. e ow of fresh new ideas ran unceasingly as
new members became part of the Association. Contacts were made with others who had similar
responsibilities within their respective states. Contacts were made within the federal government,
which used NASS as a clearinghouse for policy change. Finally, contacts were made with private
industry which introduced better and more ecient methods of administration.
A HISTORY OF NASS
25
To the Polls
Voter Education and Registration
In the late 1960s, NASS members expressed concern about the various closing time of polls
across the nation on election days. Polls on the East Coast closed three hours earlier than polls on
the West Coast. is was to the detriment of West Coast voters, who, seeing nationally broadcast
results, might decide not to cast their ballots. In 1966, NASS passed a resolution proposing that a
uniform closing time of voting precincts be put into eect.
88
e problem continued unresolved. In 1981, NASS requested that the major broadcast compa-
nies join and accept the duty and responsibility of initiating an examination to determine whether
reporting of election results while some polling places are still open had any negative impact on
voter turnout or behavior.
89
NASS appointed a “Uniform Poll Closing Hour Task Force” the fol-
lowing year to study exit polling and its impact on the electoral process. With this task force came
a dra resolution to engage in dialogue with the national news services; the goal was to negotiate
commitments to wait to broadcast results until aer polls closed.
90
e task force was also charged
with recommending legislation to the U.S. Congress relative to uniform poll closing times.
As NASS continued to protest the announcement of election results based on exit polling before
the polls were ocially closed, in 1984, the television networks announced their commitment to
not announce the projected results of an election until all polls within the state have closed.
91
is
commitment by the networks was taken in good faith as there were no, and still are no, national
laws regarding uniform poll closing times. A priority issue in the 1990s continues to be NASS’s
concern with the projection of election results before polls close in all jurisdictions across the
United States. Led by the eorts of California Secretary Bill Jones, NASS repeatedly passed resolu-
tions calling on the national television networks to refrain from projecting election results before
polls closed on the West Coast.
Voter education gures prominently in the election duties of the Secretaries. Included in this
responsibility are public service announcements, voter information pamphlets, and seminars for
election ocials. Many states have undertaken innovative voter education programs in an eort to
increase voter turnout statistics.
One of NASS’s primary missions is to assure the broadest possible participation in the election
process. NASS resolved in 1979 that a special committee be appointed to work with a national
advertising group to formulate a plan and associated materials for a “Get Out e Vote” campaign
for the 1980 elections.
92
Aer selecting the Ad Council as a partner, the rst NASS voter education
eort was conducted in 1980.
e Ad Council is a private, non-prot organization that conducts public service campaigns
that promote voluntary action in nding solutions to national problems. Started during World
War II to help mobilize the civilian population and get energies devoted to the support of the war
eort, at the war’s conclusion, the Ad Council turned its skills to peacetime issues.
93
Working with
the Ad Council and the Department of Defense, NASS participated in the 1980 “Get Out e
Vote” campaign which generated an estimated $26 million in free media time devoted to encour-
aging voter participation through an extensive multimedia advertising campaign.
94
NASS contin-
ued to work with the Ad Council on voter education eorts throughout the 1980s.
26
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
e Human SERVE (Service Employees Registration and Voter Education) Fund was founded
in 1983 as an organization interested in voter registration procedures. Part of its work is advo-
cating increased ease and exibility in voting, as well as compiling statistics on voter registration
and turnout. In 1986, the Human SERVE Fund and the National Center for Policy Alternatives
commended NASS eorts in voter education. ey suggested that since the role of the Secretary
of State was increasing even more in voter registration and election administration due to the
demands of technology, there was potential for the oce to become an innovative leader in vot-
er participation eorts.
95
In 1988, NASS established a “Task Force on Barriers to Voting” to urge
enactment of legislation to expand opportunities for voter registration.
96
at legislation arrived in the form of the National Voter Registration Reform Act (House
Resolution 2190 and Senate Bill 874, 1991). is congressional act was designed to expand op-
portunities for eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections, to ensure the maintenance
of accurate and current voter registration rolls, and to facilitate election administration and avoid
fraud. e act enabled eligible voters to be simultaneously registered to vote when applying for a
driver’s license (hence the name “Motor Voter”). It also entitled eligible voters to register to vote
for any federal election by mail or in person at state-designated oces and, upon mutual agree-
ment, at federal and voluntary private agencies. A number of NASS Secretaries, led by Washington
Secretary Ralph Munro, participated in advising the appropriate congressional committees on
developing and revising provisions contained within the act. A 1989 NASS resolution acknowl-
edged that while primary responsibility for elections rests with the states, Congress had the power
to impose some requirements aecting national elections. To that end, NASS endorsed the act for
reform in voter registration and expressed willingness to assist in perfecting the language of the
legislation.
97
Congress passed the “Motor Voter” bill in 1993.
e culmination of a decade of NASS concern about, and eorts to improve, low voter turnout
resulted in their support of national legislation. NASS also developed innovative programs that
were initiated in the 1990s, including new voter education campaigns and Project Democracy.
Project Democracy
Ocially known as the National Commission for the Renewal of the American Democracy,
“Project Democracy” was a bi-partisan commission of public ocials and civic leaders. NASS’s
primary impetus for creating the commission in 1992 was a report prepared by the Harwood
Group for the Kettering Foundation entitled “Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street
America.” is report revealed that citizens were not apathetic about politics, but felt totally
pushed out of the political process. People felt disconnected from their communities and their
public ocials, the report claimed, and they found that the political process failed to address the
issues most important to them. Citizens felt there were no mechanisms through which to discuss
and express their views, and believed that voting made little dierence. Interestingly enough, the
report maintained that citizens still wanted to participate in the political process, but did not know
how.
Project Democracy, a multi-year eort, was created to tap the experience, knowledge, and ideas
of people in an attempt to reconnect citizens to the political process. ree long-term strategic
areas provided the basis for work in Project Democracy. e rst area, reconnecting people with
government, was intended to promote meaningful and ongoing participation in the political pro-
cess, giving the public an active role to play in discussing and making decisions about policy
A HISTORY OF NASS
27
issues aecting their lives. Strategic area number two involved educating the public for eective
citizenship. is involved moving the public beyond the traditional high-school civics courses to
teaching them the skills needed to work with each other and with decision-makers in the political
process. e third strategic area encouraged using technology to connect people, to draw people
into the public arena and facilitate diverse public discussion.
98
Co-chaired by Tennessee Secretary of State Bryant Milsaps and Nevada Secretary Cheryl Lau,
the Commission held regional meetings in its rst year to learn about state and local projects de-
signed to bring people into the political process. One common refrain in those “Democracy Labs”
was people asking, “Why are we so far apart; why are politicians not listening?”
