There was nobody else in the whole country qualified for the position. Nothing to see here.
People who work at political parties are likely very involved in politics, they likely have attended rallies and given money to specific candidates in this race. Should these people be disqualified from jobs at regional political parties? What about people who tweet and argue with people online about political candidates? What about people who are spouses or good friends/hang out with any of the above? If your answer is yes, then we've eliminated almost anyone who would work these jobs.
The truth is that some level of conflict of interest exists for everyone involved in the running of elections. However, by creating strong rules, regulations, checks and norms you can stop people involved in running elections from cheating. That's why former party operatives working the 2020 election aren't going to be mass chucking away votes from the opposition.
Therefore, to me, unless there's a specific broken rule that you're found, or an actual opportunity for wrongdoing, then simply saying X may have a conflict of interest doesn't really mean anything, because almost everyone has that same conflict in some way.
Maybe your answer is that your answer is that you don't believe these rules and regulations work for elections anymore because of Iowa. This makes no sense to me. Iowa was a shitshow, however, despite all the conspiracy theories, it wasn't someone deliberately trying to rig an election. There's literally no evidence for this type of thing happening.
Maybe people are worried more about the visibility of potential impropriety in this case, however this is the problem with conspiracy theories, there will always be something to scrutinize. Looking at out of context loose connections between people can't be treated in this way.
www.nytimes.com
