Maryland Will Return To Paper Ballots In 2016

The search is on for new machines to replace Maryland’s touch screen voting system.

Maryland voters raised concerns in 2004 after the state moved to electronic touch-screen voting machines that eliminated paper ballots and still raises suspicions about "was my vote counted."

The General Assembly set 2016 as the goal for instituting a paper ballot optical scanning system.

They will now go through a selection process and then have to do a very extensive public outreach to train the voters, Board of Elections workers, and poll workers.

The switch to paper ballots was delayed until now because of limited funding.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYC Nov. Election Improper Poll Worker Conduct

As co-facilitators of the NY Voters Coalition, Common Cause/NY and NYPIRG provide assistance to voters on election days, jointly running the Voter Helpline in New York City for over 20 years.  On November 5th, 2013 the good government groups received reports of alarming conduct at five polling places in Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn which, potentially constitute civil rights violations.

In each instance a poll worker instructed voters to vote only for candidates for a particular party.  When challenged, the poll workers reportedly stated that they were trained to tell voters that they must vote only for candidates from the same party.  Despite the fact that the complainants all appear to be independent of one another and that the complaints alleged misconduct in three different boroughs, the allegations are virtually identical.  In one location, voluntary poll monitors, including a Common Cause/NY staff member, received confirmation from the poll worker that she had been told to so instruct voters.

They received these complaints in person, on their Voter Hotline and online via PollWatchUSA.  All reports have been verified and are believed to be credible.

Joining with their Voter Hotline partners, NYPIRG, a joint letter was sent to the New York City Board of Elections and relevant law enforcement agencies detailing the nature of each complaint and violations of law.

"Competitive and free elections are essential to our democracy, and these disturbing reports directly undermine those principles.  Voters can not trust the election process if election administration is so flagrantly flawed.  We are calling on the BOE to zealously investigate these allegations and correct the problem immediately," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause/NY.

"The reported behavior of these poll workers from sites across the city is deeply troubling.  An investigation into whether these allegations were a failure of training, were outright illegal acts, were isolated or were caused in some other way needs to be determined, and the cause released to the public," said Neal Rosenstein, Government Reform Coordinator for NYPIRG.  "Public confidence in the conduct of elections is vital to both voter participation and trust in our elected system," he added.

CLICK HERE to read the letter.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY Upcoming 2014 Pending Legislation on Voting

In the following weeks there will be open hearings about the 2014 pending legislation that will affect the state and cities Board of Elections and the voters.

The bills are:

New York City

Res. 4-A - A Resolution calling on the New York State Legislature to pass and the Governor to sign A7013, which would require Instant Run-Off voting in New York City Primary elections for Offices of the Mayor, Public Advocate, and Comptroller.  Also for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, or City Council member for which all candidates were nominated by independent nominating petition.

Int. 488 - A Local Law to amend the New York City Charter to require the New York City Board of Elections to post sample ballots on its website prior to elections.

Int. 1066 - A Local Law to amend the New York City Charter in relations to Instant Run-Off voting.  Also to consider a Local Law to amend the New York City Charter to eliminate Run-Off Elections for the Offices of Public Advocate and Comptroller.

Int. 1108 - A Local Law to amend the New York City Charter in relations to using Ranked-Choice voting for Absentee and Military voters.

New York State

Hearings about:

A.9271-B - To ensure that New York State's Election law is consistent with the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) act.  In 2012 the Assembly passed A.9271-B to move the Primary to June and amend certain deadlines to facilitate the timely transmission of ballots to military voters stationed overseas.  The hearings will take testimony on moving the State Primary to June, beginning in 2014.

- Examine solutions to make voting, in person and absentee, more accessible for all voters.  Increase the fairness to all voters and the effects of such proposals on the State's budget.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Hawaii Democratic Party Loses Primary Election Lawsuit

Hawaii is an Open Primary state.  Hawaii voter registration forms do not ask the applicant to choose a party, and on primary day, any voter is free to vote in any party’s primary.

On August 22, 2013, the Hawaii Democratic Party submitted an affidavit to a U.S. District Court that is hearing the party’s lawsuit against the open primary.  The Hawaii Democratic Party had argued that an open primary is facially unconstitutional, which means that it is always unconstitutional, as applied to any party.

On November 14, U.S. District Court Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled against the Hawaii Democratic Party, in Democratic Party of Hawaii v Nago.  The decision says that the Democratic Party would need to provide evidence that the open primary harms the Democratic Party.  The decision points out that some Hawaii political parties might want to keep an open primary.

Applied challenge cases depends on evidence that the parties who filed the lawsuits were being harmed

This court stated they cannot consider the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s challenge without analyzing proof of a burden.

Update>/u>
On December 12, the Hawaii Democratic Party filed a notice of appeal in Democratic Party of Hawaii v Nago, the case over whether the party can close its primary so that only party members can vote in its primary. The U.S. District Court had upheld the open primary on the grounds that the party had not proved that the open primary results in non-members voting in its primary, or that if non-members do vote in its primary, that the party hasn’t showed this harms the party.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Congress Starts Discussion On New Preclearance Rules

My take on the Hill reporting on the prospect that Congress might create new rules for Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.  The old Section 4 was suspended by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, 2013.  According to the article, there is support among some Democrats and Republicans for a bill to enact new rules for Section 4, the Preclearance rules.

