SEC. TOULOUSE OLIVER: I think about this one a lot. On the one hand, we should not have the arbiters of elections in our country have to run on a partisan ballot and talk about their political views outside the realm of the job (I should know, because I have had to do this multiple times!) On the other hand, election someone in a non-partisan capacity or having them appointed doesn't ensure you are removing partisanship - or other bias - from the individual's approach to the work. It may even obscure it. At least in places where SOS's and other election officials are elected in a partisan election you are able to understand more about their personal values and where they are coming from.
I do believe that all election officials should sign a code of conduct or ethics in which we pledge to not bring our partisan beliefs into the election process - that we treat the political parties, their candidates, and voters equally; that we do not personally endorse or give money to any candidate on a ballot for which we are overseeing or running the election; and that we pledge to recuse ourselves in decisions that impact our own races.

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: To me it is more about how people act in the role. I often say election administration is not about politics, but rather good governance and customer service. Unfortunately, there have been individuals who have politicized the role and the office. In my experience, that is the exception, not the rule. I have met countless election officials across the country that are Rs and Ds, but you wouldn't know it because that takes a backseat to serving the voters.

That's really going to depend on the state - in Oregon SoS is second-in-line-to be Governor (it's how we got Kate Brown the first time), so it's unrealistic to make such a distinction for SoS when people are already concerned with the party of the backup governor.