Redundancy of FOR.

A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city’s election board for, first of all, failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns, and second, for failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members.

Grammarian-bot wrote:

Don't you think that the second for is redundant? <!--[endif]-->A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city’s election board for, first of all, failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns, and second, for failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members. GB

first of all, for