The Cayuga County Democratic Committee's decision to nominate its chairwoman, Katie Lacey, to be the party's next county elections commissioner brings to light some fundamental problems with state law regarding elections boards.

In choosing to make the party leader serve in the role of overseeing elections, the Democrats have violated no laws. In fact, that's what the Cayuga County Republican Committee has done for several years with chairwoman Cherl Heary, who is also the Republican elections commissioner. And across the state, roughly a third of the county elections boards have at least one party chairperson serving as elections commissioner.

Unfortunately, this system is not the best way to serve the voters.

There is a clear conflict of interest for any person serving in the role of party chairperson and elections commissioner simultaneously. The party chairperson's primary job is to help party candidates win elections. That mission can easily bump up against the duty of an elections commissioner, who should be seeking first and foremost to ensure that all races are run fairly and that eligible voters are able to cast their ballots.

Election law allows this conflict, and perhaps one justification is that both major parties are given commissioner posts that carry equal weight.

But that argument highlights another glaring problem with the current system - it completely shuts out third parties. How can third party candidates be sure they are being treated fairly when they have no voice at the elections board level?

New York's system also comes with a price. Because it gives so much power to major party politics, this state is among the leaders in the nation for election-related litigation. That's because elections officials, who are supposed to be the final word on election disputes, often split decisions on party lines. And that's when courts have to step in.

In the long list of needed reforms that are discussed for state government, it's important that the election system is not overlooked.