The U.S. Senate’s passage by unanimous consent on Wednesday of the Second Chance Act of 2007, which funds states and non-profits to provide job training and other support services to the population leaving prison, demonstrated that progressive reentry policies can unite both sides of the aisle. It also reminded us of recent progress here in New York to ease the reintegration of former offenders back into the community.
Like the Second Chance Act, which had active support from prominent senators from both parties, a New York bill dealing with notifying former offenders about their right to vote seems to have similarly risen above the political fray. The Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act enjoys a Democratic sponsor in the Assembly, Rep. Keith Wright, and a Republican sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Dale Volker.
The bill aims to correct the de facto disenfranchisement of thousands of New Yorkers who have had criminal convictions in their past and are unaware of their eligibility to vote. In New York, voting rights are restored upon completion of maximum prison or parole sentence, while the right to vote is never lost by those on probation, in jail awaiting a conviction, or convicted of a misdemeanor. But people who are serving parole sentences are prohibited from voting in this state, meaning that some people who are under supervision in the community are ineligible, while others are eligible to vote. This confusion about who can and cannot vote means that thousands of eligible New York voters sit out Election Day because they falsely believe they are banned from the rolls. The situation isn’t helped by the fact that county offices of the Board of Elections—the very place where the record should be set straight—have been known to routinely provide misinformation about voting rights eligibility. (A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice and Demos in 2006 revealed that nearly one third of the state’s county election boards improperly asked for documentation from former offenders before allowing them to register to vote, and routinely misinformed probationers that they were ineligible to vote).
The Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act would establish protocols to notify convicted felons of the status of their voting rights before, during, and after their sentences. Correctional and parole agencies would be required to provide voter registration forms to individuals upon completion of their maximum prison or parole sentence. The Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives would become a voter registration agency, and correctional facilities would be required to aid in the voting procedures of qualified inmates. Furthermore, the bill attempts to clear the haze of confusion surround voting rights eligibility by tasking the Board of Elections with educating attorneys, judges, election officials, probation and parole officers, and the public about voting requirements and the new notice procedures.
As Glenn Martin of the Fortune Society pointed out in a recent El Diario op-ed, although efforts at changing the eligibility rules themselves have often failed in the Legislature, the new governor does have the power to change the law disenfranchising parolees through executive order. But in the meantime, we’ll take bipartisan support of the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act as a step in the right direction.
--Jude Joffe-Block, Research Associate
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query voting. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query voting. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, March 14, 2008
Monday, June 19, 2006
The BC Salutes Our Good Assemblymembers
The Brennan Center has gotten a bit of a rap for only pointing out the problems in Albany. In fact, we realize that our state representatives do a lot of good. The most recent example is an action of the New York Assembly Committee on Election Law. It passed the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act late last week. This bill proposes to reduce barriers to voting by individuals with felony convictions.
Studies have shown that individuals with felony convictions who vote are less likely to return to jail. This should come as no surprise: citizens who are engaged in their communities are more likely to obey its rules. As Americans, one of our most important civic duties is to participate in our political process and vote. We should encourage the formerly incarcerated to partake in this duty, not bar them from it.
Just as importantly, restoring the right to vote for the formerly incarcerated is the right thing to do. Voting is a fundamental right to all free citizens in a democracy. People who have served their time return to their communities to work, pay taxes and send their children to neighborhood schools. As our neighbors, taxpayers and fellow Americans, they should be entitled to exercise the right to vote.
A recent survey conducted by the Brennan Center and Demos revealed that approximately half of all county boards of elections in New York State continue to illegally disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters with criminal convictions.
In New York, people on probation and those convicted of misdemeanors never lose the right to vote. Only those New Yorkers in prison or on parole for a felony conviction are barred from voting. However, as the survey results showed, there remains widespread confusion among elections officials about who is eligible to vote, and many people with felony convictions remain unaware of their voting rights.
The Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act, sponsored by Assemblyman Keith Wright, seeks to address some of these concerns by requiring “clear and systematic notice to individuals of their voting rights as they complete their maximum prison sentences or are discharged from parole.” The bill will also require criminal justice agencies to provide assistance with voter registration and voting by absentee ballot, and will assure that corrections and elections agencies share the data necessary to verify voter eligibility.
Coupled with efforts to better educate elections officials and criminal justice agencies, the Brennan Center hopes that the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act will ensure that people with felony convictions who are eligible to vote are informed about their voting rights so they can fully participate in the political process.
Categories: General, Voting
Studies have shown that individuals with felony convictions who vote are less likely to return to jail. This should come as no surprise: citizens who are engaged in their communities are more likely to obey its rules. As Americans, one of our most important civic duties is to participate in our political process and vote. We should encourage the formerly incarcerated to partake in this duty, not bar them from it.
Just as importantly, restoring the right to vote for the formerly incarcerated is the right thing to do. Voting is a fundamental right to all free citizens in a democracy. People who have served their time return to their communities to work, pay taxes and send their children to neighborhood schools. As our neighbors, taxpayers and fellow Americans, they should be entitled to exercise the right to vote.
A recent survey conducted by the Brennan Center and Demos revealed that approximately half of all county boards of elections in New York State continue to illegally disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters with criminal convictions.
In New York, people on probation and those convicted of misdemeanors never lose the right to vote. Only those New Yorkers in prison or on parole for a felony conviction are barred from voting. However, as the survey results showed, there remains widespread confusion among elections officials about who is eligible to vote, and many people with felony convictions remain unaware of their voting rights.
The Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act, sponsored by Assemblyman Keith Wright, seeks to address some of these concerns by requiring “clear and systematic notice to individuals of their voting rights as they complete their maximum prison sentences or are discharged from parole.” The bill will also require criminal justice agencies to provide assistance with voter registration and voting by absentee ballot, and will assure that corrections and elections agencies share the data necessary to verify voter eligibility.
Coupled with efforts to better educate elections officials and criminal justice agencies, the Brennan Center hopes that the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act will ensure that people with felony convictions who are eligible to vote are informed about their voting rights so they can fully participate in the political process.
Categories: General, Voting
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Guest Post: Democracy by Design — Voter Friendly Ballot Act Offers Sleek, Simple Solution
When searching for their next computer, cell-phone, or weather app, many consumers prioritize sleek, minimalistic designs, simple interfaces, and easy-to-understand language over increased information and data capabilities. The more user-friendly a product, the more likely it is to suit the average American’s needs. Often overlooked, there is another place to demand usability, not as consumers, but as voters—in the voting booth.
Our choices on Election Day lay the foundation for democracy. Voting provides an essential safeguard against corruption and allows voters to ensure that representatives stay accountable. And despite what you may think about the worth of one vote, thousands of votes—taken together—count a great deal. Yet every election, many thousands of votes are tossed aside and rejected as a result of a number of administrative and voting errors. Poorly designed voting ballots are just one source of this injustice.
When thousands of voters in Palm Beach County, Florida protested that they had read the ballot incorrectly and mistakenly voted for the wrong person in the 2000 Presidential Election, the infamous butterfly ballot spotlighted the necessity of a clearly formatted and easy to understand ballot. Yet twelve years later, voting citizens across the United States still face unreasonably confusing and maze-like ballots and machines.
For instance, in the 2010 New York State elections, nearly 60,000 votes statewide were not counted because the machines read them as being mismarked. This was no doubt in large part due to the fact that New York’s ballots are among the most difficult to use in the country. The problems with these ballots are wide-ranging. In some cases, a voter may simply have not correctly followed the lengthy, jargon-y voting instructions. In other cases, ill-defined and arbitrary boxes may make the lines between candidates and contests incomprehensible, leading voters to vote for too many candidates. Indeed, the real question is not philosophical—“does my vote count?”— but very concrete—“is my vote being counted at all?”
Luckily, there is a solution. After spending the 2011 session in Committee, the Voter Friendly Ballot Act (A07492B), a bill providing guidelines for simplifying New York State’s ballot design, was reintroduced to the New York State Assembly by Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh (D-Manhattan) last month. Having garnered support through a late-November New York City Council Resolution promoting its enactment, it is definitely a bill worth following.
