NYT on Ohio elections

Great op-ed in the New York Times regarding the new "emergency" regs adopted by Secretary of State (and gubernatorial candidate) Ken Blackwell that will almost assuredly create voter regsitration problems. It's certainly not the first time a sitting secretary of state has been the official overseeing his or her own election, but given Blackwell's record and the nature of these regs that will make voter registration by organizations more difficult, the NYT op-ed is revealing. This is particularly interesting:

Throughout American history both parties have shown a willingness to try to use election law to get results they might otherwise not win at the polls. But right now it is clearly the Republicans who believe they have an interest in keeping the voter base small. Mr. Blackwell and other politicians who insist on making it harder to vote never say, of course, that they are worried that get-out-the-vote drives will bring too many poor and minority voters into the system. They say that they want to reduce fraud. However, there is virtually no evidence that registration drives are leading to fraud at the polls.

I've mentioned in a prior post that I believe no official overseeing elections should be allowed to chair a campaign... the conflict of interest is unavoidable. If this is true, shouldn't a secretary of state running for another office (or for re-election) relinTquish their oversight of the election as well? Certainly election laws already bar the use of government authority to aid a political race, however we have seen time and time again that official actions can, under color of law, be used to intentionally aid one side over the other. Perhaps a change is necessary here as well?