99
In addition to conducting the Democracy Labs, the Commission has repeatedly called for the
elimination of barriers to the electoral process. States were urged to consider the National
Voter Registration Act (1991) concerning “motor-voter” legislation and government agency voter
registration. Additional areas of concern to Project Democracy and NASS continue to be ways
of making registration easier, lengthening voting hours, increasing the number of polling places,
simplifying ballot language, providing candidate and ballot question information, and campaign
nance reform.
100
Voter Education Partners
NASS developed other professional aliations in its goal of encouraging voter participation. In
addition to the Ad Council/Department of Defense “Get Out the Vote” campaign, the Secretaries
supported “Rock the Vote,” an entertainment-based company for public service advertising.
Since its inception in 1990, the primary focus of “Rock the Vote” is on voter registration of the
18 to 24-year-old age group. Registration drives took place through “Rock the Vote” on college
campuses and during concert tours. Understanding the need for voter registration led “Rock the
Vote” to immediately support the “Motor Voter” legislation and join with NASS in 1992 for a se-
ries of public service advertisements.
101
e main objective of the “100% Vote” organization, which
merged with Human SERVE in 1992, is to work with elected ocials, and all interested organiza-
tions to promote and oer technical assistance for eective implementation of nonpartisan agen-
cy-based voter registration. e 1990s saw the addition of “100% Vote” to NASS voter education
eorts.
102
NASS’s latest foray into the voter education sphere involved assuming responsibility for run-
ning the “National Student/Parent Mock Election Program” at the 1995 Winter Executive Meeting.
“e largest voter project ever” was started by Arizona citizen Gloria Kirshner in 1980 to address
the lack of voter education programs.
103
NASS took the challenge of directing the program, and
administered it through the NASS Research and Education Foundation, the same foundation that
managed Project Democracy. At the same time, many Secretaries were promoting two additional
national programs—Kids Voting and Close-Up’s First Vote.
28
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Voting Machines and the Election Process
At the time NASS was being organized in 1904, turn of the century politics were sometimes less
than exemplary as far as voting and counting standards. It took several decades before the use of
voting machines was proposed as a NASS annual conference topic in 1935, but it met with little in-
terest. In 1949, however, a formal presentation by a company that manufactured voting machines
was made. In 1956, the NASS Committee on Mechanical Voting Methods and Procedures, under
the direction of Secretary Ted Brown of Ohio, made its rst presentation. He stated: “Something
has to be done to expedite and guarantee the elections of our democracy in the manner in which
they should be protected and handled.”
105
It was the policy of the association to bring in corporations to present their wares. ese in-
cluded Shoup Equipment, Automatic Voting Machine, IBM, and Rockwell Manufacturing
Company. A survey circulated by the committee of 1962 showed:
e earliest mechanical voting device reported was in Connecticut in 1895. Next in
point of time was New York, with an installation of 1899. Michigan installed their
rst machine in the early 1900s; Montana in 1915; Massachusetts and Washington
in 1920; Rhode Island in 1936; New Jersey in 1937; Pennsylvania in 1939; Ohio in
1946; Colorado in 1947; New Hampshire and Hawaii in 1948; Virginia and Georgia
in 1950; New Mexico in 1951; North Carolina in 1952; Delaware in 1954; and ve
states in 1958. Alaska is using the machines for the rst time in the 1962 elections.
Florida reports they have used the machines for a number of years, and Utah re-
ports that they use 30 on trial, but are not using them now.
104
By 1964, the Report of the Election Laws and Procedures Committee indicated that “Me-
chanical voting devices . . . have done much to increase public condence . . . .”
105
Work contin-
ued throughout the 1970s with the Federal Elections Commission, created by Congress, in the
development of model rules and regulations for vote tallying and vote recording systems. NASS
recommended that the Federal Elections Commission arrange performance tests on all voting
equipment and counting devices and make recommendations for procedures of standards of per-
formance for the equipment.
106
rough the dialogue generated by NASS committees on mechan-
ical voting, members were able to learn what would best serve their needs and where improve-
ments in their own systems would be useful.
Knowing that Americans insist upon and deserve the highest degree of public condence and
trust in regard to voting practices, the Secretaries, in cooperation with local voting ocials and
the Federal Elections Commission, worked to develop common and minimum voting system
standards. ey called for the prompt adoption of these minimum standards by all the states.
Following the close 2000 presidential election, the nation’s attention was riveted to events in
Florida as that state conducted a partial recount of presidential ballots. Ballot counting disputes
put a spotlight on voting equipment problems and election procedures. It generated much dis-
cussion at NASS meetings and led to the push for federal intervention resulting in the passage in
2002 of the Help America Vote Act. Voting machines and devices became a national concern and
the country looked to more modern technology for voting. Some states opted for computer-based
touch screen devices which led to even more controversy as computer scientists questioned the
security and accuracy of such machines and called for paper audit trails for all voting equipment.
NASS issued the following in 2003:
A HISTORY OF NASS
29
NASS STATEMENT ON SECURITY AND VOTING SYSTEMS
September 15, 2003
e National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), representing the nation’s
top state election ocials, has been following the debate on the security of electron-
ic voting systems and wants to reassure the public about the integrity of the election
systems.
NASS has served as the professional organization for secretaries of state for al-
most 100 years. Our members, thirty-eight of whom serve as their respective state’s
chief election ocial, recognize the importance of secure, trustworthy and accurate
elections. We also have something that many of the researchers oering opinions
do not: collective expertise in election administration, including the laws, process-
es, and procedures involved.
When we assess the potential for election fraud, we review the security of our
systems as a whole. All elections should have multiple layers of security result-
ing from the combination of people, processes and technologies that go into any
election. To fully understand real-world Election Day vulnerabilities, we evaluate
our election equipment by examining the technology along with election admin-
istration processes and personnel. Election security and accuracy are guaranteed
on a state-by-state basis through a complex symphony of state and federal laws,
procedures, federal testing, state and local re-testing, on-site verication, public
participation, and above all, the oversight of ocials charged with safeguarding the
integrity of the process.
As representatives of the tens of thousands of state and local election adminis-
trators in this country, we also want to emphasize that voting security is a nonpar-
tisan issue. e membership of NASS, like most of our electorate, is even in terms
of party aliation. We do not want any individuals to use this issue for political or
personal gain. We fully support the work of our colleagues in election administra-
tion who are dedicated to making the electoral process secure, accurate and reli-
able. ese ocials have no reason to be anything less than candid about electronic
voting systems and their accuracy.