In order to reduce Election Day confusion, the legislation provides for minimum font sizes, shorter, more concise directions, and less cluttered response box formats. The guidelines also support a number of “suggested” rather than “required” formats (such as shading and font styles), in order to both offer design flexibility and accommodate counties facing different voting machine technologies and election or candidate-specific circumstances. In sum, the legislation is a straightforward solution to a simple yet infinitely problematic barrier to voting. By creating ballots that are easier to read with directions that are easier to understand, this bill could make voting booths more efficient and less intimidating.
At a time when voter turnout is low and public disillusionment high, an ambiguous and confusing ballot is simply unacceptable. While increasingly complex in technologies, our society constantly prioritizes conciseness and efficiency. In a world where over one-third of American adults own a smartphone and billions of 140-character ideas are disbursed per day, a ballot that is similarly sleek, user-friendly, and to-the-point is an entirely reasonable expectation—one that we, as New Yorkers and Americans, should demand.
The Voter Friendly Ballot Act is an essential step in the right direction and one which, once taken, will provide a tangible effect both on the next election and on the individual voter—that is, the next time you step into the voting booth.
Brandi Lupo is a junior at NYU studying Political Economy and Legal Theory.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Voting machines versus ATMs
Whenever there’s a news story about the problems we’ve experienced with electronic voting machines, someone invariably makes a comment like “I go to an ATM at least once a week, and I’ve never had one give me the wrong amount of money. So why can’t we get these electronic voting machines to work as flawlessly?”
One important part of that answer is that we haven't spent sufficient amounts of money on purchasing and maintaining our voting machines. Under HAVA, Congress authorized $3.9 billion for the purchase of electronic voting machines and the creation of statewide voter registration databases, but only a fraction of that money has actually been distributed to the states.
On the other hand, commercial banks and other entities recognize that creating properly functioning electronic networks is expensive. According to the American Bankers Association, there were almost 400,000 ATMs in the United States in 2005. Each one cost between $5,000 and $15,000, depending on its features (i.e. dispensing cash, printing statements, accepting deposits, etc.). Moreover, annual ATM maintenance costs run between $12,000 and $15,000 per machine.
It is admittedly impossible to draw a direct comparison between the costs of ATMs and voting machines for many reasons, especially since voting machines wouldn't need nearly as much maintenance as ATMs. However, it is crucial that we examine the way the private banking industry has put in place such a highly functioning network; we must be similarly willing to invest more money in creating a secure and efficient voting system.
Read the testimony of our Executive Director Michael Waldman on voting machines before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Categories: General, Voting
One important part of that answer is that we haven't spent sufficient amounts of money on purchasing and maintaining our voting machines. Under HAVA, Congress authorized $3.9 billion for the purchase of electronic voting machines and the creation of statewide voter registration databases, but only a fraction of that money has actually been distributed to the states.
On the other hand, commercial banks and other entities recognize that creating properly functioning electronic networks is expensive. According to the American Bankers Association, there were almost 400,000 ATMs in the United States in 2005. Each one cost between $5,000 and $15,000, depending on its features (i.e. dispensing cash, printing statements, accepting deposits, etc.). Moreover, annual ATM maintenance costs run between $12,000 and $15,000 per machine.
It is admittedly impossible to draw a direct comparison between the costs of ATMs and voting machines for many reasons, especially since voting machines wouldn't need nearly as much maintenance as ATMs. However, it is crucial that we examine the way the private banking industry has put in place such a highly functioning network; we must be similarly willing to invest more money in creating a secure and efficient voting system.
Read the testimony of our Executive Director Michael Waldman on voting machines before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Categories: General, Voting
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Machinery of Democracy
Today the Brennan Center Task Force on Voting System Security released a report and policy proposals concluding that all three of the nation’s most commonly purchased electronic voting systems are vulnerable to software attacks that could threaten the integrity of a state or national election. New York can learn a thing or two from this report. As we all know, in March, the Justice Department sued New York State for failing to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, which called on the states to overhaul their voting systems.
