The Independent View

Federal Judge Sets NY's Congressional Primary for June 26

2012-01-27T18:37:00.007-05:00

So is NY headed for three primaries this year: April 24 for president; June 26 for federal races and Aug. 18 for state races?

The State Democrats' want the June date but the Republicans asked for the August date. The current date is September 11.

I wonder how the taxpayer's would feel about paying for four voting processes: printing ballots, opening polls, counting votes, etc.

It is time for a different way of running elections.

Now that we have some set primary dates, we still do not have the new redistricting lines for state and federal offices. The legislators' have produced their maps and the Governor is still standing by his veto threat because he wants an independent commission to draw the new lines. So this process could also go to a judge to draw the new lines. New York will lose two congressional seats due to the 2010 census.

In Texas, the Supreme Court said a judge must use the maps created by the legislators as a starting point in creating court defined maps. In California, the State Supreme Court approved maps created by a bipartisan independent commission.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY Redistricting Update

2012-01-21T09:52:00.005-05:00

New York still has not created the new redistricting maps required by the 2010 Census.

Governor Cuomo, whose approval is required to pass a redistricting plan has taken the unequivocal step of promising to veto any redistricting plan passed under the current, non-independent redistricting process. On February 17, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office released a statement acknowledging that “Governor Cuomo has pledged that if an agreement on permanent reform of the redistricting process is not reached, he will veto the redistricting plans passed by the Legislature if those plans have been developed under the existing process and prioritize partisan and incumbent interests over the voters’ interests.”

On July 6, 2011, Governor Cuomo reiterated his pledge, stating, “I will veto a plan that is not independent or a plan that’s partisan . . . That’s what I’ve said all along. That’s what the people of the state of New York overwhelmingly support.”

And on September 30, 2011, when asked whether he would veto the redistricting boundaries being drafted by the legislature, Governor Cuomo responded “yes,” and added that he: believe[s] the process is not independent, and I don’t see how a non-independent process can come up with an independent product. I therefore would veto a bill that was not an independent product. It would then go to the courts. Period. And that’s what I have said, and that’s what I’m sticking by.

Then this week, The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous drubbing on redistricting.

In Perry v. Peres, the Justices rejected a series of election maps redrawn by a lower court in Texas to replace a map created by the Texas legislature to account for the population growth and four new Congressional seats. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had "exceeded its mission" and it sent the maps back to the drawing board.

In its decision, the Justices said redistricting is "primarily the duty and responsibility of the State," and that when faced with drawing maps, a court should take it cues from the version done by the lawmakers, with whom authority properly lies.

The Justices wrote ""faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by Judaical order, a court should be guided by the legislative policies underlying a state plan as long as those policies do not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution."

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

US Election Results Reporting in Jeopardy

2012-01-17T11:48:00.004-05:00

The world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the U.S.'s dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, they often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format.

The bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA., and is growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE's servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get "first look" at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations. This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won't work (if SCYTL's voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own "audit" by matching one number against the other. These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count. SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

ONE Asks: Send the GOP Presidential Candidates a Message

2012-01-15T15:55:00.006-05:00

Send this message to all the Presidential Candidates:

As you define your foreign policy priorities, please support solutions that save millions of lives, create a safe and more stable world and uphold a proud America legacy, all for less than 1% of the federal budget.

Use the above link to add your name.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY Primary and Redistricting Update

2012-01-09T14:16:00.004-05:00

New York still has not created the new redistricting maps required by the 2010 Census or determined a new primary date from September required by the MOVE act (“New York shall conduct its 2012 non-presidential federal primary election . . . at least 80 days before the November 6, 2012 federal general election.”).

REDISTRICTING
The results of the 2010 federal census were released to the New York Legislature and to the general public on March 24, 2011.

Governor Cuomo, whose approval is required to pass a redistricting plan has taken the unequivocal step of promising to veto any redistricting plan passed under the current, non-independent redistricting process. On February 17, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office released a statement acknowledging that “Governor Cuomo has pledged that if an agreement on permanent reform of the redistricting process is not reached, he will veto the redistricting plans passed by the Legislature if those plans have been developed under the existing process and prioritize partisan and incumbent interests over the voters’ interests.”

On July 6, 2011, Governor Cuomo reiterated his pledge, stating, “I will veto a plan that is not independent or a plan that’s partisan . . . That’s what I’ve said all along. That’s what the people of the state of New York overwhelmingly support.”

And on September 30, 2011, when asked whether he would veto the redistricting boundaries being drafted by the legislature, Governor Cuomo responded “yes,” and added that he: believe[s] the process is not independent, and I don’t see how a non-independent process can come up with an independent product. I therefore would veto a bill that was not an independent product. It would then go to the courts. Period. And that’s what I have said, and that’s what I’m sticking by.

I saw a version of a new map and would no longer live in the 73rd Assembly District were I have served for the last four terms or eight years.

PRIMARY
The Republicans have asked the judge for an August primary.

The Democrats asked the judge to the primary to the fourth Tuesday in June, June 26, 2012. Moving the date of the primary would accordingly require moving up the
dates of a number of events which, under New York election law, are pegged to the date of the primary in what is called the Political Calendar.