All new technical advances in voting should be required to meet rigorous testing
and voting system standards, and should not hamper the ability of all qualied vot-
ers to vote privately and independently. With these technical advances, we feel the
issue of voting system security needs a more careful review by the scientic com-
munity—in particular, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Under the new federal election reform law, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA),
NIST is responsible for chairing the Technical Guidelines Development Commit-
tee of a new Election Assistance Commission (EAC.) e law mandates this body
to develop a new set of voluntary federal voting system standards. NIST will also
provide all technical support to the EAC in the development of those voting system
guidelines—including the security of computers, computer networks and computer
data storage used in voting systems.
HAVA requires voting systems to, among other things, comply with the follow-
ing standards:
30
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
• Provide reasonable protections to insure the integrity of the election
• Be dicult to manipulate for fraudulent purposes
• Be independently tested by qualied laboratories under the Voting Systems Standards
In addition to developing those standards, the law requires that NIST identify
and monitor the independent, non-governmental laboratories that will be certify-
ing voting systems. e states are in need of an independent arbiter to help resolve
some of the recent technology questions that have emerged directly from the HAVA
implementation process.
e Election Assistance Commission has not yet been established, and Congress
has not yet fully funded the Help America Vote Act. Without full funding of HAVA,
the states are being forced to comply with the new federal law without adequate
assistance from the very leaders who promised to provide the resources to make
federal participation in this process a success.
We believe that many of the questions about the future use of direct recording
electronic (DRE) voting machines can and will be resolved once the new Election
Assistance Commission is established and the states receive all of the funding they
are due under the Help America Vote Act. Working in tandem with independent
testing authorities such as NIST, the states can establish the next generation of high-
tech voting and the laws and policies that go with it.
Our rst priority is always protecting voters. We are dedicated to safeguarding
the security and accuracy of our elections, but elections are not about equipment
alone. ey involve the design of our overall system with multiple checks and bal-
ances, one that includes people and processes, as well as technologies.
Campaign Finance Reform
e almost complete lack of campaign expenditure laws led NASS in 1954 to suggest that a
study be made into the regulation and restriction of campaign nances.
107
e issue appeared time
and again during the annual NASS meetings, and continues to be a hot topic. In 1991, research
began into formulating an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow regula-
tion of campaign spending. As of 1994, the Project Democracy commission was still pushing for
campaign nance reform, saying “Such reform is vital to overcoming public belief that the political
system is rigged in favor of those with money.”
108
As we began the 21
st
century, campaign nance
reform was still a hot topic of NASS discussion leading up to the passage of the McCain-Feingold
Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
What may seem like preoccupation with the election process by NASS is a direct reection of
the importance the Secretaries place on that issue. Elections are seen as the bulwark of democracy,
and the Secretaries are the guardians of this fundamental American right. Meeting minutes show
NASS concern over election issues through the years and the repeated attempts to work toward
a more perfect election process.
A HISTORY OF NASS
31
Preserving the Past—Archives
“
I think this is an area that we’d certainly
better explore a little.
”
109
—Frank Marsh, NE, 1963
As early as 1949, NASS members were showing interest in archival programs at the annual
meetings. Discussion mainly centered on the wisdom of using microlm for recording and preser-
vation.
110
ese talks continued through the 1950s and culminated in several programs during the
1960s, including one at which inuential archival administrator Ernst Posner spoke about estab-
lishing archives facilities in the individual states and preserving historical records.
111
As preserving
records remained a topic of interest, programs were developed with instructions to introduce basic
legislation for adequate Archives and Records programs within the states.
Today, about half of the Secretaries have the responsibility for preserving and maintaining
records of historical value to their state.
112
Current concerns are focused on the challenge of pre-
serving records in today’s new technological environment. ere are questions as to what systems
will best preserve the past and how the public will access information with the new technology.
113
NASS members understand the challenge of record keeping in the information age and continue
to work toward the best possible solutions.
Trademarks
“
Our Association must look forward to the es-
tablishment of uniform trade mark and trade
name laws throughout the nation . . .
”
114
—Robert A. Gray, FL, 1936
roughout the history of NASS, a recurring item of discussion was the administration of
trademark and trade name statutes. A permanent committee on the topic was created in 1937 to
deal with statutes as varied as the states from which they originated. In 1948, a resolution was pre-
sented by Secretary of State Bertram L. Boone II of Maryland, chairman of the Committee on
Trademarks. An interim committee was appointed to review this resolution again with Secretary
Boone as chairman. In 1949, the committee invited Sylvester J. Liddy of the United States Trade-
mark Association to speak to the association. e 1949 annual meeting marked the beginning of
a long-standing relationship with the United States Trademark Association (USTA). e following
year, USTA presented the Uniform State Trademark Statute as a resolution. e resolution was
slightly amended by NASS and then adopted as a model bill. Passage of this legislation was seen as
imperative to thwart overtures on the federal level to pass legislation that would ultimately remove
rights previously reserved to the states.
e original dra of the Model State Trademark Bill did not provide for service marks. How-
ever, a 1964 amendment approved by NASS members remedied that situation. e Model Bill
established a statutory denition of infringement and provided for civil actions and remedies of
32
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
damages and injunctions for infringement. e Model Bill and all other state trademark statutes,
as well as the federal act provide for “permissive registration” of all trademarks, meaning that reg-
istration is optional with the trademark owner.
Uniform Commercial Code
“
As members of a national team, we should press for
the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code
. . .”
115
—Caroline Simon, NY, 1962
e Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), conceived through the eorts of the Merchant’s Asso-
ciation of New York during the 1920s, sought to simplify and unify commercial laws. Due to the
merchants’ eorts, the National Conference of Commissioners of State Laws and the American
Law Institute formed a study group to undertake the task of creating a new commercial code.
Pennsylvania rst adopted a uniform code in 1954, attempting to remove inconsistent, over-
lapping, and ambiguous laws then in existence. Pennsylvania Secretary Gene Smith pointed out in
1954 that, “e following acts are specically repealed and then reenacted in this Uniform Com-
mercial Code: Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act, Uniform
Sales Act, Uniform Bills of Lading Act, Uniform Stock Transfer Act, Uniform Conditional
Sales Act, Uniform Trust Receipts Act.”
116
Aer a few states adopted the same code, in 1962, New York Secretary Caroline Simon oered
a positive assessment of the Code. She stated that it provided a “new concept in personal property
security ling. Formerly, most security agreements themselves were led, whereas under the Code
only a simple notice that such security agreement exists is adequate to obtain the protection of the
ling provisions.” She went on to add, “. . . the Code obviously sought to establish basic standard-
ization of commercial law among the states,” and stressed that it was “an important implement in
the economic development of every state and the business climate of our nation.”
