Monday, March 30, 2015

NYC Pending Council Legislation Affecting Voting Issues


One of my favorite New York City Council member is Benjamin (Ben) Kallos for the 5th District, that represents East-side of Manhattan (54-100 Street).  He is also the Chair of the Committee on Governmental Operations.

Recently he discussed his upcoming pending legislation, at a meeting of the New York Democratic Lawyers Council (NYDLC), that I was invited to.

Here is a list:

Legislation that has received a hearing

Int. 536-2014 - Contemporaneous Registration and Absentee Ballot Request
This would change the current election law and absentee ballot application from a already qualified voter, to a voter who is registering to vote, and will be deemed eligible by the time of the next election.

Int. 0659-2015 - Adds a new section to the City Charter, 1057-c Absentee Ballot Tracking.  Providing a secure website for a voter to request an absentee ballot and track it.  The New York City Board of Elections then will:

(1) Receive voter request.
(2) Improve or reject and post the reason for the rejection.
(3) Mail or deliver the absentee ballot.
(4) Receive the absentee ballot from the voter.
(5) Verify the absentee ballot or reject it and post a reason for the rejection.

The voter then should be able to track the status of their absentee ballot as it works its way through the system.

Pending Legislation

Int. ___ - Allowing per-registration for 16 and 17 year olds.
Res. ___ - Allowing high school students to serve as poll workers.
Int. 062-2014 - Requiring the posting of notice of the new poll site or sites on any former poll site used in the previous four calendar years.  Currently it is only one year, and many voters only vote in the presidential year.
Int. 255-2014 - Require publication of the Voter Guides in at least eight languages.
Int. 508-2014 - Online voter registration.  Website will indicate the date of the next election the voter can participate in.  If signature is missing, voter can bring necessary documents and ID photo to the poll site and sign before voting.
Int. 593-2014 - Early voting for municipal officers beginning second Tuesday prior and ending the Friday prior the election, BOE to designate at least one site per council district.  Polls to be open from 8am to 8pm during the week and 9am to 5pm on the weekends.
Res. 232-2014 - Calls on the state to move its primary date in line with the federal primary date.
Int. 628-2015 - Young Adult Voter Registration Act amendment to include tracking and reporting.

With Congress not passing a new formula for the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).  The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself.  The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.

The state will work on a New York State Voting Rights Act.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Strike a Blow Against Citizen United


In the next few weeks, President Obama could decide whether to take meaningful action against money in politics.

With the stroke of a pen, he could force federal contractors, some of the biggest corporations in America, to disclose all their political spending.

It would be a victory in the ongoing struggle against the Citizens United-era style of pay-to-play politics.

As part of a national campaign to secure President Obama's executive order, a group of organizations that work to fight against money in politics are holding events across the country over the next week, on and around April 2, the anniversary of McCutcheon v. FEC, one of a series of Supreme Court decisions that allowed more money to flood our democracy.

You need to make sure the public, politicians, media, and the White House hear this message: President Obama has the public's support in striking a blow vs. Citizens United.

Nearly 500,000 Americans have already signed petitions supporting this effort, including more than 100,000 MoveOn members.  But the other side has spoken up too.  The chief lobbyist of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents some of the country's biggest corporations, vowed that, in regard to this executive order, "We will fight it through any means necessary."

Sadly, we know that the lobbyists for Wall Street, defense contractors, and major corporations are good at getting heard in Washington.  We may not be able to outspend them, but we do outnumber them.  And our participation in these rallies will help give the president the push he needs to take this momentous step.

Fighting the corrupting influence of money on our political system is one of the defining challenges of our time.

CLICK HERE to RSVP to a local event near you.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

NY Budget Deal Includes Ethics Reforms


New York legislative leaders Sunday night agreed to a budget that includes a compromise on the aggressive ethics reforms.

The ethic reforms that Governor Cuomo and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie originally agreed to remained largely unchanged in the final agreement.