Our report was put together by the Security Task Force, a team of government and private sector scientists, voting machine experts, and security professionals on the Task Force worked together for more than a year. The members of the non-partisan panel were drawn from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, leading research universities, and include many of the nation’s foremost security experts.
The Task Force surveyed hundreds of election officials around the country; categorized over 120 security threats; and evaluated countermeasures for repelling attacks. The study examined each of the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems: electronic machines (“DREs”) with – and without – a voter verified paper trail, and precinct-counted optical scan systems (“PCOS”). The report, The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World, is the first-ever systematic analysis of security vulnerabilities in each of these systems. The report’s findings include:
• All of the most commonly purchased electronic voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities. All three systems are equally vulnerable to an attack involving the insertion of corrupt software or other software attack programs designed to take over a voting machine.
• Automatic audits, done randomly and transparently, are necessary if paper records are to enhance security. The report called into question basic assumptions of many election officials by finding that the systems in 14 states using voter-verified paper records but doing so without requiring automatic audits are of “questionable security value.”
• Wireless components on voting machines are particularly vulnerable to attack. The report finds that machines with wireless components could be attacked by “virtually any member of the public with some knowledge of software and a simple device with wireless capabilities, such as a PDA.”
• The vast majority of states have not implemented election procedures or countermeasures to detect a software attack even though the most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied.
Stay tuned for our upcoming report on voting machine accessibility, usability, and cost.
Categories: General, Voting
Our report was put together by the Security Task Force, a team of government and private sector scientists, voting machine experts, and security professionals on the Task Force worked together for more than a year. The members of the non-partisan panel were drawn from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, leading research universities, and include many of the nation’s foremost security experts.
The Task Force surveyed hundreds of election officials around the country; categorized over 120 security threats; and evaluated countermeasures for repelling attacks. The study examined each of the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems: electronic machines (“DREs”) with – and without – a voter verified paper trail, and precinct-counted optical scan systems (“PCOS”). The report, The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World, is the first-ever systematic analysis of security vulnerabilities in each of these systems. The report’s findings include:
• All of the most commonly purchased electronic voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities. All three systems are equally vulnerable to an attack involving the insertion of corrupt software or other software attack programs designed to take over a voting machine.
• Automatic audits, done randomly and transparently, are necessary if paper records are to enhance security. The report called into question basic assumptions of many election officials by finding that the systems in 14 states using voter-verified paper records but doing so without requiring automatic audits are of “questionable security value.”
• Wireless components on voting machines are particularly vulnerable to attack. The report finds that machines with wireless components could be attacked by “virtually any member of the public with some knowledge of software and a simple device with wireless capabilities, such as a PDA.”
• The vast majority of states have not implemented election procedures or countermeasures to detect a software attack even though the most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied.
Stay tuned for our upcoming report on voting machine accessibility, usability, and cost.
Categories: General, Voting
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Getting creative with voting in Ulster County
This could be our first time linking the Kingston Daily Freeman, which this morning ran a story about how some lawmakers are considering the implementation of mail-in voting in Ulster County.
In the wake of recent revelations about the timeline for certification of new electronic voting machines, some in Ulster County want to switch to a system similar to that in Oregon. In 1998, voters in Oregon passed an initiative that introduced postal voting — registered voters are sent a ballot 18 to 14 days before each election, which they fill out and return in a signed “secrecy envelope” via mail or drop off at any county election office or designated drop site.
The advantages of voting by include lower election administration costs and easier access to the franchise by disabled voters. One downside is the possibility of voter fraud, which could in theory be more problematic in an all-mail system than with absentee ballots.
But the biggest impediment of all to mail-in voting in Ulster County (or really anywhere in New York)? It is likely illegal and possibly unconstitutional. The state constitution only provides for absentee ballots by mail, and voting machines are required by state Election Law.
