Secretaries of state, who in 39 states are the top supervisors of elections, tend to have a rather low profile — unless there is a major controversy over how an election was conducted. And those controversies tend to be magnified by the fact that, in all but five states, secretary of state is a partisan office held by an active member of the Republican or Democratic party.

The best-known such incident occurred in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. The controversial outcome in favor of George W. Bush was certified by Secretary of State Katherine Harris — then an open supporter of Bush’s White House bid and now a two-term House member who is running for this year’s Republican Senate nomination.

The fact that Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell oversaw the close 2004 presidential contest in the battleground state of Ohio raised some eyebrows. Blackwell, another strong Bush backer, had already stated his intention to run for governor in 2006.

And the same year, in Oregon, Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury co-chaired the state presidential campaign of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who now chairs the Democratic National Committee.

But Bradbury now thinks that such overt partisanship on the part of a leading elections official was a mistake — so much so that he has joined with Bruce McPherson, his Republican counterpart in the neighboring state of California, on a proposal to depoliticize the position of secretary of state on a nationwide basis.

Bradbury and McPherson on Feb. 6 jointly pledged to carry out their duties in an “independent and non-partisan manner that is beyond question.”

Though the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) had made a similar fairness promise exactly a year to the day earlier, what made the Oregon/California pledge different was its degree of specificity. The secretaries promised, among other things, not to “serve in any ongoing official capacity on a campaign supporting any candidates.”

“Bill felt the NASS statement wasn’t very clear. This statement was an attempt to catalog specific ways to be neutral and fair,” said Bradbury press secretary Anne Marson. She also said Bradbury realized after working for Dean in 2004 that serving in both roles presented conflicts of interest.

As of now, only one state that has an office of secretary of state prohibits its holder from actively participate in partisan electioneering: Colorado enacted a law at the end of 2005 barring its secretary from chairing state or federal campaigns.

But elsewhere, the practice is not uncommon. For example, Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, a Republican, is serving as co-chairman of state Comptroller Keith Johnson’s campaign this year for the 1st Congressional District seat that Republican Rep. C.L. “Butch” Otter left open to run for governor.

“It’s a largely honorary position,” said Tim Hurst, Ysursa’s chief deputy, who likens his boss’ chairmanship to an endorsement rather than an active strategic role. “The secretary doesn’t actually count the votes, he oversees a process that’s very firmly in place, so it’s really not a conflict for him.”

While the duties of the office vary widely from state to state, secretaries are often in charge of determining ballot eligibility, approving new elections systems and devices, reapportioning state legislative districts and administering recounts. But even in states where the officeholder’s role is fairly limited, it is not without influence.

“The secretary of state’s office [in Oregon] draws up the election title for a ballot initiative which is meant to give the voter the thrust of what the initiative is about,” says Oregon State political science professor Bill Lunch. “Nearly a third of all voters get all their information from the title and the ballot explanation that accompanies it, so you can’t really overstate the importance of that role.”

And the fact that most secretaries of state run as Republicans and Democrats — and often have higher political aspirations — makes it more difficult for some analysts to see it becoming an apolitical post.

“[The secretaries of state] are partisan people occupying partisan offices,” says Paul Gronke, a professor of political science at Reed College in Portland, Ore. “To say that they should somehow be able to win these highly politicized elections, make those ties and then turn around and act in a neutral manner is naïve.”

While some claim that removing the office from the political arena would allow the secretaries to be more impartial, others argue just the opposite.

“In theory, yeah, not making them run makes the office less partisan. But in reality, they’re likely to be patronage appointments and every bit as bad, if not worse [as elected secretaries],” said Doug Lewis, executive director of the National Associate of Election Officials.

When the subject of a secretary of state overseeing elections comes up, Harris’ name invariably gets mentioned. Regardless of opinions on the outcome of the election, many experts agree that Harris did a poor job of appearing impartial.

“What she did may very well have been correct, from a legal standpoint, from an elections official standpoint,” said Lewis, “but Harris walked into this whirlwind of criticism because she made it sound like this was a Republican cause for her, right from the get-go.”

But as prominent as Harris’ example is, one can just as easily point to Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed.

Reed, a Republican, was every bit as embroiled in controversy during Washington’s 2004 contest for governor, but for just the opposite reason: He made a ruling supporting a recount that swung the election in favor of Democratic nominee Christine Gregoire — and against Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate he had publicly supported during the election.

“I was aware of what could happen when I went in to make those decisions, and that there would be an unbelievable amount of scrutiny,” said Reed.

“It’s tricky, because you have to ask people in your party for their support and they expect the same,” Reed concluded. “If you want to be a player in the capital, you need to have some political capital to spend.... I got plenty of angry phone calls. But the role of the secretary of state in Washington in those situations is very clear.”