117
Passage of UCC legislation in several states instigated discussion of the Uniform Commercial
Code at NASS meetings. Many Secretaries expressed concern over implementation of the code.
Article 9 of the UCC dealing with secured transactions falls directly under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of State. Much of the responsibility for the success of the code lay in the hands of the
Secretary. While at rst, some Secretaries balked at the fact that they were not consulted when
their oce became a ling oce for the UCC, upon successful implementation, the code was seen
in a more favorable light. At the 1965 Annual Meeting, NASS determined that the purpose of the
Uniform Commercial Code was to provide “a comprehensive, uniform, clear and easily available
set of rules for the conduct of business transactions responsive to modern business conditions and
needs.” Adoption of the code became so widespread over the decade that, in 1968, a permanent
committee within NASS was formed.
e Uniform Commercial Code Committee researched and discussed topics including automa-
tion, standardized forms, indexing, ling fees, and educating the public. Recommendations made
by the committee included promotion of uniformity between states, uniform fees and promotion
A HISTORY OF NASS
33
of a national and regional conference for UCC directors. In direct contrast to initial discussion
of the UCC, it is no longer seen as a liability but as an asset and a chance to exert a conscientious
force on the business world.
In 1978, the National Association of Corporate Administrators had its rst conference. is
was the predecessor organization to the International Association of Corporate Administrators
(IACA). In 1990, the rst of several task forces began to work on major revisions to Article 9 of
the Uniform Commercial Code. e members included representatives of (what would become)
IACA, the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute, and the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Nine years later, the Uniform Commercial Code revised
Article 9 was ocially promulgated. It was adopted in all but four states on July 1, 2001. It became
eective on October 1, 2002 in Connecticut and on January 1, 2002 in Alabama, Florida and Mis-
sissippi.
Professional Aliations
“
In short, this National Association has become a vital
public-policy forming group and opportunities for
public service are opening to it daily
.”
118
—John B. Wilson, GA, 1940
Becoming a vital public policy-forming group over the years could only occur with outside as-
sistance. Opportunities to form professional aliations allow NASS to expand its work, most no-
tably in the area of voter education with such groups as the Ad Council, Department of Defense,
100% Vote, Rock the Vote, National Student/Parent Mock Election, Kids Voting, Close-Up’s “First
Vote” Program, and World Wrestling Entertainment’s Smackdown Your Vote. Other aliations,
however, also aided the work of NASS, allowing a good deal of public service work to be accom-
plished.
One of the rst partnerships NASS established was with the Council of State Governments
(CSG). Designated in 1935 to act as the NASS permanent secretariat and clearinghouse, CSG pro-
vides sta support including special reports and newsletters, conference arrangements, and sta-
ing assistance.
119
Over the years NASS, at times, has been aliated with CSG to varying degrees,
sometimes publishing the NASS newsletter.
NASS’s 1984 resolution to “adequately fund” the Administrative Codes and Registers organi-
zation and, in 1991, to create an ACR account within NASS demonstrated the association’s com-
mitment to the coordination of government functions.
120
e administrative rules function is
contained in over half of the Secretary of State oces in the United States. Because of this, ACR
maintains a distinct organization of its own members, but is closely connected with NASS in coor-
dinating functions and sharing information. NASS and ACR have held joint meetings to facilitate
the transfer of information.
NASS resolved in 1985 to join with the Close-Up Foundation to design and implement a na-
tionally focused citizenship education activity to involve high school students in a forum created
to challenge their knowledge of the democratic system. e Close-Up Foundation is a nonparti-
san, non-prot forum which provides opportunities for high school students to observe the
34
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
workings of the democratic process of government in Washington DC.
121
Concern for low voter
turnout and citizen apathy with politics is reected in many of NASS’s partnerships.
New Millennium Project 1998–2003
e New Millennium Project was conceived at the 1998 NASS annual meeting in Salt Lake City,
Utah. At that annual conference, NASS members met not only against the backdrop of the lowest
voter turnout for a presidential election in 72 years, (only 49 percent voted in 1996) but amid pre-
dictions that the upcoming 1998 mid-term election might also result in record-low voter partici-
pation. And nationwide, fewer than one in ve 18–24 year-old citizens bothered to vote in the last
presidential election. One aernoon during the conference, a group of Secretaries were lamenting
the fact that voter participation in their state primaries that year hit record low turnouts and the
number of candidates seeking oce was fewer than any could remember. All regions of the coun-
try were represented during the discussion that made those attending acutely aware and troubled
by the downward trend in voting.
e four-decade long decline in voting is, in some respects, the tip of the iceberg. During the
struggle for voting rights legislation in the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson called voting “the
rst duty of democracy.” But if a majority of Americans are not even fullling even the basic
requirement of citizenship, then they are not likely to be involved in the many other duties and
responsibilities of maintaining a democratic society. Nobody can say for sure how long a country
can remain democratic when it lives o its political and social capital, but the prospect of a de-
mocracy without citizens is a sobering oxymoron.
NASS President Bill Gardner asked for approval to appropriate one hundred thousand dollars
to focus attention on this concern and nd ways to determine the root of the problem. e focus
would be limited to America’s youth. NASS made a major commitment to help identify strategies
to reconnect American youth to the democratic process. As a rst step, NASS commissioned the
bi-partisan team of e Tarrance Group and Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates to conduct a national
poll as well as six focus groups of 15 to 24 year-olds. e results of the study, one of the largest of
its kind, would provide a better understanding of why not only the vast majority of young people
did not vote in the last election, but even more importantly, to gain insight into the underlying
attitudes this generation has about politics, government and citizenship.
Every state was touched by this eort and in the years since, new groups dedicated to invigorat-
ing our democracy have emerged. NASS has continually updated and, at the 2004 winter meeting,
held a forum widely attended to continue the New Millennium project ideals and disseminate all
the dierent state-by-state eorts and best practices to further the goals of the project.
New Millennium Best Practices Survey—July 2003
2003 NEW MILLENNIUM PROGRAM IDEAS
School Civics Education Curriculum & Activities
Florida: Hernando County “Make Freedom Count” School Program
A HISTORY OF NASS
35
Illinois: “Let’s Vote” Elementary School Election Program
Missouri: Responsible Missourians Initiative
Nebraska: Statehood Birthday Parties
Several States: Statewide School Voting Equipment Tours
Registration & Voter Education Eorts
Georgia: “Take Your Grandchild to Vote” Campaign
Michigan Online Citizens’ Guide to Voting Systems
Montana: Election History Trunk Tour
Ohio: “Expect More in 2004” Tour
Oregon: Community “Engagement” Parties
Utah: Statewide College Council
Vermont: Town Government Coloring Book
Washington: Voters Pamphlet Cover Art Competition
West Virginia: SHARES Mock Election Program
Several States: Secretary of State Young Speakers Bureau
Several States: “Citizenship” Badges
Poll Worker Recruitment & Training Programs
California: Ventura County Adopt-a-Poll Program
Colorado: Student Poll Worker Training Program
North Carolina: College “Civics Training” Program
Several States: Youth Vote Ambassadors
2003 Programs Overview
School Civics Education & Curriculum Materials
Alaska: Let’s Vote Alaska
Arkansas: Talk Back
California: C.I.V.I.C.S.