While the push for postal voting Ulster County is unlikely to succeed, we do appreciate the creativity and encourage all New Yorkers to get involved in election reform decision-making.
Categories: General, Voting
In the wake of recent revelations about the timeline for certification of new electronic voting machines, some in Ulster County want to switch to a system similar to that in Oregon. In 1998, voters in Oregon passed an initiative that introduced postal voting — registered voters are sent a ballot 18 to 14 days before each election, which they fill out and return in a signed “secrecy envelope” via mail or drop off at any county election office or designated drop site.
The advantages of voting by include lower election administration costs and easier access to the franchise by disabled voters. One downside is the possibility of voter fraud, which could in theory be more problematic in an all-mail system than with absentee ballots.
But the biggest impediment of all to mail-in voting in Ulster County (or really anywhere in New York)? It is likely illegal and possibly unconstitutional. The state constitution only provides for absentee ballots by mail, and voting machines are required by state Election Law.
While the push for postal voting Ulster County is unlikely to succeed, we do appreciate the creativity and encourage all New Yorkers to get involved in election reform decision-making.
Categories: General, Voting
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Voter Friendly Ballot Act is Good for New York
Published in the Poughkeepsie Journal.
Recently, President Obama announced the creation of a federal
commission to help improve citizens’ voting experiences at the polls.
Here’s an obvious suggestion for improvement in New York: Make our
ballots easier for voters to use.
In your
polling place in November, things may have looked a little bit different
than in the past. For the first time, New Yorkers used optical scanning
machines and paper ballots to vote in a presidential election. Many
voters, particularly older voters and those with impaired vision, found
the paper ballots difficult to read and use. This is because they did
not change to reflect our new voting system: Our ballot requirements
stayed the same while our ballot size shrunk significantly. As a result,
voters faced a crowded and confusing ballot that at best made the
voting experience more difficult and at worst invalidated otherwise
legitimate votes.
New
York’s ballots are governed by strict, outdated guidelines intended for
the retired mechanical voting machines. These rules do not allow best
practices for paper ballots, and led to our 2012 ballots containing
complicated instructions, outdated symbols, small text size and
confusing oval placement. Unfortunately, without a change in New York’s
codified election law, local election officials are prevented from
improving the voter experience in their community.
There
can be little question that poor ballot design leads to a far more
negative experience for voters. As a 2010 statewide survey by the League
of Women Voters found, up to 20 percent of voters had problems
completing the paper ballot. Poorly designed ballots can invalidate
votes and interfere with the integrity of our election process. The
Brennan Center has estimated that design defects in ballots and voter
instructions contributed to the loss of several hundred thousand votes
in the last two federal elections. Evidence suggests that low-income and
elderly voters particularly bear the brunt of poorly designed ballots,
raising fundamental issues of access to the political process.
We can do better.
The
Voter Friendly Ballot Act of 2013, sponsored by state Assemblyman Brian
Kavanagh and endorsed by the AARP, the Brennan Center for Justice, and
many other organizations concerned with voting rights, would set new
standards to ensure that New Yorkers can vote with confidence while
preserving flexibility for local election administrators. Voter
instructions would be shortened and clarified, legibility would be
increased by reducing the maximum number of languages appearing on the
ballot, and text size would be made more readable, among other
improvements.
Friday, September 14, 2007
A Message from New Jersey: You're Not Alone, New York
In today's Times, a reminder that while New York may be the last state to move to full scale adoption of electronic voting, it is not the only state that has had trouble certifying such machines as secure or reliable enough for use in elections.
In the past,Mayor Bloomberg and others have blasted the State Board of Elections for its failure to comply with federal and state law to replace the state's old lever machines with new, electronic systems.
There's certainly blame to go around -- the state legislature took far too long to pass new voting system legislation, and then left all the difficult decisions about which systems to purchase to the counties; the federal Election Assistance Commission failed to let the State Board know that it had found big problems with the lab it was using to test machines -- but recent events in New Jersey show that much of the blame is also with the voting system vendors. They just can't seem to manufacture machines that meet basic security and reliability requirements.
