NY Independent Redistricting Amendment 2012, Ballot Initiative 2014

Common Cause/NY, along with NYPIRG and Effective New York, awarded the Salvador Dali prize for most artistically drawn legislative district to the Splattered Bug of the Bronx, Senate District 34.



Reformers have long argued that the method by which the state draws legislative districts is undemocratic and in need of reform.

It is well known that an important factor in maintaining New York State’s political culture is the practice of allowing the majorities in both houses , the State Assembly and the State Senate, to draw their own district lines every ten years.  In effect, this practice allows legislators to choose their voters, rather than the other way around.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo agreed to the lines drawn by the majorities in 2012.  As part of the 2012 agreement, the governor and the state’s legislative leaders also negotiated constitutional changes to the state’s redistricting process and that proposal will go to voters this November.

The New York Independent Redistricting Amendment is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.  The measure, upon voter approval, would create an independent redistricting commission to establish state senate, assembly and congressional districts.  The amendment would amend Sections 4 and 5 of the New York Constitution.

Common Cause Executive Director Susan Lerner argued, “The proposed constitutional amendment sets up a hyper-partisan, expensive and ineffective structure for redistricting.  Ultimately this is not an independent process, and the voters lose.”

In a report released this past Monday, the three groups called on voters to reject the fatally flawed redistricting proposal which will be on the ballot this November.

CLICK HERE to read the report.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

E-voting Experiments End in Norway

Security fears have prompted Norway to end trials of e-voting in national and local elections.  Experiments with voting via the net were carried out during elections held in 2011 and 2013.

But the trials have ended because, said the government, voters' fears about their votes becoming public could undermine democratic processes.  Political controversy and the fact that the trials did not boost turnout also led to the experiment ending.

In a statement, Norway's Office of Modernization said it was ending the experiments following discussions in the nation's parliament about efforts to update voting systems.

The statement said although there was "broad political desire" to let people vote via the net, the poor results from the last two experiments had convinced the government to stop spending money on more trials.

The 2013 trial was also controversial because immediately prior to the election, criticism was leveled at the encryption scheme used to protect votes being sent across the net.  Software experts called for the entire voting system to be rewritten to better protect data.

A report looking into the success of the 2013 trial said about 70,000 Norwegians took the chance to cast an e-vote.  This represented about 38% of all the 250,000 people across 12 towns and cities who were eligible to vote online.  However, it said, there was no evidence that the trial led to a rise in the overall number of people voting nor that it mobilized new groups, such as young people, to vote.

The report by Norway's Institute of Social Research also expressed worries about the fact that online voting took place in what it called "uncontrolled environments".  This, it said, undermined the need for a vote to be made in secret without anyone influencing the voter as they made their choice.

It said there was also some evidence that a small number of people, 0.75% of all voters, managed to vote twice in 2013.  They did this by voting once online then traveling to a polling station to cast a paper ballot.

Norway has made its decision soon after Jenny Watson, head of Britain's Electoral Commission, said the UK should move more swiftly to adopt e-voting as it could help arrest a decline in the numbers of young voters.

Sometimes you wonder if these feeble attempts at E-voting were setup to fail.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYC Council Passes Muni ID Bill

The New York City Council voted overwhelmingly to pass a Municipal Identification card bill Thursday, though many questions remain about the bill’s implementation and the utility of the ID cards.

The identifcation card program has gained national attention over the past few months for its goal of bring an estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants "out of the shadows."

The bill, which passed 43 to 3, would provide a form of city ID to New Yorkers who can establish their identity and residency, and meet the minimum age requirement for eligibility.  The ID would be separate from state or federal identification, and according to lawmakers, would be especially important to immigrants, the elderly, and transgender people.  All city agencies will be required to accept the ID, though it will not be accepted at state and federal agencies.

However, many details have yet to be hammered out, including which personal documents would qualify someone for the ID.

The Council said that it is still working with businesses to build incentives into the card to promote widespread use.  As of now, it is unclear whether banks will accept the card, perhaps the most glaring question mark for immigrants who might struggle to open a bank account.