Maine: Fostering Youth Involvement
Mississippi: Promote the Vote
Missouri: Responsible Missourians Initiative
Texas: Project V.O.T.E.
West Virginia: SHARES
New Millennium Best Practices Survey—July 2003
In 1996, amid concerns that many states were moving their presidential primary dates earlier
and creating a front loaded primary schedule, NASS President Joyce Hazeltine appointed a com-
mittee to recommend whether changes should be considered in the way presidential candidates
are nominated. It was the rst time NASS ventured into this turbulent area and Secretaries Wil-
liam Gardner of New Hampshire and Ron ornburgh of Kansas were asked to lead the eort. In
May of that year a two-day meeting was held in Washington DC. Fourteen Secretaries were joined
by national party ocials, a former presidential candidate, veteran members of the media who
cover presidential campaigns, college professors, and various presidential campaign organizers
and advisors.
36
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
at summer, at the annual conference in Charleston, South Carolina, it was agreed that NASS
should continue this eort with the goal of producing a workable realistic plan that would treat
all states fairly and give voters across the country the opportunity to participate in primaries that
would not be deemed “irrelevant.” In order to preserve the bi-partisan spirit that led to the com-
mittee’s creation, two co-chairs were appointed to lead the project: Secretary of State Bill Galvin of
Massachusetts and Secretary of State Bill Jones of California.
e committee proposed a regional rotating primary plan which was approved by the NASS
membership. Under the plan, primaries to select national convention delegates would be grouped
by region beginning in 2008 with the East in March, followed by the South in April, the Midwest
in May, and the West in June. During the 2012 election cycle, the regions would rotate, with the
South moving to the lead, followed by the Midwest, West, and East. Iowa and New Hampshire
would retain their leading positions in the presidential selection process based upon their tradi-
tion of encouraging “retail politics.” Primaries in each state of a given region would be scheduled
on or soon aer the rst Tuesday in March, April, May, or June of presidential election years.
States in the same region wouldn’t necessarily be required to hold their primaries on the same day.
While it was received with interest and consideration at the National Party Conventions in 2000,
the parties and their delegates were unable to reach consensus on the issue. e NASS member-
ship rearmed its support on February 15, 2004 to keep the plan alive.
NASS and the Help America Vote Act of 2002
e November 2000 presidential election was one for the record books. It wasn’t until thir-
ty-six days aer the election and a urry of lawsuits that then-Texas Governor George W. Bush
became the president-elect. e election will go down in history, not just because of the infamous
“hanging chads” and photos of lawyers standing over election ocials as they counted ballots,
but because it marked the beginning of a reform process that would change the way elections are
conducted in America.
Our organization, the National Association of Secretaries of State, has been one of the catalysts
for key election reforms. Even before the outcome of the election was decided, NASS 2000–2001
President Sharon Priest of Arkansas convened a bi-partisan task force of Secretaries of State, state
election directors and an Election Center representative to form e National Election Task Force.
e group met in Washington, DC in January 2001 to develop a list of recommended election
reforms covering the three elements of an election system: people, process and technology.
“Before any changes are proposed,” Secretary Priest said, “We need to bring together state elec-
tion administrators who understand our voting process and its aws. is should be an evolution-
ary process, not a revolutionary one.”
e task force made recommendations that became the key principles upon which the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was founded.
Congress also recognized the importance of election reform. House Administration Chair
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), Ranking Member Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Senate Rules Committee
Chair Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Ranking Member Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), and their
dedicated sta members made it their mission to dra legislation that was both an improvement
to existing voting processes and realistic for state and local election ocials to implement.
A HISTORY OF NASS
37
NASS 2001–2002 President Ron ornburgh of Kansas and NASS members spent a great deal
of time educating members of Congress about how elections are run. By December of 2001, the
House of Representatives passed their version of HAVA.
e Senate had more diculty coming to consensus on various provisions within HAVA.
Despite continued educational eorts by NASS 2002–2003 President Dan Gwadosky of Maine and
other Secretaries of State, the legislation appeared to have stalled. en Sen. Kit Bond (MO) joined
HAVA sponsors and added voter identication provisions for rst time voters who register by
mail. As a compromise, in exchange for the voter ID language, voting system provisions that had
been written as recommendations in the House version of HAVA became federal mandates in the
Senate version. HAVA worked its way through the Senate and then through conference committee
and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 29, 2002.
e congressional sponsors of HAVA have been committed since the beginning to ensuring full
funding for this federal law. But Washington doesn’t always keep pace with the rest of the country,
so in 2003, while the states were already starting to implement HAVA, the federal government’s
progress slowed. Appropriations schedules were delayed, and the newly created U.S. Election As-
sistance Commission, which would provide guidance and funding to the states, took more than a
year to establish. As a result, federal funding distributions to the states fell behind schedule. NASS
2003–2004 President Mary Kimeyer of Minnesota and NASS members focused on educating
members of Congress on the importance of fully funding HAVA and getting the Election Assis-
tance Commission established and functioning.
NASS members will continue to implement HAVA as required, and continue to work tirelessly
to ensure that all eligible voters can register and vote and have their votes counted accurately and
fairly in each election. We are dedicated to eliminating voter discrimination and intimidation at
the polls and we will continue to work to rid the election process of preventable problems. We will
continue to work with federal, state and local governments, other associations, other members
of the election community, and concerned organizations and community groups to ensure these
goals are met.
NASS Award Programs
NASS has four awards programs as of the organization’s 120
th
anniversary, which include e
Margaret Chase Smith American Democracy Award, the Innovation, Dedication, Excellence &
Achievement (“IDEAS”) Award, the John Lewis Youth Leadership Award, and the NASS Medal-
lion Award. Another award, known as the NASS Freedom Award
122
, was discontinued aer 2010.
e Margaret Chase Smith American Democracy Award
was established in 1992 during the
75
th
Anniversary NASS conference in Portland, Maine as a means of honoring former United
States Senator Margaret Chase Smith and to promote the quality of courage in public aairs.