As Heastie and Cuomo previously agreed to, the ethics deal will:

- Require legislators who receive outside income to disclose the source of any compensation in excess of $1,000 and disclose the name of the client for compensation in excess of $5,000.
- Legislators who are employed by law firms and who, for example, are serving as counsel and have no specific clients are also required to disclose their income.
- A lawmaker who is paid to bring in clients, but does not represent them, must also reveal those clients.
- Pension forfeiture if convected of a crime.
- Per Diem reform.
- New Campaign finance disclosure reforms.

Prohibition of personal use of campaign funds:

- Used to pay interest or any other finance chargers upon monies loaned to the campaign.
- Any residential/non-residential or household items, supplies, mortgage, rent, utility payments for any part of any personal residence of a candidate or officeholder or a member of their family.  In the event that any property or building is used for both personal and campaign use, personal use shall be expenses that exceed the pro-rated amount for such expenses based on fair-market value.
- Clothing, other than items that are used in the campaign.
- Tuition Payments.
- Childcare costs.
- Dues, fees, or gratuities at a country club, health club, recreational facility or other non-political organization, unless they are part of a specific fundraising event.
- Salary payments or other compensation provided to any person whose services are not solely for campaign purposes.
- Salary payments or other compensation provided to a member of a candidate's family, unless the family member is providing bona fide services to a campaign.  Payments or other compensation in excess of the fair market value of the services provided shall be considered payment for personal use.
- Admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment, unless such event is part of a campaign or officeholder activity.
- Payment of any fines or penalties assessed in connection with a criminal convection or public ethics violation.
- Travel expenses including automobile purchase or leases, unless used solely for campaign purposes.  If expenses involves both personal, campaign, or official duties, the incremental expenses as the results of personal use must be reimbursed to the campaign within ninety days.

The Senate was granted one major modification: Any legislator who is also a practicing attorney will be able to request that a client’s name be redacted from public records if that client is found not to be directly involved with legislation or other state affairs.  The Office of Court Administration or JCOPE will ultimately make that determination.

State legislators will be required to use a swipe card to prove that they are in Albany to collect their $172-a-day per diem under the budget deal.  If lawmakers come in on a Sunday night, they would need to show some proof that they were in town, such as a meal receipt.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman slammed the ethics reform deal in Albany as window dressing that won’t “get at the root of corruption.”  Schneiderman has pushed for an outright ban on outside income for legislators, accompanied by a pay raise and abolition of the per diem payments that pols get when they’re in Albany.  He said the package is similar to past ethics changes that haven’t slowed the parade of pols getting hauled off in handcuffs.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Nevada Bill for a Modified Blanket Primary


The Nevada Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections will hear SB 499 on April 1 at 3:30 p.m.

AN ACT relating to elections; creating a modified blanket primary election system for partisan offices; authorizing any person who files a declaration or acceptance of candidacy and pays a filing fee to be a candidate for a partisan office at a primary election; providing, with limited exceptions, that the two candidates at a primary election for a partisan office who receive the highest number of votes must be declared nominees and have their names placed on the ballot for the general election; providing, with limited exceptions, that the two nominees on the ballot for the general election must not be affiliated with the same political party unless all of the candidates at the primary election are affiliated with the same political party; providing that the two nominees on the ballot for the general election may not be independent candidates unless all of the candidates at the primary election are independent candidates; eliminating provisions that prohibit a voter from casting a ballot in a primary election for partisan office for a candidate with a political affiliation different than that of the voter; making various conforming changes; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

To decipher the legal: only the top two could run in the general election, except that if the top two candidates in the primary are both in the same party or two independent,, then the 2nd place finisher does not advance to the general election, and whichever next candidate who is not in that same party or also independent does advance, however, if all the candidates are members of the same party or all independents, then the top two would advance.

The bill would provide that for all partisan office except President.  The petition requirement would remain for presidential candidates.