For a June 26 primary election, the Political Calendar would start on March 6, 2012, which is the last day for State and County party chairs to file statements of party positions for the primary elections.

The next date on the Political Calendar would be March 20, 2012, the first day for candidates to collect signatures for their designating petitions.

Subsequent deadlines pepper the Political Calendar in the months leading up to the primary election. Advancing the primary date and Political Calendar would also advance preparatory political activities such as candidate fundraising and expenditures and citizen engagement with candidates through interviews, meetings, and forums. In the 2010 election cycle, candidates began expenditures as early as fourteen months before the primary. Similarly, citizens and political parties began holding forums and interviews with candidates five to six months in advance of the 2010 primary election.

Finally, New York laws affecting voting rights, including redistricting laws, require “preclearance” under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act gives the United States Department of Justice 60 days from an application for preclearance to reach a decision, and it often uses the entire 60-day period. Thus, in order for New York to pass a final redistricting plan in time for that plan to be precleared before the March 2012 start of the Political Calendar for a June 2012 primary election, the Legislature and Governor would likely have to pass final redistricting legislation no later than January 2012.

So with these delays, I would have to decide if I want to run in a new district, against another Independence Party member, and will have to make this decision soon.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

OWS Against Corporate Personhood

2012-01-08T11:36:00.005-05:00

This is from the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) General Assembly meeting from 12/29/2011.

Resolution to End Corporate Personhood

Consented to by the Politics & Electoral Reform Working Group on 12/29/2011

Proposed by: the Subgroup to End Corporate Personhood of the Politics & Electoral

Reform Working Group

Type: Public Statement

Contact: endcorporatepersonhoodnyc@gmail.com

A RESOLUTION TO END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

The New York City General Assembly,

Convinced that one critical threat to authentic democratic self-governance comes from the fact that corporations have been defined as legal persons,

Declaring that persons are rightfully recognized as human beings whose essential needs include clean air, clean water, and safe and secure food,

Deeply disturbed that the granting of Constitutional protections to corporations has compromised, or resulted in the destruction of our communities, economy, democracy and natural world in many ways,

Recalling that corporations are human-made legal fictions, and that human citizens are the source of all legitimate power in any democracy,

Deeply concerned that corporations need only profit for survival, and that such profit and survival are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings,

Having observed that the great wealth of large corporations lets them misuse the legal system to overpower human beings and communities, thus denying The People’s rights,

Recalling that corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution, that The People never granted constitutional rights to corporations, but that individual judges and courts have misguidedly done so without Our consent,

Particularly disturbed that the rollback of the legal limits to corporate spending in elections creates an unequal playing field enabling corporations to influence elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions,

Having seen that large corporations own most of America’s mass media and use that media as a megaphone for their own agenda, drowning out other voices, With conviction that defining property as people is fundamentally immoral and a threat to real people, all other life forms, and the planet,

Be it resolved that the New York City General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street joins the millions of citizens, grassroots organizations and local governments across the country in calling for an Amendment to the Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and that the rights of human beings will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property.

We support a proposed New York City Council Resolution calling for such an amendment and urge the members to vote YES.

We further call on other communities, movements, and jurisdictions to join with us in this action by passing similar Resolutions.

How:
By making this resolution one of our public statements.

Why:
Corporate personhood is incompatible with democracy and individual sovereignty. We have the opportunity to declare our will to restore constitutional protections to human beings.

Occupy Los Angeles came to consensus on a similar resolution on November 27, 2011 (2 days before they were evicted) and another on December 5, 2011 in support of a Los Angeles City Council resolution to end corporate personhood which passed unanimously on Dec 6, 2011.

On January 4, 2012, the New York City Council is set to vote on a similar resolution calling on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the 2010 Supreme Court ruling of “Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission.”

Making this public statement days before the City Council votes, and before large-scale national actions marking the 2-year anniversary of “Citizens United” on January 20 and 21, positions OWS as a key voice in the dialogue and creates a powerful and resonant context that can rally more people to the movement.

We propose this resolution as one of many strategies for self-empowerment, not as part of a political party or as an endorsement of the current political system, but as one of many parallel efforts at curbing corporate dominion.

On January 4, 2012, the New York City Council did vote for a resolution calling on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the 2010 Supreme Court ruling of “Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission”.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Three Campaign-Finance Lawsuits

2012-01-06T18:20:00.007-05:00

With the fights to reverse Citizens United v. FEC, here are attempts to expand it.

Three key campaign-finance challenges, one already at the U.S. Supreme Court, seek to push through doors left open by the justices' controversial Citizens United decision.

Advocates and opponents of campaign-finance regulations are watching, in particular, U.S. v. Danielczyk, now being briefed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The government is appealing a district court ruling that struck down the federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

The two other challenges tackle federal prohibitions against foreign campaign contributions and contributions by individuals with federal contracts. "These lawsuits are all at least theoretically outgrowths from Citizens United," said Tara Malloy of the Campaign Legal Center. The plaintiffs in the three cases are using, to different degrees, language in Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion that campaign-finance regulations cannot discriminate based on the identity of the speaker, Malloy said. "This is not necessarily even the holding but it is this type of reasoning that is being leveraged," she added.