Margaret Chase Smith jeopardized her reputation and career by speaking out and successfully
challenging the “red baiting” assertions and tactics of fear put forth by Senator Joseph P. McCar-
thy. e award honors the courage and determination of people who risk their careers by taking
principled stands for unpopular positions. It is presented to the person whose actions demonstrate
the quality of public courage so essential to a democracy. While intended to promote democracy
and courage, it is also intended to encourage the American public to value those qualities more
highly and to respect people who demonstrate them. Emphasizing primarily contemporary acts of
courage, one of the rst recipients of the award was Rosa Parks, well known for her courage during
the 1955 Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott.
38
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
PREVIOUS WINNERS
1992 MARGARET CHASE SMITH
1993 ROSA PARKS
1994 ELIZABETH DOLE
1995 JIM AND SARAH BRADY
1996 DAISY BATES
1997 EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER
1998 GEORGE MITCHELL
1999 DORIS “GRANNY D” HADDOCK
2000 FORMER SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER
2001 ROBERT PARIS MOSES
2002 FORMER PRESIDENT JAMES EARL CARTER, JR.
2003 FORMER SEN. BOB DOLE
2004 FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI
2005 JOSEPH LEVIN AND MORRIS DEES, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER FOUNDERS
2006 NOT AWARDED
2007 JUDGE JOHN J. SIRICA, CHIEF JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THE WATERGATE SCANDAL
(AWARDED POSTHUMOUSLY)
2008 RUBY DUNCAN, FOUNDER OF OPERATION LIFE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER
2009 HON. SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
2010 NOT AWARDED
2011 DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
2012 MR. JOHN WALSH, VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ADVOCATE
2013 NOT AWARDED
2014 MR. PAUL CARANCI, FORMER RHODE ISLAND OFFICIAL
2015 MR. FRED GRAY, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY
2016 HON. RICHARD FULTON, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND NASHVILLE MAYOR
2017 THE LITTLE ROCK NINE
2018 HON. DAN EVANS, FORMER WASHINGTON GOVERNOR AND HON. RALPH MUNRO, FORMER
WASHINGTON SECRETARY OF STATE
2019 MS. VIOLA GREGG LIUZZO, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST
2020 MR. BRYAN STEVENSON, LAWYER & SOCIAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST
2021 FORMER U.S. SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH OF WEST VIRGINIA
2022 MR. MIGUEL TRUJILLO, NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING RIGHTS ACTIVIST
(AWARDED POSTHUMOUSLY)
2023 MS. LAURA WOOTEN, LONGEST-SERVING POLL WORKER IN NEW JERSEY
(AWARDED POSTHUMOUSLY)
2024 MR. JOHNNIE JONES, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER AND ATTORNEY
(AWARDED POSTHUMOUSLY)
A HISTORY OF NASS
39
e Innovation, Dedication, Excellence & Achievement (“IDEAS”) Award
was established in
2011 and recognizes signicant state contributions to the mission of NASS, as well as honors the
outstanding programs and achievements of NASS member oces. Nominations are encouraged in
all areas of state government programming that is overseen or administered by Secretary of State
or Lieutenant Governor oces throughout the U.S.
PREVIOUS WINNERS
2012 OFFICE OF THE NEBRASKA SECRETARY OF STATE, ONLINE RULES TRAFFICKING APPLICATION
2013 OFFICE OF THE LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE, GEAUX VOTE MOBILE PROGRAM
2014 OFFICE OF THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE, COLORADO E-LEARNING PROGRAM
2015 OFFICE OF THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE, BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE CENTER/GO CODE
2016 OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA SECRETARY OF STATE, BIG MAP
2017 OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE, GOV2GO APP
2018 OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, DIGITAL ARCHIVES: A PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP WITH GOOGLE
2019 OFFICE OF THE IOWA SECRETARY OF STATE, PARTNERSHIPS PAY DIVIDENDS: A ROAD MAP TO
ELECTION CYBERSECURITY
2020 OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, VOTESURE: A PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
ENCOURAGING VOTERS TO BE VIGILANT OF ELECTION MISINFORMATION
2021 OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE, DEMOCRACY IS A TEAM SPORT: FORGING
ACTIVE PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN ELECTION OFFICIALS AND MAJOR LEAGUE SPORTS
2022 OFFICE OF THE LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE, OPERATION GEAUX VOTE
2023 OFFICE OF THE MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF STATE, TACKLE THE TAPE
2024 OFFICE OF THE IOWA SECRETARY OF STATE, RECRUITING A NEW GENERATION OF POLL WORKERS
e John Lewis Youth Leadership Award
was established in 2021 and aims to honor the ex-
traordinary accomplishments of Congressman John Lewis. e award stands as a way for NASS
members to recognize a gied, civic-minded young person 25 years of age or younger in their
state each year. e recipient should demonstrate leadership abilities, have a passion for social jus-
tice, and be motivated to improve the quality of life in their community. Member Secretaries and
Lieutenant Governors may award up to two per award cycle.
e NASS Medallion Award
, established in 2003, allows individual Secretaries of State to rec-
ognize outstanding service and dedication to furthering the mission of the National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS) within the states. e selection of NASS Medallion recipients and the
presentation of the award(s) are le to the discretion of individual Secretaries of State/Lieutenant
Governors. However, recipients must reside in (or be headquartered in) the presenter’s state and
the presenting NASS member must abide by the general requirements and restrictions as listed
below. Member Secretaries and Lieutenant Governors may award up to ve per award cycle.
40
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
e NASS Freedom Award
was established in 1998 and discontinued aer 2010. It honored
men, women, and organizations that made signicant creative, procedural, and/or technological
contributions to the free election process in the United States. It was also designed to encourage
governments, organizations, institutions, the media, and individuals to participate in the voting
cycle and to help generate better understanding of the process.
e Freedom Award recognized programs or projects that:
• Promoted voter registration
• Promoted voter participation
• Improved the ability of the public to understand and participate in the democratic
process
• Developed a creative or more eective method of administering elections
• Developed a program aimed at specic voter groups
(Nominees did not have to be government employees to be eligible.)
To be considered for the award, individuals were required to submit program information to
the Committee on Awards, Resolutions, and Publications through one of the nominating bodies
identied in the following list:
• e NASS oce (Washington, DC)
• e Election Center
• International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Ocials, and Treasurers
• National Association of County Recorders, Election Ocials, and Clerks (NACRC)
• International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC)
• National Association of State Election Directors (NASED)
PREVIOUS WINNERS
2000 MR. ROBERT NAEGELE
2001 MR. DICK SMOLKA
2002 MR. GEORGE RUSSELL
2003 REP. BOB NEY (R-OH) & REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD)
2004 HON. PAUL DEGREGORIO
2005 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE U.S.
