As a structural political reform activist, I am always looking for converts. But last week’s New York political indictments may not be the ideal path to solutions or maybe it will.
When State Legislators, a City Council member, two New York City Republican County Chairs, Upstate Mayor and Deputy Mayor, are involved, the reformer’s ideas for change require a review.
First let’s look at the state's election law problems. Here are some of the worst:
- By perpetuating the world's most excruciating petition process as a first hurdle for major-party candidates, New York empowers party leaders and disenfranchises voters.
- Getting on the ballot is all but impossible without the support of leaders or a significant campaign structure. Gathering acceptable petitions is legally intricate, and few do it well enough to keep rival election lawyers at bay. The process of running under one's own party for office should be simple and easy.
- Tough rules for changing party membership are unduly restrictive on voters and candidates. If it took just a month or so to change your party registration, the temptation for shenanigans would largely disappear. Instead, it takes between one and two years for such changes to take effect.
- The state of affairs with minor party endorsements further mocks the process. "Third Parties" are a vital part of our political process, and can often serve to bring ideas and movements the major parties have ignored to the fore. The Greens and Libertarian parties for example, have had real political philosophies and put up their own candidates. Since New York is one of the few states that allow cross-endorsements, minor parties that have no candidates can accrue power by trading their ballot lines for patronage and other perks. By letting major-party candidates use their lines in gubernatorial races, they get the 50,000 votes they need to stay on ballots in New York, often in exchange for forfeiting their principles.
Some feel it should be easy for New Yorkers to run for office. Candidates should get the endorsement of one party whose views they most represent. And changes in party registration should be quick. These improvements wouldn't create a perfect system, and many other reforms are needed. Nothing will stop those who subvert their office for personal gain. But putting power in the hands of voters -- and not party bosses -- would create more contested elections and improve the political climate in New York tremendously.
So there is talk that Governor Cuomo is eyeing a repeal of the “Wilson-Pakula” law, which allows candidates from one party to run on another party’s ticket, the “cross endorsement” of candidates of one political party by another party. To accomplish this change , I would replace the closed primary system to a version of a blanket primary.
Another place for reform is the money controlled by politicians.
Laying out an agenda for changing ethics laws following another Albany corruption scandal, Republican mayoral contender Joseph Lhota took aim at the Democratic front-runner, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Mr. Lhota said Ms. Quinn unfairly gives out different amounts of funding to different council members for making grants to nonprofits, known as "member items." He said the awards shouldn't be given out at the speaker's discretion and called for detailed explanations for each grant.
At issue was how Ms. Quinn controls a pot of almost $400 million that she gives out to lawmakers each year. Ms. Quinn has been accused of using the money to punish or reward political allies or foes, a charge that she has denied. Mr. Lhota also said both state and county chairpersons should face term limits and that politicians convicted of felony corruption charges should lose all future pensions. Mr. Lhota also endorsed a non-partisan mayoral election, saying he'd supported such a move for decades.
George McDonald, another candidate for mayor, also outlined a series of ethics proposals. Mr. McDonald also called for reforms in the member item system and a ban on contributions to housekeeping accounts by candidates up to 18 months before a primary, among other measures.
This issue has always been a part of New York politics, from member items in city and state government, and party housekeeping accounts. There are also ways to steer money into one's own pocket through kickbacks and consulting contracts, if one were so inclined. A better oversight operation and stricter ethics laws would help.
This last issue is a judicial ethics issue. A coopertive witness helped in the indictments.
Neson Castro, a Bronx state Assemblyman, was indicted in 2009 on felony perjury charges in a voter fraud case. But he was allowed to run and be re-elected in 2010 and 2013. Castro schemed to illegally register dozens of voters in his district ahead of the election that sent him to Albany and forged signatures on petitions. Those revelations were spelled out in a deal Castro signed in which federal prosecutors agreed not to prosecute those crimes in return for wearing a wire in a probe of his political colleagues. The indictment remained sealed for years. By law, had the Democrat Castro been found guilty of a felony, he would automatically have been booted from the Legislature.
Castro agreed to resign from the state Assembly.
Several government officials question if voters in Castro’s Bronx district were best served by not knowing their assemblyman had been indicted on felony perjury charges in a voter fraud case when he appeared on the ballot in 2010 and 2012.
What do you think was the right course of action?
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
No comments:
Post a Comment