The three federal cases, while significant in their own right, are only a small part of a national landscape littered with campaign-finance challenges post-Citizens United. Attacks on state laws banning direct corporate contributions are underway in Iowa, Minnesota, Montana and Texas, and there are dozens of challenges to state disclosure laws, many mounted by the lawyer who brought the Citizens United case to the Supreme Court — James Bopp Jr. of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom of Terre Haute, Ind.

"Danielczyk is the challenge most obviously focused on federal restrictions, but if any of these cases were to go to the Supreme Court, the basic principle would very much be at issue," said Malloy, whose organization has filed an amicus brief supporting the government. "There are multiple avenues anti-reform litigators are pursuing to get to the Supreme Court."

The Danielczyk appeal in the 4th Circuit is considered by campaign-finance reformers and their opponents to be the most significant challenge to regulating big money in federal elections. This constitutional challenge to the ban on direct corporate contributions stems from a criminal indictment charging William P. Danielczyk Jr. and Eugene Biagi with offenses arising from a scheme to make unlawful campaign contributions, including at least $25,000 from corporate treasury funds.

Both defendants argued that the federal ban on corporate treasury contributions violated the First Amendment and they relied on the Citizens United decision. The district judge agreed. "[F]or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," wrote the district judge. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within [the federal campaign-finance law's] limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."

Five days later, the district court asked for briefing on whether it should reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in FEC v. Beaumont. In Beaumont, the justices upheld the ban as applied to nonprofit advocacy corporations. But the district court subsequently decided that the Beaumont decision was not controlling and had been undermined by Citizens United.

Federal law has prohibited corporations from contributing to candidates for federal office since 1907. The contribution ban is now contained in Section 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. It applies to unions as well. Although they cannot use general treasury funds for contributions, they can form political action committees which, in turn, can make contributions up to a certain limit from those segregated funds.

In Danielczyk, the government argues that Beaumont controls the decision. In that case, the government tells the appellate court, "the Supreme Court rejected a claim that nonprofit advocacy corporations are exempt under the First Amendment from Section 441b(a)'s blanket prohibition. The Court's rationale for rejecting that claim was that the same government interests that justify a general ban — the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption, and the avoidance of circumvention of individual contribution limits — also apply to a nonprofit advocacy corporation."

That rationale, according to the government, cannot be reconciled with the district court's conclusion that nonprofit advocacy corporations are validly barred from making contributions, but for-profit corporations are not.

The two criminal defendants are represented on appeal by veteran Supreme Court advocate Jeffrey Lamken of Washington's MoloLamken. Lamken's brief is due in early January.

Already at the Supreme Court, Bluman v. FEC challenges the constitutionality of another section of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures in local, state and federal elections. A knowing and willful violation of the ban is punishable by a civil penalty not exceeding the greater of $10,000 or 200 percent of any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation. It is also punishable criminally by up to five years' imprisonment. Benjamin Bluman and Dr. Asenath Steiman contend the prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to foreign nationals who lawfully live and work in the United States.

UPDATE
The Supreme Court on January 9, 2012 issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections.

The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.

Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY Campaign Finance Reform

2012-01-06T07:34:00.007-05:00

During his State of the State presentation on Wednesday, Governor Cuomo called for a system of public finance for campaigns.

"I'm going to be sending you a bill on campaign finance reform that puts public financing, matched contributions, lower limits and increased enforcement at the Board of Elections," Cuomo said toward the end of his speech. "Let's have elections that New Yorkers can be proud of also. Let's have campaign finance reform and let's do it this year."

Good-government advocates have long said New York's limits are out of whack: An individual may donate $60,800 to a gubernatorial candidate and a unlimited amount to a party's "housekeeping" committee.

In his 2010 campaign platform, Cuomo included a pledge to move toward public financing, where small donations are matched with a common pool of taxpayer dollars. But his declaration Wednesday surprised many with its prominence and strength.

"We've never seen this kind of up-front support from a governor before," said Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause.

Cuomo has been a prodigious fundraiser, raking in $34.8 million for his successful 2010 run — four times that of his Republican opponent, Carl Paladino, according to an analysis by the New York Public Interest Research Group. He has continued raising at a brisk clip, holding a birthday party last month where guests paid as much as $2,500 a ticket.

Until now, Cuomo's reform rhetoric has focused in other areas; while Assembly Democrats favor public financing, Senate Republicans have historically opposed it.

He did broker a bill requiring legislators to disclose more of their outside income and creating a new commission to serve as the Capitol's ethics watchdog.

But with all this talk of public financing, many states and the federal government is talking about removing, and in some cases already removed, that little check box on state tax forms.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Update

2012-01-05T15:44:00.003-05:00

People from coast to coast, and more than 40 national and statewide organizations including Greenpeace, 350.org, People For the American Way, Move to Amend, California Church IMPACT, and others, will take action demanding a constitutional amendment to end corporate dominance over elections and restore our democracy to We the People.

Resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn have been passed in New York City, Oakland, California and Duluth, Minnesota.