Section 4 was the part of the Act that determined which parts of the nation are subject to Section 5, the Preclearance requirement.  The original act, passed in 1965, said certain parts of the country that had a bad record on voting rights must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election laws.  Section 5 is still intact, but it has no practical usefulness if there is no rules on which parts of the country should be included in Section 5.

Both chambers are working behind the scenes to draft legislation to re-install the Voting Rights Act protections.  But in a sign of the delicate nature of the topic, Senate Democrats are taking care not to rush ahead of the House, for fear of sinking the bill's chances in the GOP-controlled lower chamber.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is working with House Democrats and a small contingent of House Republicans, notably former Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner(Wis.), who championed the 2006 Voting Rights Act re-authorization, in an effort to defuse the partisan politics surrounding the thorny issue and forge a bill that has the best chance of becoming law.

Leahy said he'd hoped a July hearing on the Voting Rights Act, which featured testimony from Sensenbrenner and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) the civil rights hero, would have propelled the debate and made the case for bipartisan support of a fix.

But the August recess, the arrival of the Syria crisis and the fight over the government shutdown have all intervened to slow the process, and the negotiators have yet to produce even a draft bill.

Sensenbrenner has been vocally supporting a legislative response to the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act decision, which found that the decades-old formula dictating which states must get federal approval to change election laws is outdated and therefore unconstitutional.

But he could have a powerful ally in House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has signaled support for a response to the high court's ruling.  Before the August recess, Cantor had met one-on-one with Lewis to discuss the subject, and Lewis said afterwards that the Virginia Republican is "by all means" supportive of a legislative fix.  Cantor continues to meet with members of both parties in the hopes of finding a positive path forward regarding the Voting Rights Act.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and one of the leaders in the effort to rewrite the Voting Rights Act, suggested last week that a draft bill will be finalized near mid-November.  Pushing the debate to next year, Scott warned, risks entangling the debate in the tough politics of the mid-terms.

My solution is to make the Preclearance issue part of the Census and take it out of Congressional hands.  The test rules should also always include any new schemes that would put barriers to eligible voters from exercising their voice.

Every ten years all states are "Bailed-In", and they have 90 days to submit their prior 10 years voting records.  Those states that prove they have complied would then be able to "Bail-Out".  This should be done before redistricting begins.

In the meantime, we could institute this Jan. 2014 before the mid-term election process begins.

What do you think of this idea?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY Might be Ready for Statewide Term Limits

On July 2, 2013, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo appointed the “Commission to Investigate Public Corruption” under the Moreland Act and Executive Law Section 63(8) to probe systemic corruption and the appearance of such corruption in state government, political campaigns and elections in New York State.  It is called the "Moreland Commission".

The defeat of ballot Proposal 6 to raise the retirement age for judges, from 70 years for elected justices of the state Supreme Court and 76 years for appointed judges on the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest, to 80 years sent a powerful message.  The preliminary vote was 61% vs. 39%.  The Moreland Commission would do well to heed: New Yorkers have a healthy distaste for public officials who overstay their welcome.

Backers argued that forcing bench-sitters to retire is a waste of hard-learned judicial experience.  Voters weren’t buying the argument.  People on the public payroll should know when to quit.

That same visceral reaction against political careerism could be seen in the mayor’s race.  No single factor did more to tank the candidacy of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn than her role in overriding term limits for Mayor Bloomberg, herself and other city officer holders, that voters had approved twice.

Citizens of the New York City's five boroughs clearly hold a strong belief in the cleansing effect of forcible turnover in government.

Albany, meanwhile, has legislators who have been clinging to their seats for decades.  The system coddles incumbents so effectively that they’re more likely to be arrested than lose office in a general election, with the predictable consequence of widespread rot.

Surely, if the state’s voters were given the chance to impose term limits on the Capitol, they would do so in a heartbeat.  Just as surely, the State Legislature would never voluntarily grant voters that opportunity.

This is where the Moreland Commission comes in.  Its charge is to explore the root causes of Albany's problems and recommend fixes.

Nothing does more to breed corruption than the belief among politicians that they are locked in for life, free to focus on building their pensions and spinning webs instead of serving the people.

And nothing would blow up that culture more effectively than a mandatory changing of the guard after, say, after two terms.

If commission co-chairs William Fitzpatrick, Kathleen Rice and Milton Williams are serious about changing state government, they must put term limits on the table for the overdue debate.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYC Needs a New Way to Vote

I read an article in the New York Daily News by Francis Barry, Mayor Bloomberg’s Director of Public Affairs and the author of “The Scandal of Reform.”  He contends New York City is not a real democracy and explains how the voters can have a serious competition and real choice.

He explains that the voter will find when they get their ballot that nearly all of the races for offices have already been decided.  Their only choice will be whether to rubber stamp the inevitable winners or cast protest votes for fringe candidates.