The IRS already issues Taxpayer Identification Numbers to people who may not be U.S. citizens, but pay taxes, a fact that seemed to escape the Council on Thursday.

An important aspect of the ID card’s rollout: to succeed the ID must attain widespread use, including by people who already have alternate forms of ID.  Councilmembers hinted at partnerships with private businesses, but the lack of incentive for pre-existing ID carriers was not included in the bill, and will be worked out in the coming months by the Mayor’s Office of Operations.  Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito said that the IDs would be rolled out by late 2014, or early 2015.

“The ID will only work if we find ways to encourage many New Yorkers to sign up,” said Councilman Dan Garodnick.  “Today, it is not evident why many documented New Yorkers would want or need one.”  New York City was among American localities with the lowest number of driver’s licenses among its residents, roughly 58 percent as of 2011.

Not everyone was happy about handing the bill over to the Mayor’s Office.  Republican Minority Leader Vincent Ignizio, one of three Council members to vote against the bill, took issue with the vagueness of the legislation.  The other "nay" votes came from Councilman Steven Matteo and Councilman Eric Ulrich, the only other two GOP members of the body.  The lack of veteran status that could potentially be listed on the card was also a point of contention.

Councilmen Mark Treyger and Alan Maisel abstained, with Maisel voicing the concern that a program intended to bring people out of the shadows could instead be used as a weapon against them.  “When we pass laws, we don’t pass the laws or write the laws to protect people from good government,” he said.  “We are supposed to pass laws to protect people from bad government.”

Councilman Mark Weprin counseled his colleagues to “relax” and stop worrying about the lack of details in the legislation, and the potential for the card to be more of a stigma than a benefit.

“We live in the coolest city in the world,” Weprin said, “and now we’re going to have a membership card.  People [will] want to be part of that club.”

One problem not discussed, is the potential of getting the card at a New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and under the Motor Voter laws, get registered to vote.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law Fight

A federal judge struck down the state's Voter ID law.  In a lawsuit brought by Advancement Project and pro bono law firm Arnold & Porter, they showed that, in burdening the right to vote for Wisconsin’s African-American and Latino citizens, the measure violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  In his decision, the judge also rejected the state’s argument that a voter ID law was needed, stating that allegations of voter fraud have absolutely no merit.

The Wisconsin victory marked the first time a voter ID law has been defeated under Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race.  That’s especially important since one year ago this week, in its Shelby County v. Holder decision, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the provision (Section 5) of the VRA which required federal pre-approval of voting changes in jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices.

On the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Shelby decision, we are reminded of how much we lost.  Fighting voter suppression laws under Section 2, as done in Wisconsin (a state that had not been previously covered by Section 5) requires taking states to court and proving that their voting laws are discriminatory.  It places the burden on voting rights attorneys and communities of color, and it places tremendous pressure on litigation, which involves vast amounts of resources and time.

Instead of accepting the judge’s decision, the state of Wisconsin is fighting tooth and nail to keep these discriminatory laws on the books.  Last month, state officials appealed the judge’s order, filing with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling.  Now Advancement Project and their law firm face a drawn-out legal battle over the issue, with another set of court arguments expected in the coming months.

It’s unfortunate that Wisconsin officials are using limited state resources in a desperate attempt to defend an unnecessary and racially discriminatory voting measure.

This legal battle is intended to keep partisan politicians in power by restricting the votes of people of color.  The casualties of this war on voting rights will be older African Americans born in the rural South when it was not common to record Black births; people unable to afford time off from work to make it to Wisconsin’s limited DMV offices, which are only open on weekdays and mostly during daytime hours; and the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters, disproportionately voters of color, who lack the required form of voter ID.

What happens next in the state has implications for the entire country.  As the leading democracy in the world, it is our responsibility to ensure states do not enact laws that obstruct the inalienable right to vote.  This is why we should all be watching Wisconsin.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

One Year After The Voting Rights Act Was Gutted

A year ago today, in a 5-to-4 ruling on Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.  Jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination subject to preclearance, or special review by the Justice Department or a federal court before enforcing any new voting laws, were now free to legislate as the wished.

Though the conservative Justices may disagree, voting discrimination is not largely a thing of the past.  Since 2010, nearly two-thirds of the states previously covered under Section 5 of the VRA, nine of fifteen, have passed new voting restrictions.

And between 2000 and June 2013, there were 148 Section 5 objections or other VRA violations recorded in 29 states, mostly concentrated in the South.



Meanwhile, Congress which voted to renew the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, each time with increasingly larger margins, has yet to fix it this time around.

The Senate has introduced the Voting Rights Amendment Act.  In the House, it has languished.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte apparently thinks that a fix to the Supreme Court’s Shelby decision is not needed.

BOTTOM LINE: Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that we no longer need the Voting Rights Act.  Today offers a good opportunity to remind them, and the legislators dragging their feet in Congress, that we do.  States continue to pass laws designed to erect barriers to voting and suppress voter turnout, often targeted disproportionately at minority communities.  There may no longer be literacy tests or poll taxes, but the modern voting restrictions are just as insidious and we need strong federal protections to prevent states from enacting them.

The best way to handle this is during the census.  Every ten years during the census all states are put on preclearance.  Under the law, a jurisdiction can get out from under Sections 4/5 if it can show a ten-year record of non-discrimination, so they get 90 days to file their bailout 10 year record.  After the Justice Department review, the preclearance map will change.  This will then affect those states put on preclearance when they file their redistricting maps.

The key to this concept is the creation to an independent review board to modify the Section 5 rules to keep up with future voter suppression laws.

The current laws are:

1. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote.

2. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

3. Proof that any proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

4. In 1970, Congress adopted an additional coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the date to determine if there was a test or device, levels of voter registration, and electoral participation.

5. In 1975, the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups."  An additional coverage formula was enacted, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972.  In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age.

So we need to expand the formula to include new voter I.D. laws, reductions in early voting, and any other laws that state's can come up with in the future.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYC Highrise Safety Initiative

For years, 9/11 conspiracy theorists have been marginalized if not utterly ignored, producing blog posts and online films that gain little traction with the general public.

The group, NYC Coalition for Accountability Now, is following the steps to place a referendum on the ballot in November that would require the city’s Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of any building taller than 20-stories dating back to 9/11, and in the future, but not including the Twin Towers.  So far, only 7 WTC fits that description.

The group, which now bills itself as the Highrise Safety Initiative, has previously attempted a ballot initiative and failed.  In 2009, the city successfully challenged in court an attempt to include a referendum on the ballot calling for an investigation into 7 WTC’s collapse.

This time, they have raised more money, over $190,000, which they have used to hire a media consultant (Andrew Moesel of Sheinkopf Communications), an election lawyer (Leo Glickman of Stoll, Glickman & Bellina) and a petition-gathering consultant (the BrownMillerGroup).

The Highrise Safety Initiative has gathered more than 53,000 signatures, far beyond the requisite 30,000, which it will present to the City Council July 3.  Assuming the council declines to act on the proposal, the group would then gather an additional 30,000 signatures to submit in September to force its initiative onto the ballot.  Approval by a majority of those who vote on the question would compel the city to act on its instructions.

Both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have issued reports on 7 WTC, and both determined that fire, falling debris and faulty sprinkler systems were responsible for the collapse.  NIST noted that it was the only known instance of a high-rise building being brought down by fire.

“The Highrise Safety Initiative is run by a professional group of people that have legitimate safety concerns about New York City buildings.”  “We have no problem making that case to voters, who will ultimately be the ones who decide it on the merits.” said Mr. Moesel.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYC Voting Rights are Primary Campaign

Voting Rights are Primary - During the primary phase of the mid-term elections, independent voter groups are protesting their second class status as voters.

North Carolina - Students and community members hit the streets in Greensboro.