The California State Legislature introduced a similar resolution that, if passed, would call for an amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Supreme Court of Montana issued a stinging opinion upholding a state ban on corporate contributions and criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

E-voting gets closer in 2012

2012-01-03T18:32:00.003-05:00

Voters in many states will have an easier time casting their ballots in 2012, as elections officials are now allowing some people to vote via email or iPad devices. They're also using technology to help count ballots faster and keep track of ballot boxes.

These new voting technologies will save time and money and perhaps allow more people to take part in the elections process. But some experts worry that security flaws still haven't been fixed and that federal elections are still decades away from going fully online.

Despite the concerns, some states are embracing e-voting as a way to counter low voter turnout.

Oregon, for example, allowed disabled people to vote with iPads during a special election in November 2011 and will continue allowing that in 2012.

Oregon is also one of 11 states that currently or will soon let residents register to vote online as long as they have a valid state driver's license or ID card, according to Politico. All other states require voter registration in person or by mail.

West Virginia officials ran a pilot program in 2010 that allowed military and overseas voters to return their ballots online, said Jim Glance, spokesman for the West Virginia Secretary of State's Office. The program won't continue in 2012, however, because legislators failed to renew it.

In Long Beach, Calif., city officials are putting radio frequency identification (RFID) chips on ballot boxes to track their movements after polls close. The chips are used by big-box retailers to track inventory through their supply chain.

Other states are installing new high-speed scanners to help count paper ballots more quickly.

While some states and localities are taking baby steps to embrace new voting technology, it's not likely that online voting will come to the masses anytime soon, experts say.

Then we have Americans Elect 2012, where any registered voter can become an online delegate, determine the platform , and pick a third party ticket where the President and Vice-President must be from a different party or be an independent.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

REShape NY

2012-01-02T19:21:00.009-05:00

In the fight for how New York will perform the redistricting process, this is one of the fighters:

ReShapeNY brings together a diverse group of stakeholders, including citizen groups, business leaders, and advocacy organizations working in a wide range of issue areas, to bring about reform in the gridlocked state capitol by engaging, educating, and mobilizing the public to demand change.

ReShapeNY seeks to end partisan gerrymandering and create a new fair and independent redistricting process to draw state legislative and congressional district lines in time for the 2012 elections.

The Goal
To pass state legislation that (1) ends the political manipulation for partisan advantage in the drawing of district lines and (2) establishes an independent commission that would propose to the state legislature how the district maps are drawn for the 2012 elections. The politically balanced and impartial commission would use fair and sensible criteria and be guided by clear guidelines in drawing the maps to ensure the process serves all New Yorkers and their communities rather than preserves the Albany status quo.

The public is clamoring for reform to end the gridlock that too often grips our state government. Having an independent redistricting commission draw state and congressional district lines will remove the inherent conflict of self-interest that exists when legislators do it themselves. The current process essentially allows legislators to choose their voters before the voters choose them.

Use the above link to find out more about this organization.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Deal Struck On NY Redistricting Prisoner Count

2012-01-01T20:07:00.003-05:00

Senate and Republican leaders have struck a deal to count 46,043 of the state's 58,000 prison inmates as potential voters back in their home neighborhoods for the purpose of redrawing election districts.

A court ruled earlier this month in a case brought by GOP senators that prisoners can be counted in their last home districts, mostly in Democratic New York City, rather than their prisons, most of which are in upstate Republican areas. But the impact wasn't clear until this deal.

The impact will be seen when state Senate and Assembly districts are drawn. The new count of prisoners will strengthen the Democratic voter advantage in some districts or potentially result in an added downstate or urban Democratic seat in the Legislature.

One of the goals of redistricting is to make sure districts with large racial minority populations are represented in the Legislature and Congress.

Congressional districts won't be affected.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

MT Supreme Court Bucks U.S. Supreme Court

2011-12-31T13:25:00.003-05:00

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban, the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act passed as a citizen's ballot initiative, on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.

The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the "Citizens United" decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court.

"The Citizen's United decision dealt with federal laws and elections, like those contests for president and congress," said Bullock, who is now running for governor. "But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections."

Two members of the Montana Supreme Court dissented. Both justices Beth Baker and James Nelson said that a state can't impose an outright ban against political spending under the Citizens United decision, even if the U.S. Supreme Court may have got its decision on the matter wrong.

"Citizens United is the law of the land, and this court is duty-bound to follow it," Nelson wrote. "When this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, as I expect it will be, a summary reversal on the merits would not surprise me in the least."

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

CT Redistricting Update

2011-12-31T08:52:00.004-05:00

Connecticut's Supreme Court on Friday appointed Columbia University law professor, Nathaniel Persily, as special master to redraw the map for five congressional districts, following the failure by lawmakers to reach agreement by a December 21 deadline.

Persily was one of two appointees named by both the Democrats and Republicans, has until January 27 to submit a new map to the court. Lawmakers will have two weeks to dispute the special master's map. The court must ensure that new congressional districts, based on the 2010 Census figures, are drawn by February 15.

The task of redrawing the state's political lines ended up in court after a nine member bipartisan commission failed to agree on new political boundaries.

