The cost of being an activist can be very high

If you are a frequent reader of this blog, you will have noticed that many of the subjects began with my reading The Ballot Access News.

When the editor of Ballot Access News, Richard Winger, and five other activists, Steve Chessin, Jeff Mackler, Rodney Martin, Mona Field and Jennifer Wozniak, sued California's Top-Two Open Primaries, known as Prop. 14, they lost their challenge in court, with judges finding that the top-two primary law was valid and constitutional. But unfortunately for these citizen-challengers, that's not the end of the story.

The citizens sued the state, but the wealthy backers of the top-two primary system intervened in the case. Once the ruling went against the plaintiffs, the top-two backers sought to get the citizens to pay their attorneys' fees, and this week a San Francisco judge agreed, ordering the six citizens to pay $243,279.50.

The judge's order, which is likely to be appealed, says that the backers of the initiative are owed the fees because the plaintiffs lost and because they didn't achieve anything in the public interest.

Use these links to read articles about the decision:

The-Cost-of-Taking-on-California-Reformers

Loser Pays









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Another CA Prop. 14 (Top Two) Challenge

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On May 6, Michael Chamness filed his motion for summary judgment in Chamness v Bowen, the federal case against two particular details of the California top-two system. The case attacks California’s discriminatory policy on ballot labels. It also attacks the new California law that says even though write-in space is to be printed on the ballot in Congressional and state office November elections, and even though the ballot doesn’t warn voters that any write-ins won’t be counted, in fact write-ins cannot be counted.

No declaratory judgment on either of these complaints has yet been issued by any California court, state or federal. The only action so far has been a denial of injunctive relief in various California special elections that have been held this year. Proponents of the top-two system, including almost all of California’s large daily newspapers, have generally not reported on these particular details about the top-two law, and have given little publicity to this lawsuit.

This is part of the motion:

1. Declares Senate Bill 6 unconstitutional and unenforceable, because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

2. Declares that Proposition 14 is not self-executing.

3. Declares Proposition 14 inoperative, because its implementing statute (SB 6) has been declared unenforceable.

4. Declares that Proposition 14 shall not become operative until a lawful implementing statute has been enacted and become operative.

5. Declares that Defendant Bowen violated Plaintiff Frederick’s fundamental rights under the First Amendment and Due Process
Clause.

6. Declares that Defendant Bowen violated Plaintiff Wilson’s fundamental right to have his lawfully cast vote counted under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Due Process Clause, and the Elections Clause.

7. Declares that Defendants Bowen and Logan imposed a severe burden on Plaintiff Chamness’ fundamental rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, by (a) stifling his core political speech, and (b) dictating electoral outcomes.

8. Declares that Defendants Bowen and Logan violated Plaintiff Chamness’ fundamental rights under the Elections Clause.

9. Declares that every citizen has the right to run as a write-in candidate for state or federal office.

10. Declares that every citizen has the right to cast a write-in vote and have that vote counted.

Use the above link to read the entire motion.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

CA's Top-Two Open Primary Still Not Approved

Thanks to Ballot Access news for this Post.

Although it has been more than ten months since California voters passed Proposition 14, the “top-two open primary”, with 53.73% of the vote, the U.S. Justice Department still hasn’t approved the measure. On April 15, the Department of Justice requested more information from California.

Many years ago, the Mississippi legislature passed a bill to establish a top-two system, but the Justice Department never pre-cleared it, so it never went into practice in Mississippi. However, the Justice Department did approve Louisiana’s system in 1975.

California laws must be pre-cleared under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, because four particular California counties had very lower voter participation many decades ago, when the benchmarks were set for determining which areas are covered by Section Five. The four counties are Monterey, Kings, Yuba and Merced. None of the special elections held under California’s top-two laws have included any part of those counties, but the 2012 election will include them.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Top Two voting: More democratic or not?

Thanks to the Hankster for this post.

Does Top Two voting make elections more democratic, or is it in fact anti-democratic?

While a variety of organizations are working for electoral reform that will give more sway to independent voters and voters in the political middle, there are sharp disagreements about Top Two in particular.

Ken Bingenheimer, at the National Common Ground Examiner have asked proponents on both sides of this argument to state their cases. On the pro side is Nancy Hanks, who runs The Hankster blog and is affiliated with the Committee for a Unified Independent Party. Speaking for the con side is Solomon Kleinsmith, who operates the Rise of the Center blog. With today's opening pieces begins a series that will follow with two rounds of rebuttal and one wrap-up where the two will discuss their areas of common ground.

Use the above link to read the article.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

California Prop 14 is GOOD

Thanks to the Hankster for this post.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation, wrote a article about CA Prop 14 (Top Two) on the website OpEdNews.com.

California's Proposition 14 provides a new way for the people of California to pursue the American Dream of Liberty through self-government. Prior to the enactment of Prop 14, only officially recognized "qualified" parties could conveniently run candidates in the primary election. "Unqualified" outsiders had prohibitive barriers, such as costly fees and high numbers of signatures on petitions to be placed on the ballot. Candidates in the qualified parties didn't have to suffer these restrictions.

More than three million Californians were effectively barred from voting in the primary election simply because they declined to register to vote as a member of any of the half dozen qualified parties. They could have lied about identifying with one of the qualified parties at the time of registering to vote, so that they could cast a primary vote; but because of their personal integrity they were unjustly deprived of the opportunity to vote in the primary election. They could only vote in the general election for the "left overs."

The three stages of Prop 14:

Stage One Liberation
Prop 14 is liberating for the people of California because it opens the door for a multi-party state legislature, and paves the way for the end of one-party domination...

The Stage Two Campaign
No one has to be rich or famous to get started under Prop 14. Anyone who is adept at using the social media, and has personal energy, drive, organizing skills, and a network of supporters within the district has a fighting chance at winning in stage two...

Stage Three Understood
Because stage two may have many candidates, chances are that no one will win by a clear majority. But in a democracy, the leadership should have the backing of a majority to assure its legitimacy. That is why two candidates are presented for a final vote. Having write-ins at this stage would allow someone to by-pass the process that the top two had just gone through. How fair is that?...

Use the above link to read the entire article.

I have been writing about this type of open primary for awhile. I hope we get to discuss this in much more detail at the upcoming National Conference of Independents on Feb. 12, 2011 in New York City.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

The Open Primary Fight

In 2011 the Open Primary fight is expanding. The phrase "Open Primary" includes: Non-Partisan Municipal Elections, state Open Primaries or Top Two, and the fight to keep open primaries from the parties' effort to close them.

All over this country these fights are growing and the people on either side of these issues are getting more media time. If you have been reading my blog you know I am a strong advocate for the opening or keeping open the ability for all registered voters to take part in our electoral process and the ability for anyone who wants to run having the ability to get on the ballot.

On Ballot Access News this issue had one of the largest number of comments.

On The Hankster Harry Kresky, Counsel to IndependentVoting.org, wrote this response to Ballot Access News.

On February 12, 2011, IndependentVoting.org is sponsoring a FREE National Conference of Independents in New York City to discuss Can Independents Reform America? and there will be sessions about the Open Primary issue. Please attend so I can meet and discuss these issues with you.

One issue that is starting to get traction is how to pay for closed primaries. If a party wants to have a closed primary should the state pay for it with tax dollars from all residents? If this were to happen, how would you construct the law change?
My answer to this is Open Primary/Top Two and remove the problem.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Numbers Rule: Mathematics of Democracy

I just finished a book "NUMBERS RULE: The Vexing Mathematics of Democracy, from Plato to the Present" by George G. Szpiro, PhD. Since the birth of democracy in ancient Greece, the simple act of voting has given rise to mathematical paradoxes that have puzzled some of the greatest philosophers, statesman, and mathematicians. It traces the quest by thinkers to create a more perfect democracy and adapt to the ever changing demands that each new generation places on our democratic institutions.

In New York, we are a closed primary state were over 2 million non-party voters can not take part in the most important first phase of the candidate selection process. In New York City there is 1 million minor and non-party voters who also can not take part in their municipal primary candidate selection process that counts.

In New York City we are fighting to have Non Partisan Municipal Elections or Top Two as some call it. If you read my blog you know the details of this voting method. So this part of the book was so interesting.

The mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace was born in 1749 in Beaumont-en-Auge, Normandy. First studying in a Benedictine school and the University of Caen he soon discovered his love for mathematics. Finally in 1773 he was elected to the French Academy of Sciences. In 1784 Laplace was an examiner in the Artillery Corps and passed a sixteen year old cadet by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte.