Richard Winger of Ballot Access News has an interesting review:

"Blanket primaries are unconstitutional if any party subject to them complains.  The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated involuntary blanket primaries in 2000 in California Democratic Party v Jones.  The principle behind that decision is that parties can’t be forced to let members of other parties help choose their nominees."

I think the party nominee issues has been wrongly decided by the Supreme Court.  The party's should have s a separate ballot for party officials and party issues, and a non-partisan ballot for state and congressional candidates.

But were is the Supreme Court on the fact that unaffiliated voters paid for the primary but can't take part in the process?

The sponsor of SB 499 is the entire Senate Committee, so it seems likely that the Committee will pass the bill. However, observers do not believe it would pass the Assembly even if it passes the Senate.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Kansas asks Supreme Court to Restore Proof-of-Citizenship Law


Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision and restore a state law he wrote requiring proof-of-citizenship documents to register to vote.

Kobach wants the Supreme Court to undo the November decision by the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, in a case pitting Kansas and Arizona against the federal Election Assistance Commission and a number of voting rights groups.

The appeals court ruled that the states could not require documented citizenship proof from prospective voters who register using a federal form that doesn’t demand it, and that the commission doesn’t have to alter the federal registration form to comply with the states’ demands.

Kobach argues Supreme Court guidance is needed because the case is of paramount national importance.

“It’s a really profoundly important case,” Kobach said.  “The founding fathers were emphatic that the states get to decide who is a qualified voter and who is not.  It was a critical point in the Constitution that the federal government would have to follow the states on this matter.  “In other words, the qualifications for voting for a member of Congress in Kansas would have to be the same as those for voting for a member of the Kansas Legislature and it was the states who would set the rules and Congress would follow, not vice versa.  What this federal agency has done is turn the founding fathers’ notion on its head.”

Dolores Furtado, president of the Kansas chapter of the League of Women Voters, said the league will continue its intervention in the case on the federal commission’s side.

She said she hasn’t yet talked with the group’s lawyers about Kobach’s appeal, but they will very likely file a rebuttal to it.  Both the state and national league organizations have intervened in the case, represented by the lawyers from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.  Other voting-rights groups that have joined on the commission’s side include Common Cause, Project Vote, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and others.

They argue that the proof-of-citizenship requirement represents an unacceptable hurdle to voting and is therefore unconstitutional.  They also say the requirement is especially difficult for low-income, elderly and minority voters to meet.

The Kansas requirement for proof of citizenship is often confused with, but separate from the state’s requirement for photo ID to vote at the polls.

While a driver’s license fulfills the photo ID requirement, proof of citizenship to register to vote most often requires either a birth certificate, passport, or other documents for special circumstances such as tribal and foreign-born citizens.

The federal form doesn’t require any documents, but instead requires prospective voters to attest to their citizenship by signing a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.

Since the 10th Circuit ruled against Kobach, Kansas has operated under a two-tier system for state and federal voters.

Voters who use the state registration form and provide citizenship proof can vote in all elections.  But those who fill out a state form and don’t provide the proof have their voting privilege suspended until they produce it.  At present, about 25,000 prospective voters are on the suspense list.

Voters who register with the federal form and don’t provide citizenship proof are excluded from state and local elections, but can vote for federal candidates in congressional and presidential elections.

The change has already affected Wichita’s elections.

Signatures of federal-form voters were disallowed on the petitions to put a marijuana-reform effort on the city election ballot.  Federal voters were also excluded from the recent city primary and won’t be allowed to vote in the April 7 election for Mayor, City Council and school boards.

The 10th Circuit judges said Kansas and Arizona have other ways to check voters’ citizenship that are less burdensome for voters than requiring them to provide their birth records.