Democrats who currently hold all five congressional districts, the governor's office, and the state legislature, argue that only minimal changes should be made to the map. Republicans have pushed for more drastic changes in order to smooth lines that were gerrymandered a decade ago when Connecticut removed a sixth congressional district.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Notes from the NY BOE Dec. Meeting

2011-12-30T08:34:00.004-05:00

I have streaming access to the New York Board of Elections monthly meetings. This is from my notes.

1. The top two IT executives retired and two others were let go. But there is a hiring freeze. This is not how you run an agency. They will ask for a waiver from the freeze.

2. The agency will have to move March, 2012 to a new building to reduce their costs during the preparation for the Presidential Primary.

3. The vote audit process is so bad that a $250,000 grant was obtained to test a new automated vote audit system from a company in Boston.

4. A new expedited poll closing process is used in most counties except New York City. This explains why it takes over a month to validate and report vote results.

5. The new programming of the optical scanning systems to correct the court's new overvote process might not be done in time due to all the existing changes that require independent testing and then training of the poll workers.

After watching this year, you start to understand how hard it is to run the voting process in New York and the rest of the country. You would hope that best procedures were used and not shortcuts.

You also realize that it is time the running of our government needs more independents to be part of the process and not be partisan and closed to only the two major parties.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Redistricting in CT Heads to Court

2011-12-22T11:47:00.003-05:00

Connecticut's Supreme Court will decide how to redraw the map for five congressional districts after lawmakers on the nine member bipartisan commission failed to reach an agreement by their deadline of 11/20/2011, extended to 12/21/2011.

The Supreme Court has several options, including the appointment of a special master, to ensure that new boundaries are drawn by February 15, 2012. It is rare for the State Supreme Court to be forced to decide how to draw the boundaries.

The impasse came after the commission couldn't agree on fundamental issues: Democrats who currently hold all five congressional districts, the Governor, and the State Legislature wanted to maintain the status quo, while Republicans wanted to substantially redraw the maps.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Independents and Structural Political Reform

2011-12-22T07:43:00.007-05:00

Since 1965 I have registered to vote as an independent. When I moved back to NY in 2000 I registered as an Independence Party member with the thought that I would get evolved in the political process in the future. The following year I was asked to sign an Independence Party petition and this started my political career.

Besides the state and city work there was "CUIP", the Committee for a Unified Independent Party. Over time it morphed into IndependentVoting.org.

We are a national strategy, communications, and organizing center working to connect and empower Americans who identify themselves as independents. Our mission is to develop a movement of independent voters for progressive post-partisan reform of the American political process.

We do not aspire to be another special interest. Independents seek instead to diminish the regressive influence of parties and partisanship by opening up the democratic process. Independents in the CUIP networks are creating new electoral coalitions such as the Black and Independent Alliance, supporting new models of nonpartisan governance and striving for the broadest forms of “bottom-up” participation.

With the size of the independent voting bloc growing, the barriers that limit independent participation have become even more glaring.

I am in my 4th term as a member of the State Committee, County Committee, and New York City Executive Committee representing the Eastside of Manhattan. I also created many of the websites representing Independents nationwide.

Here is a video that represents who we are and where we are going as Independents. That's me in the middle right, on the steps of City Hall.

Open primaries allow for greater political participation, challenging partisan control over the electoral process.

Use the above link to find out more about this independent movement.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYS Vote Probe Arrests

2011-12-21T07:27:00.005-05:00

The Troy City Council President, a councilman and two others were arrested Tuesday and charged with felonies for allegedly forging absentee ballots in the 2009 primary to benefit Democratic candidates. Those arrested early Tuesday included City Council President Clement Campana, Councilman John Brown and political operatives Anthony Renna and Anthony DeFiglio.

So far seven elected or appointed officials and operatives have been charged in the two-year probe into allegations that scores of absentee ballots were forged to benefit Democratic candidates in the 2009 Working Families Party primary. Most voters targeted lived in Troy Housing Authority apartments and rarely, if ever, voted. They were allegedly targeted because they were unfamiliar with the process.

Campana appeared with his attorney, E. Stewart Jones, and was arraigned on an indictment charging him with first-degree falsifying business records and four counts of illegal voting, all felonies; and a count of conspiracy to promote or prevent election, a misdemeanor. He could face up to seven years on the charges.

Campana appeared before visiting Supreme Court Justice George J. Pulver Jr. and pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance pending further court action. Campana, who refused comment, did not seek re-election so he will be council president only until the end of the year. "Clem has been waiting a long time for his day in court and will be found not guilty," Jones said following the court session.

Brown, a Democratic councilman, also appeared before Pulver and decided to forgo indictment and plead guilty to a felony count of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument lodged against him by Special Prosecutor Trey Smith. "I knowingly submitted a forged ballot before the election was final," Brown told Pulver when ask to explain what he did. Brown will be sentenced to 60 days in jail and five years of probation.

Also entering pleas Tuesday were Democratic operatives Anthony Renna and Anthony DeFiglio. Renna pleaded guilty to second-degree forgery and will be sentenced to community service. "I forged a ballot on Sept. 14, 2009 in the name of voter Peter Testa," Renna admitted to Pulver.

DeFiglio, a former Troy Housing Authority clerk, pleaded guilty to first-degree falsifying business records. "I solicited an absentee ballot vote from Elizabeth Montalvo and had her leave some fields blank," DeFiglio told Pulver. "You purposely left fields blank so you could falsify the vote?" Smith asked DeFiglio. "Yes, that's right," DeFiglio replied. DeFiglio's sentence is yet to be determined but Pulver told him it would not involve jail or prison time.

Brown's brother Dan Brown, a political operative, was also named as a target early on in the investigation and recently testified before the grand jury. Brown's attorney, Phil Steck, has said his client received immunity from prosecution for his testimony. Renna, a City Council aide and former city marshal, appeared Dec. 6 before the grand jury without counsel. Renna is a fixture in city Democratic campaign circles. DeFiglio, who in a statement to investigators said that absentee ballot rigging in the city was a "normal political tactic," testified before the first grand jury on Dec. 8, 2010.

Last year, the first grand jury indicted Councilman Michael LoPorto and Democratic County Elections Commissioner Edward McDonough on numerous felony forgery charges. They face trial next month. Smith also entered a decision Tuesday dropping 13 of the 42 counts against LoPorto because a handwriting expert concluded that former city clerk William McInerney forged the ballots and not LoPorto.

In August, McInerney pleaded guilty to a charge that he signed a voter's signature to an absentee primary ballot in 2009. His sentencing is pending. Councilmen Kevin McGrath and Gary Galuski have testified before the grand juries, as have several voters and board of elections workers. McGrath cooperated and was granted immunity, but Smith said Tuesday that grand jurors failed to hear enough evidence to charge Galuski.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYC BOE lost votes in the Bronx and doesn’t care

2011-12-19T10:06:00.004-05:00

Either the voters who go to the polls at Public School 65 in the South Bronx have a high propensity for filing defective ballots, or the NYC Board of Elections is disenfranchising hundreds of people. Either way, New Yorkers who did their civic duty on Election Day last year have gotten the shaft and the board couldn't care less.

Data uncovered by New York University Law School’s Brennan Center reveals that up to 39% of votes cast for governor in election districts served by that polling place simply vanished. For example, 71 voters in the 23rd Election District cast ballots, but the gubernatorial votes on 28 were ruled invalid by electronic scanners.

The Brennan Center has filed a legal challenge to New York’s method of handling so-called overvotes, ballots on which a voter fills in ovals next to the names of two candidates for a single office. A scanner screen shows a confusing alert and asks the voter if he or she wants to proceed. If the voter goes ahead, the ballot in that race is disqualified. Across the city, as well as in neighborhoods surrounding PS 65, the rate of supposed overvoting was less than half of one percent. Two conclusions are possible: One, citizens at this polling place made the overvoting error 100 times more frequently than other New Yorkers. Two, the scanners there ran haywire.

The results were brought to the attention of the state and city boards of elections in October. The response was a big shrug. Properly vigilant election officials would inspect the 900 paper ballots cast at the school to determine whether they include rampant overvoting or were misread by defective scanners. The latter could point to technical flaws that may be more widespread than recognized and certainly demand fixing. Should voter error be the cause, the city board would have the duty to flood the site with voting assistance next Election Day.

As of now, though, the board refuses to check the records. Someone must. And here is another matter to be taken up by the Department of Investigation as the agency plumbs the depths of the board’s incompetence.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Mayor Bloomberg's Stolen Money in Deal

2011-12-19T09:58:00.006-05:00

The Queens political operative, John Haggerty, convicted of stealing from Mayor Michael Bloomberg has agreed to return $750,000 to the mayor as a judge prepares to sentence him on Monday.

As part of a deal with prosecutors, the state Independence Party, the third-largest political party in New York, has also agreed to return $150,000 in funds that a jury concluded were stolen from Mr. Bloomberg in the lead-up to his 2009 re-election. The party was not charged with a crime in the case.

The agreement with prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr.'s office comes as state district Judge Ronald Zweibel plans Monday to sentence Mr. Haggerty on two felony convictions, grand larceny in the second degree and money laundering in the second degree.

Mr. Haggerty, 42 years old, faces up to 15 years in prison. Prosecutors are recommending a sentence of between four and 12 years, Mr. Haggerty's attorney, Dennis Vacco, confirmed Sunday.

The deal with prosecutors on the return of $900,000 of Mr. Bloomberg's money is part of a civil proceeding and is technically separate from the criminal case. The two agreements, one with Mr. Haggerty and the other with the Independence Party, were signed Friday by Supreme Court Judge Martin Shulman, according to papers reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

According to the deal, Mr. Haggerty and his firm, Special Election Operations LLC, agreed to pay the district attorney's office $750,000 from the sale of Mr. Haggerty's home. Mr. Haggerty has six months to sell the house, which is valued at roughly $1.6 million, and upon closing, the money is to be placed in an escrow account by the district attorney's office. The money is to be held in escrow until an appellate court upholds the convictions in the case. Prosecutors would then send the money to the mayor. Mr. Haggerty would be entitled to the money back if an appellate court overturned the decision and he was ultimately acquitted.

As for the Independence Party, which is listed in court papers as a non-criminal defendant, officials were required to place $200,000 in escrow in February as part of a temporary restraining order. The party successfully negotiated a deal with prosecutors in which $150,000 would be returned to the mayor and $50,000 would be used to pay the party's attorneys.