2006 FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON
2007 NOT AWARDED
2008 NOT AWARDED
2009 NOT AWARDED
2010 HON. DONETTA DAVIDSON
A HISTORY OF NASS
41
e Future of NASS
“
It would be idle to list further the many and varied du-
ties that the Secretary of State of today must perform.
”
123
—Robert A. Gray, FL, 1936
is remark made by NASS President and Florida Secretary Robert A. Gray, in 1936, is as true
today as it was sixty years ago. e oce of the Secretary of State is the traditional place in state
government to which people write for information and, as such, is the oce equipped with the
facilities to handle inquiries of every imaginable sort. e duties of the Secretary continue to ex-
pand, as can be seen by quickly looking through the CSG publication e Secretary of State:
e Oce, and Duties. Some Secretaries are responsible for convening House and Senate sessions
and assigning ocial act numbers to bills. Additionally, there is the myriad of registration, ling,
and licensing duties that have been entrusted to the Secretary’s oce, as well as publishing respon-
sibilities.
“It is believed on the whole throughout the United States,” proclaimed Florida Secretary
Robert H. Gray, “that the oce of the Secretary of State is looked upon as one of great honor and
responsibility.”
124
is responsibility is not likely to diminish, especially in light of the technologi-
cal age we live in today. It is up to the Secretaries and NASS to determine the best ways to handle
dissemination of information today and to capture the possibilities of technology in broadening
the base for information sharing. e NASS membership will have to determine ways to judicious-
ly use the available technology to further the oce’s agenda while, at the same time, refrain from
alienating the public they are trying to serve. e potential for technology in terms of preserving
information and making it readily available to the public is enormous. e idea of voting via com-
puter is not as far-fetched as it may seem—but regulations must be developed for the cyberspace
electorate. e most natural candidate for the job is the National Association of Secretaries of
State, whose “delightfully informal meeting ground” has constructed some of this century’s most
important accomplishments in public service.
“erefore it is both our duty and our due,” announced Missouri Secretary Dwight H. Brown,
in 1940, “that we agree upon fundamental policies . . . and then make ourselves heard so that all
our specialized experience in these elds is not lost.”
125
With a history of precedent-breaking ac-
complishments, it is not likely that NASS’s “specialized experience” is in danger of being lost.
With a future of public administration problems to solve, NASS is guaranteed a role in nding the
answers.
42
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
NOTES
1. NASS Winter Meeting Summary, 1991. Bill Graves, Kansas. Box 12, le 1, page 3.211.
2. Handbook of the National Association of Secretaries of State, 1993. Publications Sub-series: Box 26, le 2, page V.
3. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1940. Box 5, le 7, page 12.
4. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1940. John B. Wilson, GA. Box 5, le 7, page 14.
5. Tindall, George Brown and David Shi. America: A Narrative History, Brief Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company, 1989. page 597.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid, page 598.
8. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1940. Box 5, le 7, page 12.
9. Minutes of the 17
th
Annual Conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State, St. Petersburg,
Florida, April 3–5, 1934, p. 3.
10. Minutes, 17
th
Annual Conference, p. 3.
11. Minutes, 17
th
Annual Conference, p. 4.
12. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1952. Governor Dennis J. Roberts, Rhode Island. Box 6, le 5, page 213.
13. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1952. Governor Dennis J. Roberts, Rhode Island. Box 6, le 5, page 213.
14. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1937. Frederic Cook, Massachusetts. Box 5, le 4, page 13–19.
15. Minutes, 22
nd
Annual Conference, Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, August 16–19, 1939, p. 17.
16. Minutes, 21
st
Annual Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, June 21–25, 1938, p. 17.
17. Minutes, 17
th
Annual Conference, p. 2.
18. Minutes, 17
th
Annual Conference, p. 3.
19. Minutes, 17
th
Annual Conference, p. 3.
20. Minutes, 24
th
Annual Conference, Los Angeles, California, August 27–30, 1941, p. 28.
21. Minutes, 24
th
Annual Conference, p. 30.
22. Minutes, 25
th
Annual Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, July 15–17, 1942, p. 7.
23. Minutes, 25
th
Annual Conference, p. 7.
24. Minutes, 25
th
Annual Conference, p. 8.
25. Minutes, 26
th
Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, October 18–20,1943, p. 137.
26. Minutes, 27
th
Annual Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 21–23, p. 18.
27. Minutes, 27
th
Annual Conference, p. 18.
28. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1953. Box 6, le 6, page 10–11.
29. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1957. Box 7, le 1, page 140
30. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1984. Box 10, le 9, page H–21.
31. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1959. Box 7, le 3, page 209.
32. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1962. Box 7, le 7, page 44
33. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1962. Box 7, le 7, page 45.
34. NASS Winter Meeting Summary, 1991. Box 12, le 2, page 3.24.
35. Minutes, 25
th
Annual Conference, p. 95.
36. Minutes, 25 Annual Conference, p. 93.
37. Minutes, 25 Annual Conference, p. 105.
38. Minutes, 26 Annual Conference, p. 97.
39. Minutes, 26 Annual Conference, p. 98.
40. Minutes, 26 Annual Conference, p. 117.
41. Minutes, 26 Annual Conference, p. 118.
42. Minutes, 26 Annual Conference, p. 118.
43. Minutes, 26 Annual Conference, p. 121.
44. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 66.
45. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 67.
46. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 93.
47. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 93.
48. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 93.
49. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 94.
50. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 94.
51. Minutes, 27 Annual Conference, p. 97.
52. Minutes, 28 Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 11–13, 1945, p. 13.
A HISTORY OF NASS
43
53. Minutes, 28
th
Annual Conference, p. 13.
54. Minutes, 28
th
Annual Conference, p. 14.
55. Minutes, 28 Annual Conference, p. 14.
56. Minutes, 29 Annual Conference, Los Angeles, California, September 19–21, 1946, p.94
57. Minutes, 29 Annual Conference, p. 96.
58. Minutes, 29 Annual Conference, p. 98.
59. Minutes, 23 Annual Conference, Savannah and Sea Island, Georgia, June 12–15, 1940, p. 49.
60. Minutes, 31
st
Annual Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, October 4–6, 1948, p. 47.
61. Minutes, 31 Annual Conference, p. 48.
62. Walter Lord, “Mississippi: e Past at Has Not Died,” Historical Viewpoints, Notable Articles from American
Heritage, ed. John A. Garraty (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), p. 347.