The Election Assistance Commission’s executive director “discussed in significant detail no fewer than five alternatives to requiring documentary evidence of citizenship that states can use to ensure that noncitizens do not register using the Federal Form,” the court ruling said.  “Kobach and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett do not dispute that these means exist, and merely contend that they are overly onerous.”

Kobach’s filing sets the clock for a series of written rebuttals from both sides, followed by a decision by the Supreme Court whether it will take up the case.

Kobach said he expects that decision sometime this summer, with oral arguments in the fall if the court decides to take the case.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

ACLU Asks Federal Court to Expand Wisconsin Voter Access


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked a federal district court to bolster access to the ballot for Wisconsin voters by permitting more types of acceptable identification for voting, and by allowing people who have difficulty obtaining identification to vote by affidavit.

The motion comes in response to a federal appeals court decision upholding the law, and seeks modifications to help ensure voter access to the polls.  It asks that the limited list of acceptable identification be expanded to include IDs for veterans and students attending technical colleges, as well as out-of-state driver licenses.

Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said:

"Thousands of Wisconsinites face barriers to the polls due to the limited forms of ID mandated under the state's strict voter ID law. We're asking the court to help lift these barriers by allowing a broader range of options."

The ACLU, the ACLU of Wisconsin, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, and Dechert LLP are co-counsel in this case, Frank v. Walker.  The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

CLICK HERE for more information about the motion.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

NJ Judge Throws Out an Election Results


In a rare move, a Superior Court judge this week threw out the November election results for a New Jersey City Council seat, ordering a new election after finding that the city's Democratic chairwoman took advantage of elderly nursing home residents.

Among the residents whose mail-in ballots were thrown out Wednesday by Judge Heidi Currier was a blind man, a resident who couldn't recall either her address or having voted, and others who testified that Leslie Dominguez-Rodriguez coerced them into voting for her husband, a candidate for Board of Education.

Dominguez-Rodriguez also was supporting council candidate Fernando Gonzalez, who beat Sergio Diaz by just 10 votes.  Gonzalez has been serving on the council since January as the election lawsuit played out in court.

His margin of victory was less than the 13 votes that the judge on Wednesday invalidated following a trial that included the testimony of the residents whose ballots were contested.

Currier said the fraud "went far beyond a technical violation" and the actions of Dominguez-Rodriguez and Gilfrank Nunez, a cousin of her husband's school board running mate, "were pervasive and far reaching and likely not just limited to these individuals whose ballots have been contested."

As a result, she had to order a new election for the two top votegetters, both Democrats.  The city has nonpartisan races.  None of the other City Council or school board election results were impacted by the judge's decision, including the victory for Dominguez-Rodriguez's husband, Jose Rodriguez.  Only Diaz and Gonzalez will appear on the May ballot.

"It's shameful that these residents were taken advantage of by an individual who had a direct personal interest in this election, and who, either used her influence over these residents or took advantage of their waning competence," Currier said.  Currier said these residents were further victimized by having to testify in this case.  "Many of them were nervous and upset and thought they had done something wrong," she said.

On Thursday Mayor Wilda Diaz, who was supporting Diaz, but is not related, against Gonzalez, called for the resignation of Dominguez-Rodriguez.  The two are longtime foes and the mayor has previously tried to remove the chairwoman from power.

"As a lifelong Democrat, I am appalled that someone who has engaged in voter fraud is the leader of our party," Diaz said in a statement.  "This is not what our party stands for and this is not the kind of person who should be representing thousands of ethical Democrats across Perth Amboy."  Councilmen Lisa Nanton, Fernando Irizarry, Joel Pabon and Bill Petrick also called for Dominguez-Rodriguez to step down.

The invalidation of an election is extremely rare: Middlesex County Clerk Elaine Flynn said Thursday that this is the first time during her 19-year tenure that a judge has called for a new election in the county.

Flynn said the special election likely will be held May 5 and will require the county to hire election workers, send out sample ballots and scramble to prepare voting machines at a time when county election workers are preparing for the June primaries.  It is still not clear how much the special election will cost or whether the county or the city will be responsible for it, she said.