Mr. Bloomberg, one of the nation's most generous philanthropists, is widely expected to donate the money to charity.

Update
He was sentenced to 16 months to 4 years but might only have to serve 6 months jail time.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

New Restrictions in Voting Laws

2011-12-13T13:57:00.005-05:00

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to enter the political waters of voting rights on Tuesday, signaling that the Justice Department will take an aggressive stance in reviewing new laws in several states that civil rights advocates say are meant to dampen minority participation in the national elections next year.

Mr. Holder is to speak Tuesday evening at the presidential library of Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. The act enables the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to object to election laws and practices on the grounds that they would disproportionately deter minority groups from voting, and to go to court to block states from implementing them.

A draft of Mr. Holder’s speech urges Americans to “call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success and, instead, achieve success by appealing to more voters.”

Mr. Holder is also expected to make the case for overhauling elections systems, including automatically registering all eligible voters; barring state legislators from gerrymandering their own districts; and creating a federal statute against disseminating fraudulent information to deceive people into not voting.

This year, more than a dozen states set forth new voting restrictions. For example, Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, imposed new laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification cards. Previously voters were able to use other forms of identification, like student IDs, bank statements, utility bills and Social Security cards.

The Justice Department is reviewing the new laws in South Carolina and Texas requiring voters to present photo identification cards. It has sought information from the states about the racial breakdown of the group of eligible voters who do not currently have such identification to see whether the rule would disproportionately deter minorities from voting.

The Justice Department is also engaged in litigation with Florida over a new state law restricting the availability of early voting, including barring it on the Sunday before Election Day, when black churches had traditionally followed services with get-out-the-vote efforts. It also imposed new rules on groups that conduct voter registration drives, including fining them each time a volunteer does not turn in a voter registration form within 48 hours. That section has prompted the League of Women Voters to stop registering new voters in Florida.

The three states are among 16 jurisdictions that must, under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, receive clearance for any changes to their election laws because of their history of suppressing minority voting. They bear the burden of proving that their changes will not disproportionately prevent minority groups from voting, even if there was no discriminatory intent.

John Payton, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said he was traveling to Austin to attend Mr. Holder’s speech, adding it was “really important that he bring the powers that he has to bear on this challenge to our democracy.”

“Since the Voting Rights Act was signed,” Mr. Payton said, “we have not seen this much action that will have the effect of limiting people’s ability to vote. The Department of Justice has special powers under the Voting Rights Act and special responsibilities. It matters that the Attorney General is addressing democracy and voting, and the venue is obviously symbolic.”

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYS Redistricting Update

2011-12-13T08:06:00.004-05:00

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe said today he would issue a ruling in about a month in a federal lawsuit against the state over a law that requires setting an earlier primary date to accommodate overseas voters.

Sharpe said he doesn’t trust the Legislature to reach an agreement. Lawmakers and the governor’s administration have had two years to do so, and they have not acted. The judge, who also presided in the federal lawsuit against the state for non-compliance with the federal lawsuit, said he based his decision on past experience. “I don’t believe they’re going to, so I’m going to set it,” he said.

Instead, he gave all parties seven days to submit any additional arguments and proposals for how the issue should be resolved to his office, and another seven days to respond to those submissions. He said he would rule on the case within about two weeks after that, or early January.

The Department of Defense sued New York a year ago for not complying with the MOVE Act. The agency said in court papers that the primary could be no less than 35 days before the 45-day minimum for absentee ballots, a total of 80 days before the general election. That is, no later than Aug. 18.

Lawmakers are split on whether an August or June primary would be preferable. The Democrat-controlled Assembly wants the primary in late June. The GOP-led Senate wanted the fourth Tuesday in August, which the Justice Department has said would not be time to meet the 45-day requirement.

In papers filed with the court last week, the New York State Election Commissioners’ Association said it voted in January to recommend that the Legislature and governor move the primary date to the fourth Tuesday in June.

“A June primary allows meaningful compliance with the federal MOVE Act and ensures enough time between the primary election and general election to resolve ballot access disputes and create and test ballot accuracy,” the president and vice president of the bipartisan group told the court.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY Overvote Issue Update

2011-12-12T11:42:00.006-05:00

In February of 2010 I viewed a archived video of the New York State Board of Elections' meeting. During that meeting I was shocked to find out the board had programmed the new optical scanner voting equipment to not notify the voter of overvotes, ballots on which voters had filled in two ovals for the same race. Such multiple voting was impossible with the old mechanical voting machines. You could not pull the lever and record your vote if you had flicked two switches in a race.

Numerous voting watchdog groups urged the state board to program scanners so they would spit back a ballot with any type of overvote, clearly alerting a voter of the need to make a fix. This was rejected. Instead, the board set the scanners to display a confusing message informing voters they had overvoted and actually enticed people to submit the invalid ballots without telling them those ballots would not be counted.

The Brennan Center at NYU Law School sued, with support of local community organizations and minor parties, before the election to prevent mass disenfranchisement. The board forged ahead nonetheless. Now, the suit has begun to reveal how often voters cast invalid ballots. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers who went to the polls in 2010 were disenfranchised thanks to the the State Board of Elections.