In 1796 the Academy had to decide how to vote for new members after reopening from the 1793 French Revolution. The voting method of the time had a shortcoming brought to every ones attention by now a general, Napoleon Bonaparte. What Laplace and Napoleon found unsavory was the method of "voting by merit" which was open to a subtle sort of manipulation that is now called "strategic voting". The ability to put forward unelectable candidates to make sure your candidate wins.

In 1812 Laplace put in writing what he talked about in his classes. He advocated the majority vote with a twist. An issue or leader would not be elected by a simple majority but by an absolute majority; the candidate would have to garner at least half the votes plus one. But there still was a problem. You could not leave a country without a leader for a very long time. And this is where Laplace really exhibited his more pragmatic side. If there is no winner in the first round of voting, the top two would go to a run off two weeks later.

Another interesting fact: The problem of apportioning seats in Congress after a census. It took the rhetorical skills of Senator Daniel Webster to convince Congress to adopt the course of action that reasonable people would have found most sensible had they not been caught up in looking out for themselves so their state would not lose any seats. It consisted of finding a divisor for the populations of the states, such as the result, when rounded up or down to the nearest whole number, gave the desired amount of seats. The "method of major fractions", as it came to be known was an unbiased way to even out the results each ten years. In 1842, Congress adopted Webster's method.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Pre NYC Charter Revision Commision Meeting

Thanks to The Hankster for the videos.

Yesterday Mayor Bloomberg had decided not to ask the commission to put nonpartisan elections or Top Two on the 2010 ballot. The meeting vote on what will be on the ballot is tonight and I will attend and report what was decided.

Here is Bloomberg at our fundraiser this year.


We started to hear about it early with comments like:

"Mayor Michael Bloomberg is backing away from his fight to eliminate political primaries. NY1 has learned the mayor will not call on the City Charter Revision Commission to put the issue before voters this fall. One source says a huge blow to the mayor's efforts came over the weekend when the Reverend Al Sharpton spoke out in defense of political primaries."

"The mayor's operatives had hoped to convince a majority of the 15-member Charter Revision Commission to back the idea at its Wednesday meeting, after weeks of quietly leaning on members for their support. But the lack of enthusiasm from newspaper editorial boards, and Rev. Al Sharpton's weekend decision to oppose it, led Bloomberg to decide today not to pursue the idea again, sources said. While Bloomberg appointed the commission's members, he did not press them to support his idea, and Chairman Matthew Goldstein said he did not want the commission to put any questions on the ballot unless voters were likely to approve them."

Community leaders, including Dr. Lenora Fulani, held a press conference on the steps of City Hall Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 10:00 am, to respond to statements by Democratic Party elected officials and Rev. Al Sharpton that partisan elections better serve the interests of minority voters, a shift by Sharpton who had previously stated that nonpartisan elections deserved serious consideration. A majority of New York City's 751,442 unaffiliated voters, who would be enfranchised under a nonpartisan system, are people of color—20% are African American, 24%Latino, and 11% Asian.


NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYC Charter Revision Commission 7/19/2010 Meeting

I was unable to attend this meeting but was able to watch the Internet streamed meeting. This open meeting was for the Commission members to hear the report by Citizen Union's which included their approval of putting Non Partisan Municipal Elections (Top Two) on the ballot for the voters to decide if they want all voters to be able to participate in the first round of voting in the September primaries with all the candidates on one ballot.

Use the above link to view the entire meeting. Here is a link for the Citizen Union's testimony. Here is a link for all the Citizen Union's recommendations.

Whenever this issue comes up people talk about the 2003 defeat,70% against, but further review shows that only 12% of eligible voters showed up. So only 8% of the eligible votes defeated it. I feel that the climate has changed in 2010 and has a much better change of passing. If the Commission would make the decision to put it on the 2010 ballot early, it would give its supports enough time to get the voting public aware of the issues and what it would mean to the 1.5 million New York City votes who are locked out of primary voting.

After their testimony, the Commission opened the meeting to the public. It was interesting that the public officials who spoke used their talking point notes and seemed to not listen to the testimony which answered how it would work and would not remove the parties' ability to endorse candidates and show the parties' logos on the ballot. This also happened with some of the voters' comments.

To make this work all candidates who want to get on the ballot should have the same requirements and have to get the same number of signatures. Since we are a fusion state, the ballot should show all the parties who endorsed a candidate.

Finally, the Commission Chairman, Matthew Goldstein, made a comment that one of his criteria was the issue had a strong chance of passing before he would put it on the ballot was disappointing. It is up to the voters not the Commission to make that decision.

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