Testimony from residents at the nursing home indicates that Dominguez-Rodriguez, who sometimes volunteers at the nursing home, may have impersonated someone else.

Ballots submitted by the voters claimed they were assisted by someone named "Linda Ferreira" and the residents testified in court that they were helped by someone by that name.  But when they were asked to point to a picture of "Linda Ferreira" they instead pointed to a picture of Dominguez-Rodriguez.

Among the problems Currier found:

• A resident testified that the handwriting on a ballot was not hers and she did not recall voting.

• Another resident said he felt "coerced" by Dominguez-Rodriguez into voting for her husband.

• Another resident said he told Dominguez-Rodriguez that he didn't want her help and was "very upset that somebody would tell him who to vote for," Currier said.

• Another voter also said Dominguez-Rodriguez asked him to vote for her husband and "he did not like that."  He said he does not know "Linda Ferreira," whose name is on the ballot as having assisted him, and testified that Dominguez-Rodriguez was the one who helped him.

• Another voter did not remember having voted at all.

• Two other voters who testified were described by Currier as "unintelligible" and "incomprehensible" in their testimony.  Currier ruled that one "did not vote of her own choice" and the other "did not complete a ballot under his own power."

"There is no doubt that Ms. Dominguez-Rodriguez was very involved in this election," Currier said.  "She denied helping any residents of the care center but one, and yet one by one the residents testified to the contrary.

Currier did not find that either candidate was involved in the fraud.

The state's vote-by-mail law allows any voter to request a mail-in ballot for any reason.

The law also allows for an "authorized messenger" who is a relative or registered voter of the county to deliver up to 10 mail-in ballots on behalf of voters.  The County Clerk's Office is supposed to verify the messenger's identity.

Voters also are allowed to be assisted.  The person who assists is supposed to identify themselves on the ballot.

Assisters are not allowed to campaign for any candidate and candidates are not allowed to assist voters.

A day after the the chairwoman resigned.  Leslie Dominguez-Rodriguez resigned Friday night, according to Middlesex County Democratic Chairman Kevin McCabe.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

CA Automatic Voter Registration


California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has proposed automatically registering eligible residents to vote when they obtain or renew their driver's licenses, a measure that could help reverse the state's dismal voter turnout.  Padilla, a former state senator who was elected as secretary of state last year, is teaming up with Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) to get the legislative process rolling.

Padilla's proposal is modeled after the "motor voter" law recently enacted in neighboring Oregon.  That legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, uses Department of Motor Vehicles data to automatically register eligible voters, offering them a 21-day opt-out period if they choose not to register.

“One of the biggest barriers to citizen participation is the voter registration process," Padilla said of the California initiative, according to the Los Angeles Times.  "A new, enhanced California Motor Voter law would strengthen our democracy.  It would be a game-changer."

He noted that if passed, an automatic voter registration law could potentially boost California's voter rolls by the millions, the secretary of state's office estimates that there are 7 million eligible Californians currently unregistered.

Voter turnout in the nation's most populous state has taken a downward turn in recent years.  In 2014, just 42 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in November's midterm elections.  Meanwhile, the state's youngest voters were virtually absent,  A University of California at Davis report found just 8.2 percent of Californians age 18 to 24 turned out to the polls.  Participation was even worse in Los Angeles' recent municipal elections, with only 8.6 percent of voters casting ballots.

Nationally, turnout hit a 72-year low of 36.4 percent in 2014, the lowest percentage since World War II. President Barack Obama lamented the dismal turnout in a February town hall.

"Why are you staying at home?" Obama said. "Why are you not participating?

The president has since floated the idea of mandatory voter registration.

I wonder if you are forced to vote, would submitting a BLANK ballot be a new way to protest?