Voters are stuck in this predicament in part because the local Republican Party has been on life support since the 1970s.  This year, the GOP is contesting a record low number of offices.  For the City Council’s 51 seats, for instance, Republicans have nominated only 29 candidates, leaving nearly half the council uncontested.  And most of those 29 nominees are merely sacrificial lambs who have raised little or no money and will lose in huge landslides.

The GOP is not even bothering to field a candidate for the office of Public Advocate, second-in-line to the mayor.  The last time Republicans won that office was in 1941, when the office was called the City Council President.  Nor has the GOP nominated a candidate for Brooklyn Borough President.  A Republican hasn’t won Brooklyn Borough Hall since 1913.

The lack of electoral competition except on low-turnout primary day may be good for Democratic Party leaders, but not it’s not good for voters.  Only 22% of Democrats voted in the September primary.  When a significantly larger number of Democrats arrive at the polls tomorrow, joined by hundreds of thousands of independents and others who were prohibited from participating in the September primary, they will find they have few viable choices.

Many of tomorrow’s inevitable winners were actually opposed by a majority of primary voters.  In one City Council race, the Democratic primary winner, Helen Rosenthal, received only 26% of the vote.  Three of four Democrats supported someone else.  But in the general election, she will face a token Republican candidate who has not raised a dime.  Like most other Democratic nominees, she effectively stopped campaigning after the primary.  The general election is only a formality.

Election law should be built to benefit voters, not parties.  The existing system benefits parties at the expense of voters.

Mr. Barry's solution is to allow all voters and all candidates equal access to the primary and general elections.  Under such a system, all parties’ candidates would compete in a single primary open to all voters.  The top two vote getters would then advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Many cities around the country, along with several states, have moved to this more inclusive form of elections, often called a nonpartisan or “top two” system.  Voters in California recently adopted such a system.

Here in New York City, more competition at the polls would mean higher voter turnout. Expanding access to the polls to independents (about one in five voters) would make it harder for party bosses to control election outcomes.  And that would help make it easier for new immigrant groups, which party organizations are traditionally slow to embrace, to elect representatives of their communities.

But there are other options to Top-Two.  There is the option of a Blanket Primary.  A primary in which the ballot is not restricted to candidates from one party.  My version would have each party’s candidate with the most votes move to the General Election.  To overcome the party association issue, some states allows parties to opt-out of this process and run their closed primary.

Today many voters have declared their independence and say they want to vote for the candidates and not the party. In many states where they can not take part in the primary voting process, they ask “why are my taxes paying for the candidate selection process of private entities called political parties?”

In New York City, we could create a primary ballot for independents, or as some are called: no party preference or blanks, and include all the candidates running in the primary process for each position.  The candidates with the most votes for each position would then appear on the Independent ballot line in the General Election.

In New York, where we use Fusion voting, the candidate’s vote on the Independent ballot line would be added to the total vote the candidate gets on the other ballot lines they appear on.

The absence of serious competition and real voter choice that will define tomorrow’s election should not be shrugged off as if nothing can be done.  Practical solutions exists, and voters in New York City whose diversity of ethnicity and opinion embodies the best traditions of American democracy, deserve a better election process.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY Dead Residents Are Still Voting in Nassau County

Newsday has found more than 6,000 dead people are registered to vote in Nassau County and records show about 270 of them actually voted after their deaths  The paper using voter registration and federal death records.  Dead registered voters in Nassau County account for nearly 25 percent of the 26,500 dead people registered to vote statewide.

John Ryan, counsel to Nassau County Republican Elections Commissioner Louis Savinetti, couldn't explain why so many dead people were on active voting lists.

As a matter of course, State Board of Elections officials send Nassau and other counties lists of names of people who may no longer be eligible to vote, and those names are supposed to be checked out and then deleted from the database if determined invalid.  Counties also send mail each year to all registered voters and, if the mail is returned unopened, those voters are removed from the active registry.  They stay on an inactive list for two years before their registration is revoked reports.

A State Board of Elections spokesman told Newsday he didn't know if New York planned to enroll in some of the programs other states have found worthwhile.

In an effort to control voter registration and the ability to double vote, two organizations have created different interstate voter registration systems.

Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)

The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a non-profit organization with the sole mission of assisting states to improve the accuracy of America’s voter rolls and increase access to voter registration for all eligible citizens. ERIC is governed and managed by states who choose to join, and was formed in 2012 with assistance from The Pew Charitable Trusts.  The seven states that pioneered the formation of ERIC in 2012 are: Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

They uses multiple data points, including car registration, Social Security lists and change-of-address information to highlight names that should not be on active voting lists in a given district.

The Electronic Registration Information Center Crosscheck Program

The program compares voter registration records annually among the participating states to identify duplicate registrations and double votes. It is a tool states can use to maintain clean, current and accurate voter lists and to fight voter fraud.

The program began in 2005 as an agreement between four Midwestern states – Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. The four original states comprised approximately 9 million registration records. Today, the states in the program are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia and will contain more than 90 million voter registration records in the database to compare in 2014.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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