David W. Chen of the New York Times reports that New Jersey will have to change the deadlines for its law requiring voter verified paper records because the voting system vendor for the electronic machines in New Jersey could not produce a reliable printer. Key graf from the article:
...the new system encountered problems like vague mechanical error messages and power cables vulnerable to tampering. In addition, Andrew Appel, a computer science professor at Princeton, said he bought the New Jersey machines on a Web site for $17 and had students demonstrate how easily they could hack into them.
As a result, New Jersey voters will have to vote in the next primary on electronic voting machines without any independnet paper record of their vote. Given all of the security and reliability problems identified with paperless electronic voting systems, New York's cautious, halting moves toward electronic voting don't look quite so bad.
When it comes to New York's move to electronic voting, we'd like to see accessible units in every polling place, and a move toward optical scans as soon as possible. But we concur with New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram's statement in the Times that we don't want to purchase and deploy a crummy product: “You do it once, you do it right, and you get a product that the voters can have confidence in. That’s the priority.”
In the past,Mayor Bloomberg and others have blasted the State Board of Elections for its failure to comply with federal and state law to replace the state's old lever machines with new, electronic systems.
There's certainly blame to go around -- the state legislature took far too long to pass new voting system legislation, and then left all the difficult decisions about which systems to purchase to the counties; the federal Election Assistance Commission failed to let the State Board know that it had found big problems with the lab it was using to test machines -- but recent events in New Jersey show that much of the blame is also with the voting system vendors. They just can't seem to manufacture machines that meet basic security and reliability requirements.
David W. Chen of the New York Times reports that New Jersey will have to change the deadlines for its law requiring voter verified paper records because the voting system vendor for the electronic machines in New Jersey could not produce a reliable printer. Key graf from the article:
...the new system encountered problems like vague mechanical error messages and power cables vulnerable to tampering. In addition, Andrew Appel, a computer science professor at Princeton, said he bought the New Jersey machines on a Web site for $17 and had students demonstrate how easily they could hack into them.
As a result, New Jersey voters will have to vote in the next primary on electronic voting machines without any independnet paper record of their vote. Given all of the security and reliability problems identified with paperless electronic voting systems, New York's cautious, halting moves toward electronic voting don't look quite so bad.
When it comes to New York's move to electronic voting, we'd like to see accessible units in every polling place, and a move toward optical scans as soon as possible. But we concur with New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram's statement in the Times that we don't want to purchase and deploy a crummy product: “You do it once, you do it right, and you get a product that the voters can have confidence in. That’s the priority.”
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The DOJ Has Some Thoughts on New York's Next Election
The Department of Justice has filed a motion in its case against New York State for its failure to comply with the Help America Vote Act that is likely to make both the State Board of Elections and many reform groups extremely nervous. Most importantly, the DOJ argues that the State should have one accessible voting system in every polling place by September 2008 (a position embraced by the Democrats on the State Board and rejected by the Republicans), and should replace all lever machines in time for the November 2008 election (a position no one in New York seems to be advocating).
Perhaps just as disturbingly for the State Board, the DOJ states that "[i]n the absence of evidence of the demonstrated ability and willingness of the SBOE itself to make immediate progress toward these goals ... the Court may have to consider taking compliance out of the hands of the State and placing it in the hands of the Court or others appointed by the Court to achieve compliance with federal law." (emphasis added). In other words, someone other than state or local election officials may be making decisions about which voting systems New York buys.
The DOJ's most basic point seems to be that the fact that none of the machines currently comply with New York law is too bad -- the state must comply with federal requirements to replace lever machines ASAP.
Needless to say, some voting machine activists are outraged. I received this statement from Bo Lipari, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting earlier today:
The Department of Justice has made an mind-boggling claim - that while New York State has a right to require far higher voting system standards than those set by the Federal Government, we have no right to demand that voting machine vendors actually meet them. . . . The DOJ would force New York to use voting machines that have failed again and again in other states, regardless of state laws designed to protect our votes."
Get ready for another big fight in the ongoing voting machine wars.