63. Ibid.
64. Minutes, 33 Annual Conference, San Francisco, California, October 5–8, 1950, p. 72.
65. Minutes, 33 Annual Conference, p. 72.
66. Minutes, 33 Annual Conference, p. 53.
67. Minutes, 34 Annual Conference, Phoenix, Tucson, and Nogales, Arizona, October 1720, 1951, p. 108.
68. Minutes, 44 Annual Conference, Tucson, Arizona, October 11–14, 1961, p. 87.
69. Minutes, 44 Annual Conference, p. 87.
70. Minutes, 44 Annual Conference, p. 88.
71. Minutes, 44 Annual Conference, p. 90.
72. Minutes, 44 Annual Conference, p. 90.
73. Minutes, 48 Annual Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, November 8–12, 1965, p. 195.
74. Minutes, 49 Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 14–19, 1966, p. 197.
75. Minutes, 49 Annual Conference, p. 199.
76. Minutes, 49 Annual Conference, p. 275.
77 Minutes, 47 Annual Conference, New York, New York, July 1–7, 1964, p. 82.
78. Minutes, 48 Annual Conference, p. 195.
79. Minutes, 50 Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 3–6, 1967, p. 242.
80. Minutes, 52 Annual Conference, Denver, Colorado, August 4–8, 1969, p. 196.
81. Minutes, 52 Annual Conference, p. 196.
82. Minutes, 52 Annual Conference, p. 197.
83. Minutes, 52 Annual Conference, p. 197.
84. Minutes, 58 Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, August 17–20, 1975, p. 242.
85. Minutes, 58 Annual Conference, p. 243.
86. Minutes, 59 Annual Conference, Dover, Delaware, July 18–21, 1976, p.4.
87. Minutes, 61 Annual Conference, Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, December 4–8, 1978, p. 7.
88. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1966. Box 8, le 3, page 196.
89. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1981. Box 10, le 5: “Resolution Requesting the Major Broadcast
Companies to Initiate an Examination into Exit Poll Interviews,” adopted at August 1981 Annual Conference.
90. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1982, Box 10, le 6, “Exit Poll Embargo Resolution,” (proposal dra).
91. Brieng Book, 1985. Box 10, le 9, page H-10. From Standing Committee on Election Practices.
92. Minutes of the Annual Meeting, 1979. Box 10, le 3, page 31.”Resolution to Appoint a Special Committee to Work
with a National Advertising Group for Get-Out-e-Vote 1980 Campaign,” adopted at September 1979 Annual Con-
ference.
93. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1980. Box 10, le 4, page 15.
94. Brieng Book, 1986. Box 10, le 10, page III. F.27. “Resolution to Endorse the Get-Out-e-Vote Program and to
Work with the Advertising Council and Department of Defense,” adopted at July 1985 Annual Conference.
95. Brieng Book, 1986. Box 10, le 10, page III.F.7. A memo from the National Center for Policy Alternatives and the
Human SERVE Fund encouraged NASS participation in voter registration and election administration (Memo dated
March 16, 1986).
96. Docket Book, 1988. Box 11, le 2, page 5.95. “Resolution: Outreach by Government,” adopted at the July 1987
Annual Conference.
97. Winter Conference Docket Book, 1992. Resolution: “National Voter Registration Act,” adopted at the August
1991 annual conference. Box 3, le 4, Section 6 (Resolutions). ere was also a National Voter Registration Act in
1989,which NASS similarly endorsed with “Resolution: National Voter Registration Act,” adopted at the July 1989
annual conference. Winter Conference Docket Book, 1990. Box 3, le 1, pp. 6.11–6.12.
98. “e Portland Agenda: Executive Summary. First Report of the National Commission for the Renewal of
American Democracy, December 1993.” Voter Education Work and Projects Sub-series: Box 32, le 8, pp. 3–11.
99. Stuart, Elaine. “Revitalizing Democracy.” State Government News, January 1994, p. 6. Publications Sub-series: Box
27, le 26.
100. Ibid, page 8.
101. “Rock e Vote” folder, Item 1, sections “Voter Registration and Turnout” and “Motor Voter.” Voter Education
Work and Projects Sub-series: Box 32, le 11.
102. Docket Book, 1991. NASS Winter Summary Meeting, March 1991. Box 12, le 1, page 3.29.
103. National Student/Parent Mock Election Program, 1993. NASS Voter Education Work and Projects sub-series.
Box 32, le 9, information folder.
104. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1956. Box 6, le 10, pp. 10–15.
105. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1964. Box 8, le 1, page 81.
106. Minutes of Annual Conference, 1977: Tapes of Meetings (transcript). Box 10, le 1, page 98.
107. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1954. Box 6, le 7, page 149.
108. Stuart, Elaine. “Revitalizing Democracy.” State Government News, January 1994, page 8. Publications Sub-series:
Box 27, le 26.
109. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1963. Secretary Frank Marsh, Nebraska. Box 7, le 8, page 86.
110. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1949. Box 6, le 2, page 35.
111. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1963. Box 7, le 8, page 86.
112. Secretary of State: e Oce and Duties, 1991. page 57. Publications Sub-series: Box 26, le 7. ere are 22 states
who archive state records/documents. is number is out of 54, which includes the 50 states, Washington
D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
113. Docket Book, 1990. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1989. Box 11, le 5, Tab 3–Page 11.
114. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1936. Robert A. Gray, Florida. Box 5, le 3, page 21.
115. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1962. Caroline Simon, New York. Box 7, le 7, p. 40.
116. A Heritage: e National Association of Secretaries of State, 1988. p. 18. Miscellaneous Sub-series: HISTORY
PROJECT, Box 38, le 3.
117. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1962. Caroline Simon, New York. Box 7, le 7, pp. 39–40.
118. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1940. John B. Wilson, GA. Box 5, le 7, pp. 13–14.
119. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1936. Box 5, le 3, page 20.
120. Docket Book, 1991. Section 6 (Resolutions): In appreciation of ACR participation at NASS Conferences, adopted
at the March 1991 Winter Meeting. Box 12, le 2. ere were two other ACR-related resolutions adopted at the Au-
gust 1991 annual conference, “ACR: Establish a rm relationship between NASS and ACR” and “Financial Support for
ACR Activities.” Winter Conference Docket Book, 1992. Box 3, le 4, Section 6 (Resolutions).
121. Brieng Book, 1986. “Close–Up Task Force” report: Resolution for NASS to join Close-Up in a cooperative eort
for citizenship education activity, adopted at the July 1985 annual conference. Box 10, le 10, page III. K.2.
122. Minutes of the Winter Business Meeting, 1995. Box 13, le 3, “Section--Minutes: Report of the Standing
Committee on Awards and Resolutions/Publications” (no page numbers indicated).
123. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1936. Robert A. Gray, Florida. Box 5, le 3, p. 22.
124. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1958. Box 7, le 2, page 18.
125. Minutes of the Annual Conference, 1940. Box 5, File 7, page 12.
44
PILLARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