Partial results have discovered 50,000 votes that were invalidated, with more to come. Even getting the data was difficult because half the local boards across the state didn’t have the information. As for the New York City board, thy lost the overvote data for 56% of the election districts in Brooklyn and Queens.

Clarity in the voting booth is critical to credible elections. So, too, a full count of votes. New York’s Board of Elections is delivering neither, and it’s offering only an inadequate fix, such as modifying the confusing message on the scanners to at least say the ballot won’t count. But they’re not sure they can even put that minimal change into place by the 2012 election, now a year away.

The BOE has now said they will fix it. But with all the budget cuts and attrition, at a later meeting admitted it might not get any changes tested and verified by an outside testing center in time for 2012 elections.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Citizens United v. FEC Update

2011-12-07T17:38:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, the city councils of Los Angeles, California, and Albany, New York, voted unanimously to support constitutional amendments that would undo the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

There is a plan for a nationwide day of action on January 21, 2012, the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling, which allows unlimited corporate spending in elections.

Jim Hightower is an author, public speaker and radio commentator who for decades has battled the “Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be.” He’ll address house parties, Public Citizen, and with some allies, will lay out visions for the “Occupy the Anniversary” events taking place across the country on January 21, 2012.

Today, the City Council of Los Angeles voted, also unanimously, for a resolution making the same appeal to support a constitutional amendments that would undo the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that underpins rulings like the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission; it means that corporations are considered people under the law, with the constitutional right of free speech. Since the courts have also defined money as constitutionally protected speech, the upshot is that corporations are empowered to spend unlimited amounts of money trying to influence the political process.

In order to reverse Citizens United—and a long line of other rulings supporting corporate rights over human ones—the resolutions passed by Los Angeles and Occupy L.A. call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech.

It’s little surprise that Occupy, a movement that wants our nation’s decisions to be made by the 99% instead of the 1%, supports a constitutional fix for the problem of corporate influence on politics. In its first official statement, the flagship occupation in New York’s Zuccotti Park declared, “no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.” The assembly included in a list of grievances the fact that corporations “have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.” Other Occupy sites have also called for constitutional checks on corporate power, and slogans calling for the end of corporate personhood and the overruling of Citizens United are common sights on protesters’ signs.

But when L.A. and Occupy L.A. are making the same unanimous demand, it’s clear that the desire to take on corporate power in politics is gaining traction. Indeed, though Los Angeles is the largest city to date to join the call for a constitutional amendment taking on corporate personhood, it’s not the first. So far this year, voters in Boulder, Colo.; Missoula, Mont.; Madison, Wisc.; and Dane County, Wisc., have all passed ballot initiatives making the same appeal, with support ranging from 75 percent to 84 percent. Other cities, including Pittsburgh, Penn., have gone so far as to eliminate the rights of “personhood” for corporations seeking to perform certain activities within their borders.

“Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a spokesperson for Move to Amend. The group was created in the wake of Citizens United to advocate for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the decision; a local chapter pressed for passage of the resolution by the L.A. City Council. Move to Amend hopes that 50 cities and towns will put the same resolution on ballots next November. “Our plan is to build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots,” said Sopoci-Belknap.

Approximately 100 people came to the L.A. council meeting to support the resolution, many of them reportedly members of Occupy L.A.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY 2012 Primary Dates Update

2011-12-07T08:18:00.003-05:00

The next court date is December 12, 2011 in the setting of New York's primary dates, United States v. State of New York, et al. Northern District of New York 10-CV-1214 (GLS) in front of Honorable Gary L. Sharpe.

After the Justice Department rejected a second waiver of the MOVE Act which requires absentee ballots must be mailed 45 days before an election, which will requires the existing primary date in September to be changed, the Republicans' want an August date and the Democrats' want a June date.

Jeffrey M. Dvorin, Assistant Attorney General, wrote a letter to the Judge on December 6, 2011:

Should the Court, at some point, nonetheless deem it appropriate to direct that the primary be conducted on a particular date, it should be mindful that there is a widely held view, among elected officials of both major political parties and public interests groups, that an August primary date could significantly disrupt election operations in a manner that could be avoided by holding the primary in June. It should also be noted that, for many years, New York's primary elections were held in June. Although the State of New York does not take a position as to the appropriate primary date, and remains hopeful of a legislative solution, the Court should have before it the fullest record upon which to render a decision should it reach the primary date issue. Accordingly, annexed to this letter are (1) a letter signed by the Speaker of the New York State Assembly and (2) an affidavit from the bi-partisan Election Commissioners' Association, to which the Speaker refers, each of which offers a factual basis and rationale for holding the primary in June. In addition, several civil rights and civic groups (Dkt. 38) and the Election Commissioners' Association (undocketed) have already submitted letters to the Court in support of a June primary. Any determination by the Court as to the primary date would involve the consideration of a highly complex pre-election process. The State, therefore, urges the Court to take into account the information in support of a June primary should it be deemed necessary to impose a Court-ordered date. Finally, the State respectfully submits that any order regarding the primary election schedule be limited to 2012, thus affording the State Legislature and the Governor an opportunity to set the primary dates for future primaries.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us