Ohio - Independent voters protested on primary day at the Secretary of State’s office in Columbus about their status as first class taxpayers, but second class voters.  The protest was part of the Voting Rights are Primary campaign being coordinated nationally by IndependentVoting.org.  The Ohio action received coverage on the local ABC station and in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Pennsylvania - Independent Pennsylvanians founder, Jenn Bullock, was on the streets of Philadelphia on primary day May 20th, where 1 million PA voters are excluded.  She spoke with statewide columnist, John Finnerty, for his piece "Voters Pay for Primaries but Don't get a Say."

So today is Primary Day in New York City.  IndependentVoting.org and The New York City Independence Party Organizations picked the 13th Assembly District to bring out our message.

The Democratic primary is between: incumbent Charles Rangel, who was first elected in 1970, Adriano Espaillat, a State senator, Michael A. Walrond Jr., the seventh Senior Pastor of the historic First Corinthian Baptist Church in Harlem, and Yolanda Garcia, a Bronx activist.

The polling site I covered was the Tracy Tower Community Center in the South Bronx section of the 13th District.


Some of my Independent friends.


The group collected 26 survey questionnaires called I Can't Vote Today Ask Me Why.


I did my part letting passing vehicles know about are message:

Independents: First Class Tax Payers... Second Class Voters










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY General Election Redistricting Commission Initiative

Many New York good-government groups is urging voters to reject a constitutional amendment establishing a new redistricting commission, saying it's an “incumbent protection scheme” representing a glaring broken promise by Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The commission must be affirmed by voters on the November ballot.

Cuomo's decision to sign off on the current set of district lines, which were decried and challenged, but ultimately upheld in court, prevented Democrats from taking control of the State Senate.

Democratic insurgent Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham law professor seeking the Democratic nomination for governor, is aligned with most good-government groups who say the amendment, which was crafted in 2012 in exchange for Cuomo abandoning a promise to reject new district lines drawn by legislators, doesn't go far enough.

“With a fair redistricting system we would have a Democratic Senate, and he ran on this: he pledged that the way we would draw districts would mean the way we have representatives in Albany would mirror the people of the state of New York, the failure of the Dream Act and the failure of Fair Elections are all traceable to the fact that we don't have a Democratic Senate, and we don't have a Democratic Senate because Governor Cuomo has not acted like he's wanted one.” Teachout said.

Currently, a bipartisan, bicameral commission of lawmakers draws districts, with the current majority in each house doing its best to lock in partisan advantage.

The independent commission would still be mostly appointed by legislators and give lawmakers the power to draw their own districts if two sets of the commission's draft lines were deemed unacceptable.

Good-government groups, including the New York Public Interest Research Group and Common Cause, say this level of legislative involvement is a fatal flaw. They hold a Monday press conference in Albany to make their case, and to give out an award for the oddest-shaped district.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Montana Republicans Vote for Closed Primaries and General Election Runoff

Irked at what they believe is Democrats interfering in their primary elections, Montana State Republican Party delegates on Saturday called for closing their primaries and allowing only registered Republicans to vote in them.

Delegates also voted to support a second measure calling for quick runoff elections in General Elections between the two candidates with the most votes.  Runoffs would take place if no one in the general election won 50% of the votes.

Neither resolution will take effect unless the Legislature passes laws to implement them or a court orders them.  They simply reflect the viewpoints of a majority of the 207 convention Republican delegates present.

Senate President Jeff Essmann of Billings wrote four election-related provisions, which also included endorsement of a November ballot measure to cut off voter registration at 5 p.m. on the Friday before the Election Day, which is on Tuesday.  Delegates endorsed this provision.

Since 2006, people have been able to register to vote up to 8 p.m. on Election Day and cast their votes.  Essmann said passage of the ballot measure would allow election administrators to focus solely on administering fair and clean elections on Election Day and provide election results in a timely manner.

A general election runoff is interesting.

What about a general election runoff if a certain percentage of registered voter have not voted?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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