Should being a poll worker be mandatory, like jury duty?

It is getting harder to find poll workers. Many current poll workers are getting up there in years, and finding people to replace them isn’t easy. It isn’t a job many people want. It is typically a twelve-plus hour day, even if it is just a few times a year. Serving in the role can be challenging, trying to instruct all those voters how to properly fill out a ballot, answering questions, all while being observed by poll-watchers hovering over them watching their every move. A former Wisconsin Congressman thinks he may have the answer to the declining number of poll workers. Scott Klug suggests Wisconsin adopt the Nebraska model, where, like jury duty, people are selected randomly to serve as poll workers. They face possible prosecution if they fail to show up. I have mixed feelings about this. Do we really want someone with no interest in politics or knowledge of how the system works to be the one in charge on election days? Should serving as a poll worker be a form of punishment? Of course, like jury duty, those selected in Nebraska often try to get out of it, using whatever excuse they can find. A letter from the local prosecutor usually gets them motivated enough to show up. But there is at least one possible benefit, beyond ensuring the polling places are properly staffed. Those who have been selected in Nebraska, even those who are reticent, typically come away with a sense of pride, and a better sense of how our elections work. That could help ensure more trust that our elections are safe and secure.