Primary Election Systems Face Scrutiny

As an activist for Open Primaries with a Single Ballot and Self Paid Party Selection processes, here are three Editorial Boards from Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah sound off on these issues.

Mansfield News Journal: "Today's political climate does not allow moderates to emerge from the candidate selection process. If we believe that real work gets done in the middle, with collaboration from both sides of the political spectrum, how do we change the primary election process. One solution would be a national non-partisan primary election...This approach would require candidates to appeal to both sides of the two-party political spectrum in order to gain enough votes to be successful. Moderates would most likely emerge from this process, increasing the chances for a more collaborative approach to problem solving."

York Daily Record: "[Independents] stood with their noses pressed to the window, watching as Republicans and Democrats picked their elected officials for them...The commonwealth is among the 25 states that have closed primaries, meaning that only affiliated voters can cast ballots in those elections, except in the case of referendums. Pennsylvania also allows candidates to cross-file in judicial and school board elections. The combination means that voters who choose not to belong to either major party are effectively disenfranchised...The best way to serve democracy would be to allow all voters to vote in all elections, to make it easier for voters to have their say, rather than make it more difficult or discouraging."

Daily Herald: "Political parties should be left entirely on their own when it comes to selecting who will represent them on an election ballot. They are private organizations; their goals are purely partisan. As such, they shouldn't be taking taxpayer dollars...A party might opt for voting on the Internet (it is the 21st century, after all). This would show voters that it is open new ideas and efficiencies. Internet primaries would be no more difficult to achieve than it is to make a credit card purchase online...It's time to place the costs of partisan primaries back in the laps of the partisans and save money for the taxpayers of Utah."









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Search For Top NYC Elections Chief Stalled

The top elections job in New York City has been vacant for six months. The $173,000-a-year job opening has not been posted. Calls for a nationwide search for a top-notch candidate have been ignored. And yet the City Board of Elections is running just fine without a leader, say people inside and outside the troubled agency.

The board last fall ousted its former executive director, George Gonzalez, after the first primary election with electronic voting machines led to huge lines, delays and breakdowns. Since then, Deputy Executive Director Dawn Sandow has run the agency with guidance from board Chairman J.C. Polanco of the Bronx. Both are Republicans, so under the board’s traditional division of the spoils, the next executive director would likely be a Democrat.

The board is one of the city’s last patronage bastions, with its 10 members – a Republican and a Democrat from each borough – appointed by political party bosses who expect to be able to work the levers of power. The two sides are deadlocked, with neither able to line up a sixth vote for a candidate backed by their party.

So even though City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) and Government Operations Committee Chairwoman Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan) have called for a national search to fill the job, the politically dominated system may deter some qualified applicants. “Who would go in there?” asked one politician who works with the board regularly. “Who would these people elect?” Still, there is not even a pretense of a public search for a new executive director. The board has resisted efforts to publicly advertise for the position in newspapers, on job-hunting websites or even on the board’s own website. It has received five resumes and done nothing with them.

Election watchdogs, though, say cities from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles have rebounded from electoral problems only after appointing competent election experts.

As a registered Independence Party member, I face a wall on all fronts. I can not vote in our primaries, I can not take part in any senior positions at the polls, but can be a closing monitor. There is no position available on commissions that affect all voters. But as an elected official, in his fourth term as a State Representative, 73 AD (Eastside Manhattan) and his third term as an member of the NYC Executive Committee (Manhattan), I will fight for Open Primaries, easier Ballot Access for candidates, open commission positions to independents, and support my 3,000 constituents in their fights with City Hall.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

South Carolina Passes Discriminatory Voter ID Bill

The South Carolina Senate late Wednesday passed legislation that will require voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicle statistics show that nearly 180,000 voters in South Carolina – most of whom are elderly, student, minority or low-income voters – will be disenfranchised as a result of this discriminatory bill. Proponents of the bill claim the voter ID requirement will curb in-person election fraud. The South Carolina Election Commission, however, reports that no cases of fraud exist.

Voter ID bills have been introduced across the country this legislative season, but South Carolina is only the second state to pass legislation this year. The state becomes one of only four, along with Georgia, Indiana and Kansas, to require voters to present photo identification at the polls.

The following can be attributed to Victoria Middleton, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina:

“We hope that Gov. Haley will veto this bill and tell South Carolina lawmakers that we should be seeking ways to encourage more voters, not inventing excuses to deny voters the ability to cast their ballots. This bill sends a clear message that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote unless you can afford a photo ID and the documents needed to get one. No citizen should have to pay to vote. Such an assault on basic American principles is not only unconstitutional, it’s unconscionable.”

The following can be attributed to Katie O’Connor, staff attorney of the ACLU Voting Rights Project:

“Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote. Rather than erecting hurdles that prevent Americans from voting, lawmakers should ensure that every eligible voter is allowed to vote and that every vote counts. Claims of election fraud are both misguided and inaccurate and are only a distraction from what is really a coordinated effort to suppress the voting rights of thousands of eligible voters.”









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Another CA Prop. 14 (Top Two) Challenge

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On May 6, Michael Chamness filed his motion for summary judgment in Chamness v Bowen, the federal case against two particular details of the California top-two system. The case attacks California’s discriminatory policy on ballot labels. It also attacks the new California law that says even though write-in space is to be printed on the ballot in Congressional and state office November elections, and even though the ballot doesn’t warn voters that any write-ins won’t be counted, in fact write-ins cannot be counted.

No declaratory judgment on either of these complaints has yet been issued by any California court, state or federal. The only action so far has been a denial of injunctive relief in various California special elections that have been held this year. Proponents of the top-two system, including almost all of California’s large daily newspapers, have generally not reported on these particular details about the top-two law, and have given little publicity to this lawsuit.

This is part of the motion:

1. Declares Senate Bill 6 unconstitutional and unenforceable, because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

2. Declares that Proposition 14 is not self-executing.

3. Declares Proposition 14 inoperative, because its implementing statute (SB 6) has been declared unenforceable.

4. Declares that Proposition 14 shall not become operative until a lawful implementing statute has been enacted and become operative.

5. Declares that Defendant Bowen violated Plaintiff Frederick’s fundamental rights under the First Amendment and Due Process
Clause.

6. Declares that Defendant Bowen violated Plaintiff Wilson’s fundamental right to have his lawfully cast vote counted under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Due Process Clause, and the Elections Clause.

7. Declares that Defendants Bowen and Logan imposed a severe burden on Plaintiff Chamness’ fundamental rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, by (a) stifling his core political speech, and (b) dictating electoral outcomes.

8. Declares that Defendants Bowen and Logan violated Plaintiff Chamness’ fundamental rights under the Elections Clause.

9. Declares that every citizen has the right to run as a write-in candidate for state or federal office.

10. Declares that every citizen has the right to cast a write-in vote and have that vote counted.

Use the above link to read the entire motion.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Who Should Pay for Party Primaries?

I have been posting for awhile about private political parties should pay for their candidate selection process and then an open primary could take place with all potential candidates on one ballot. Better yet, just have the general election with some form of top two if no candidate gets 50% + 1.

Here is an open letter to Kansas City Star:

National and state primary elections serve only one purpose: enable political parties to select their candidates for the general election. Each primary election then is strictly an internal party function.

General elections are provided for in the Constitution, where political parties and party primaries are not mentioned. I contend that the political parties should finance their own primaries.

What law requires the federal and state governments to pay for primary elections? Why should tax money paid by independent voters, or by those who belong to parties that do not hold a primary, or by those who chose not to vote be used to finance the business of the major political parties?

If the major political parties can raise hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their candidates, they can afford to pay for their primaries.

The tax revenue now being used to subsidize party primaries could be used for programs that benefit all Americans.

As the mechanism for holding a primary election is already in place, it makes sense for the political parties to simply repay the government.

No doubt this would be opposed by those who think the private sector can do anything more efficiently than government.

Alan Hurlbut from Wichita, Kansas.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Americans Elects 2012 in CA.

This post is the results from an email update from Americans Elects 2012.

Kellen Arno, AE National Field Director, is currently leading an effort in the state of California. Kellen explained what’s involved.

What is the mission in California?
They are collecting signatures to reserve a place on the ballot for Americans Elect in November 2012, so that a ticket will be able to compete against the Democrats, Republicans and several other political parties in the state of California.

How exactly can Americans Elect get onto the ballot?
In California, there are two ways to do it. You can collect voter registration affidavits equal to 1% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, which is roughly 100,000. The other method, which they are using, is to collect signatures on a petition. The signatures have to be equal to 10% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, or a little over 1 million.

Why choose the 1 million signature method?
One of the core beliefs of Americans Elect is welcoming Americans from all political parties and ideologies. Because they are not a traditional third party or political part of any sort, they don’t want to ask people to leave their parties. Instead, they believe that the more people who are able to participate in Americans Elect, from as diverse backgrounds as possible, ultimately makes our democracy and our country stronger.

They believe that collecting the signatures of over 1 million Californians reflects a powerful display of support for Americans Elect.

Who is collecting the signatures?
They have regional field managers in all major urban areas who are managing a team of over 800 signature-gatherers, also known as circulators. They do several trainings every day for anyone who is interested in gathering signatures. Many of the signature-gatherers are full-time professional circulators who have worked prior campaigns. A lot of them have some interest in politics. They also have a lot of people who are first-timers, who have never done this before – college students and college-aged people. A handful of circulators simply had heard of Americans Elect and this was the way they wanted to get involved.

I will keep everyone up-to-date as I get further updates.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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