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Nevada GOP Moves To Limit Early Voting


A Nevada state Senate committee has introduced legislation that would eliminate early voting on Sundays and restrict counties' abilities to set their own voting hours, in the latest move to reshape how elections are held in the state.

Senate Bill 433 was introduced on Monday by the Nevada Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections.  Under the terms of the bill, voting on Sundays during the early voting period ahead of next year's elections would no longer be allowed, and counties would no longer be able to keep their polls open beyond 7 p.m.  Previously, polling sites in areas like Clark County, which contains Las Vegas, had kept polls open until 9 p.m.

State Sen. Patricia Farley (R), chairs the committee that introduced the early voting legislation, and state Sen. James Settelmeyer (R), is the committee's vice chair.

If the law passes the Republican-controlled state legislature and is signed by Gov. Brian Sandoval (R), Nevada would remove itself from the group of nine states, Alaska, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, California, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Massachusetts, that have Sunday voting or that leave it up to county clerks to choose whether facilities will be open on Sundays.

Yvanna Cancela, the political director of the Culinary Union 226, which represents more than 55,000 employees on the Las Vegas strip and at the city's airport, called Senate Bill 433 an intentional effort to suppress the votes of the union's members.

State Senate Minority Leader Aaron Ford (D) said that the bill to restrict early voting hours struck him as "problematic" and a "direct attack" on African-Americans who go to vote on Sundays with their church, a tradition known as "Souls to the Polls."  Ford also said that restricting the operating hours of early voting locations would infringe upon the "fundamental rights of lower-income individuals who work different types of hours" in Nevada.

The bill is a part of a wave of election-related legislation pushed by the Nevada GOP since November, when the party took control of both chambers of the legislature and the governorship for the first time since 1929.  A different bill is advancing that would require a government-issued photo identification to vote.  Other bills aim to grant state officials the authority to terminate the registrations of voters who “may not be citizens."

Republicans have said the legislation is meant to keep undocumented immigrants from voting and to maintain the integrity of the election process, while Democrats say such bills are intended to suppress the votes of minorities.

The Nevada secretary of state's office has identified just five cases of voter fraud since 2008, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

Since committee-introduced bills are rarely filed without approval from the chamber's leadership, there is a certain amount of 2016 U.S. Senate intrigue accompanying the election-related bills.  State Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson (R) is considered a likely candidate for the seat held by retiring U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D).











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, March 27, 2015

South Dakota Limits Voter Rights


In the midst of all the Senate retirement announcements this past week, one news item has received little national media coverage, but the implications of which are far reaching.

South Dakota has passed and the Governor has signed S.B. 69, a bill which prevents Democrats and Republicans from signing the nominating petitions of any Independent candidate.  This was done just a few months after two Independent candidates, Gordon Howie, and Larry Pressler who I endorsed, took 20% of the vote in the state Senate election.

In a time when an overwhelming number of Americans are saying our government needs to change the way it behaves, South Dakota legislators have sent a very clear message with S.B. 69: They will eliminate dissent from within and competition from without.  When Americans want greater choice and better alternatives, politicians are taking steps to become further entrenched, and prevent popular will from being heard.

Past the callous disregard for the democratic rights of members of their own parties, this is about politicians openly flaunting public opinion.  This is indicative of our national challenge.  Although this happened in South Dakota, this is a national issue.

For years, members of both parties have taken steps to eliminate competition.  The most prominent strategy is gerrymandering, but most restrictions are passed quietly, by state legislatures that draw little public attention.

SB 69 was proposed by the State Board of Elections in South Dakota, which is supposed to control all changes to election law.  The restrictions against signing nominating petitions were introduced in a committee, without consultation or approval from the independent board.  They were introduced as amendments, eliminating words like "may not" to reverse the meaning of entire sentences.  The weak attempts to justify these amendments without appearing politically corrupt add to a narrative that might leave the most diehard party loyalist scratching their head.

CLICK HERE to read more about this bill.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon