Campaign-Finance law argued before CO Supreme Court

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On the afternoon of September 27, the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral argument in Riddle v Ritter, 11-sa-12. The issue is whether a Colorado law, passed in 2004, violates the Colorado Constitution. The law says individuals may contribute $400 per year to candidates for the legislature who are nominated by primary, but only $200 per year to candidates for the legislature who get on the general election ballot by petition, or by being nominated in convention. In effect, the law gives higher contribution limits to Democrats and Republicans, relative to virtually everyone else.

The plaintiff and an independent friend, Joelle Riddle, founder of Independent Voters of Colorado (IVC), is the individual who wanted to give $400 to an independent write-in candidate for the legislature, independent friend Kathleen Curry. Curry, an incumbent, was defeated for re-election in 2010 in a close election. She came close to winning, even though she was forced to be a write-in candidate in the general election. She couldn’t get on the ballot as an independent because she had changed her registration from “Democrat” to “independent” less than a year before the 2010 primary. The hearing seemed to go well for Riddle and Curry. This case had began in U.S. District Court, but that court had it removed to the State Supreme Court because it involved interpreting the State Constitution.

The law stems from a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002. Amendment 27 stated that each person could donate a maximum of $200 to a statehouse candidate in a general or primary election. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a bill that allowed candidates who have a primary to receive and use the full $400 during the general election.

William Zimsky represents former Rep. Kathleen Curry of Gunnison argued Tuesday the law is unfair because most write-in and third-party candidates don't have a primary election, which automatically limits them to a $200-per-person donation. But major party candidates who may be incumbents or who run unopposed in a primary can still collect $400.

Justice Allison Eid repeatedly questioned the attorney for Gov. John Hickenlooper and Secretary of State Scott Gessler about the distinction. "How can you give a contribution to someone for a primary and then they get to use it in the general election?" Eid asked. But Leeann Morrill, an assistant attorney general, said there is nothing to indicate that Colorado voters intended to set limits on when candidates could receive or spend money.

Curry said after the hearing that the problem lies with the General Assembly's 2004 vote.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

The Pirate Party Tests Liquid Democracy

From this morning's CNN show Global Public Square (GPS) with Fareed Zakaria.

The Swedish “Pirate Party,” founded in 2006, has produced offshoots throughout Europe. The German Pirate Party takes a similar position to that of its Scandinavian predecessor: more data protection and transparency in government dealings, copyright reform… The German Blog YuccaTree explains how this party, which is strongly influenced by web culture, operates.

We always complain about what “they” decide and at the same time, fewer and fewer people are voting, while popular votes, like in Switzerland, often run the risk of being taken over by right-wing populists. The idea of Liquid Democracy came about as an answer to this. The basic idea is that we decide for ourselves what we vote on and for which topics we delegate our voice to a trusted representative. At their federal party convention in Bingen, the Pirate Party decided on a nationwide implementation of Liquid Feedback, a web-based system serving Liquid Democracy.

Now that this system has been tested in a few states, all Party members will receive an account within a few weeks. Every individual Party member can formulate a political idea and submit a proposal to the system. A discussion phase will follow, during which modified versions of the proposal can emerge. If the proposal receives a minimum number of supporters, the proposal is put to a vote. All members are invited to vote. If enough members participate in the vote, which takes place over an extended period of time, and if the proposal receives the majority vote, it is considered passed by the Party.

This increases the speed with which the Party can act and react. It is no longer dependent upon the next party convention to pass resolutions. Rather, a permanent party convention takes place on the Internet. However, no one has the desire or the time or even the ability to constantly take part in some vote. That’s why you can delegate your voice. You no longer elect one representative for the whole Party, but rather transfer your voice to another individual, whom you trust, and then only personally vote in the areas that you’re really interested in, for which you may in turn receive other member’s voices.

For the time being, the system is still experimental. Liquid Feedback was developed for parties and similar organizations and is not suitable for important votes since no secret ballot is possible. Instead, who voted how must always be able to be tracked in order to prevent ballot-fixing. Federal elections will take place in the manner we’re currently used to for a long time yet. The vision for the distant future is that, one day, we’ll be able to decide whether we want to vote on a particular issue ourselves, like in Switzerland, or whether we want to relinquish our voice to our elected representative.

Update
THE GERMAN ARM of the Pirate Party has had success in the state election and gained some seats in parliament. This is the first time that the Pirate Party has gained seats in the German parliament and it is reckoned to have around nine per cent of the seats in Germany's legislative offices. The party has won support amongst younger voters, perhaps unsurprisingly, and these voters apparently have pushed its election tally beyond the five per cent required for a seat. Of course this has lead to some excitement at the Pirate Party. "[A] very important benefit is, that citizens and media are taking parties with access to the parliament much more seriously," Sebastian Nerz, chairman of the German Pirate Party told Torrentfreak.

"A number of times I've heard, 'Your party is not relevant because it does not have members of parliament'. Following this weekend's successes, in this respect the party's position will be greatly improved," he added. Entering the German parliament will also give the party more funds, according to Nerz, and could lead to an increase in support as it appears to be more relevant to voters.

"At the moment the Pirate Party of Germany does not have any paid employees," added Nerz. "Everyone working for the party - including myself - is working in an honorary capacity. In contrast, Members of Parliament are paid for their work. In addition they receive state money to pay for assistants and co-workers. This will enable those Pirates to work full-time for the party, thus giving us much more work force."









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

U.S. District Court Upholds Pre-Clearance Portions of Federal Voting Rights Act

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On September 21, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee, upheld the parts of the federal Voting Rights Act that require certain states to pre-clear election law changes with the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department. The case is Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, D.C., 1:10cv-651.

The Alabama case is one of several constitutional challenges to this part of the Voting Rights Act. A few months ago, another U.S. District Court had in Washington, D.C., had also upheld this part of the act, in a case filed by some North Carolina voters.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

TX Voting Maps Violates Voting Rights Act

Due mainly to growth of Texas' Hispanic population, the state's delegation in the U.S. House will increase by 4 to 36 Representatives in 2012. The redistricting maps signed by Governor Rick Perry signed in June provided no additional Hispanic or "Opportunity" districts, generally defined as a majority of voting-age Hispanics.

The Justice Department told a Washington Federal court Monday that Texas' new redistricting maps violates the Voting Rights Act, Section 5. Texas asked a three-judge court to approve the maps instead of asking for pre-clearance.

Separately, civil-rights groups, the Hispanic and Black Caucuses of the Texas state House and the Texas Democratic Party have challenged the new maps in Federal District court in San Antonio and is waiting for a final decision.

The Justice Department indicated if Texas returned seven U.S. House seats that were Hispanic "Opportunity" districts then only the 4 new seats would be under review. Because nearly two-thirds of the Texas' growth has been Hispanic then some of the new seats should have been Hispanic "Opportunity" seats.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Independent Voters and 2012 Election

On September 16, 2011 C-SPAN's Washington Journal John Avlon talked about the role of independent voters in the 2012 elections. Topics included voter attitudes on issues, the two political parties and Washington politics in general, and the viability of an independent political movement. He also responded to telephone calls and electronic communications.



The current Gallop Poll indicates 44% of voters are Independent.

John's background is part of the view from my home office windows. It is the Chrysler building.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Portland, ME First Instant Runoff Voting Ballot

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On November 8, 2011, Portland, Maine voters will choose a Mayor using Instant Runoff Voting. Fifteen candidates are running for Mayor. Voters may rank as many of them as they wish.

This is a sample of the ballot.



Use the above link to read and view more information about the instant runoff ballot.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYS to Reform Vote Counting Issue

Thanks to Ballot Access News and Nancy Hanks for this post.

Will watching the streaming of a New York State Board of Elections meeting I realized there was a problem with how the board was going to program their new optical scanning machines when counting votes. I made my Executive Committee members' of the New York City Independence Party Organizations aware of the problem. Some of the other minor parties started a court case and allowed the Independence Party to be part of the case.

On September 8, the New York State Board of Elections settled the lawsuit that had been brought by the Conservative Party, the Working Families Party, and the Taxpayers Party, on the subject of how to count votes when a voter erroneously casts two votes (one vote under each party label) for a single candidate. The parties had sued the Board last year, because the state was automatically giving that vote only to the party closer to the top of the ballot in upstate and on the left in New York City, due to ballot formats. In New York, the parties are listed on the ballot in order of how many votes they received for Governor, so the Democratic and Republican Parties are always closer to the top or the left of the ballot than all other parties. Therefore, the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, would get the vote, and the minor party would not.

In May 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff had refused the Board’s request to dismiss this case. That was a signal that the judge felt the case had significant merit, although he hadn’t yet made a final ruling. So, the state decided to stop defending the old policy, and agreed to a fairer system.

The Board of Elections will cause the optical scan voting machines to alert voters when they have double-voted. The machine will display a message that says, “You filled in more than one oval for a candidate in at least one contest. While your candidate preference is clear, it is not clear which party you prefer.” The machine will then show which office is affected, and ask the voter to vote again. The message will also tell the voter that if the voter doesn’t re-do the ballot, the vote will be counted for the party listed first. The voter then will have the choice to accept the vote or get a new ballot. Also, the polling places will have signs near each voting booth that say in big print, “DO NOT VOTE MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE SAME CANDIDATE.”.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

2030, The Real Story of What Happens to America

If you are a reader of this blog, you are aware I have been discussing the concept of voting for the candidate and not the party.

I am reading a novel by Albert Brooks, the title of this blog, and he writes what could happen if you take my concept to far.

Congress had always had the last word. But in previous administrations, the president still had the power of persuasion. Now the majority of Congress was elected with the promise of taking that power back. Successfully blaming past administrations for continuing to run America into the red, people running for the House or Senate convinced their constituencies that the White House was to powerful. That that was the cause of the problem. It was all bullshit, of course, but led to a new era in gridlock. It was as if every member of Congress ran for his or her own presidency. Candidates never aligned themselves with the White House anymore, or even with their own party. They ran as individuals, on the notion of returning America to the people. What it really did was introduce a new kind of motionless government. Nothing got done. Denying new spending provided the House and Senate with the illusion of expressing the people's voice. But the people didn't want their lives and the nation's infrastructure to run away. What they really wanted was somebody to make tough choices, really tough choices, which took a leader. And the one thing the legislative branch could never be was a leader. That was the president's job.

So, how would you change the running of America?









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

The Open Candidate Selection Process

There is a lot of talk about "Open Primaries". But I have found this is interpreted in many ways and most are not how I see it.

States use many different methods to select candidates: primaries, caucus, convention, etc. But these require a voter to pick a parties selection process.

But with close to 40% of registered voters not selecting a party, the current systems do not work.

Today, these voters want to select the candidates not a party.

View this clip to get an idea of what I am talking about:



The structural reform requires the following:

1. Open the ballot process to all who want to be candidates.
2. Open the selection process to all registered voters.
3. Make the selection process of all candidates on one ballot so we can select candidates and not parties.

At this point I need your help. After the selection process I do not have a good answer for the General Election. If you have read my previous posts I have discussed modified versions of Top Two. But I am still looking for a best version not just better.

I think the next step in the needed changes to our system is to get more independents or minor party candidates elected so the two major parties lose their majority and would then need to create coalitions to make better decisions for the country.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

3rd Party, 4th Party, Independent, Oh My!

Recently we have seen the following headlines about the upcoming 2012 Presidential Elections:

"LZ Granderson Column on the Benefits of Having At Least Three Choices in Presidential Elections"

“A New Kind of Third Party”

"Public Policy Polling Imagines Various 3-Way November 2012 Presidential Contests"

"Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal on Chances of Powerful “Other” Presidential Candidate"

"Matthew Dowd Essay on Chances of a Strong “Other” Presidential Candidate in 2012"

"PBS Newshour Interviews Two “Americans Elect” Leaders - Internet Voting for President/Vice President in 2012"

"Steve Kornacki Suggests 2012 Presidential Election Reminds Him of 1980 and 1992"

"James Carville Predicts Strong Non-Major Party Presidential Candidate in 2012"

And this is just from August, 2011.

So all the polls show the voters are unhappy with the current politicians no matter which party or their positions. But currently I do not see anyone strong enough to win in 2012 as a minor party candidate or as an independent.

But a different opportunity or disaster could happen, no candidate gets enough electoral college votes to win. If that happens the following will occur:

Contingent Presidential Election by House
Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

The House of Representatives has chosen the President only twice: once under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (in 1801) and once under the Twelfth Amendment (in 1825).

Contingent Vice Presidential Election by Senate
If no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to elect a Vice President. The Senate is limited to choosing from only the top two candidates to have received electoral votes. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each Senator, not by state delegations). However, two-thirds of the Senators must be present for voting to take place.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that a "majority of the whole number" of Senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election. Further, the language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting Vice President from breaking any tie which might occur.

The only time the Senate chose the Vice President was in 1837.

Deadlocked Chambers
If the House of Representatives has not chosen a President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until the House should select a President. If the winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become Acting President until either the House should select a President or the Senate should select a Vice President. None of these situations has ever occurred.

Current electoral vote distribution
The following table shows the number of electoral votes (EV) to which each state and the District of Columbia will be entitled during the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. The numbers in parentheses (+) or (-) represent if a state gained or lost electors in comparison to the 2004 & 2008 elections based on the 2010 Census.

State EV
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 11 (+1)
Arkansas 6
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
Florida 29 (+2)
Georgia 16 (+1)
Hawaii 4
Idaho 4
Illinois 20 (-1)
Indiana 11
Iowa 6 (-1)
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8 (-1)
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 11 (-1)
Michigan 16 (-1)
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 6
Missouri 10 (-1)
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 6 (+1)
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14 (-1)
New Mexico 5
New York 29 (-2)
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 18 (-2)
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20 (-1)
Rhode Island 4
South Carolina 9 (+1)
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 38 (+4)
Utah 6 (+1)
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12 (+1)
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 3
Washington, D.C. 3
Total electors 538









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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