Perhaps just as disturbingly for the State Board, the DOJ states that "[i]n the absence of evidence of the demonstrated ability and willingness of the SBOE itself to make immediate progress toward these goals ... the Court may have to consider taking compliance out of the hands of the State and placing it in the hands of the Court or others appointed by the Court to achieve compliance with federal law." (emphasis added). In other words, someone other than state or local election officials may be making decisions about which voting systems New York buys.
The DOJ's most basic point seems to be that the fact that none of the machines currently comply with New York law is too bad -- the state must comply with federal requirements to replace lever machines ASAP.
Needless to say, some voting machine activists are outraged. I received this statement from Bo Lipari, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting earlier today:
The Department of Justice has made an mind-boggling claim - that while New York State has a right to require far higher voting system standards than those set by the Federal Government, we have no right to demand that voting machine vendors actually meet them. . . . The DOJ would force New York to use voting machines that have failed again and again in other states, regardless of state laws designed to protect our votes."
Get ready for another big fight in the ongoing voting machine wars.
Monday, November 06, 2006
In Defense of Fusion Voting
As we have expressed previously, we support New York’s process of fusion voting (allowing candidates to be nominated by more than one party and appear on the ballot multiple times). Unfortunately, a New York Times editorial yesterday railed against fusion voting as a way for third parties to gain “a disproportionate amount of power.”
We disagree with this assessment and the argument that “the best way to understand the system is to follow the fortunes of the now-defunct Liberal Party.” The Times rightly explained that, over time, the Liberal Party began to care more about patronage for its supporters than it did about championing liberal ideals. However, we fail to see how this example is illustrative of the fusion system. There is no reason that third parties should be more susceptible to pressures to provide patronage than the major parties. Moreover, the political marketplace eventually dispatched the Liberal Party, which was effectively replaced by the more genuine Working Families Party.
We believe that there are several reasons that this mechanism is a positive one for any state that adopts it:
Click here to read our policy paper on fusion voting.
Categories: General, Voting
We disagree with this assessment and the argument that “the best way to understand the system is to follow the fortunes of the now-defunct Liberal Party.” The Times rightly explained that, over time, the Liberal Party began to care more about patronage for its supporters than it did about championing liberal ideals. However, we fail to see how this example is illustrative of the fusion system. There is no reason that third parties should be more susceptible to pressures to provide patronage than the major parties. Moreover, the political marketplace eventually dispatched the Liberal Party, which was effectively replaced by the more genuine Working Families Party.
We believe that there are several reasons that this mechanism is a positive one for any state that adopts it:
- Fusion promotes effective third parties and encourages turnout. Rather than “throwing away” their votes on third party candidates with no hope of winning, voters can express their support for the third party’s agenda while still having a direct influence on which candidate is elected. Citizens therefore feel empowered and may be more likely to turn out to vote.
- Fusion encourages the major parties to take positions on important issues. The strong third parties fostered by fusion voting can publicize tough issues that the two major parties would ignore in a two-way race.
- Fusion can give voters an influence over those important issues. Once tough issues are brought to the fore, fusion voting allows voters to express their opinions more clearly. A right-leaning voter might choose to endorse the Republican nominee on the Right to Life line to express her opposition to abortion. Without fusion, the voter would be unable to indicate that outlawing abortion is her strongest priority. If the New York Times is right that patronage is a problem in New York, then we should attack the problem at its source by making sure that government appointees are qualified to hold their positions.
Click here to read our policy paper on fusion voting.
Categories: General, Voting
Friday, August 25, 2006
Legislators Want Voice in Selecting Voting Machines
Legislators in Albany County have asked that their opinions be considered when the Albany County Election Commissioners (who, like county election commissioners around the state will have final say as to what new electronic voting machines are selected for their county) choose new voting machines.
Certainly, we agree with the sentiment that the public should be involved in this process. As we've been mentioning over and over again on this blog, we've already issued a security analysis of the most commonly purchased electronic voting machines, and we've got three more reports coming in the next few weeks: looking at the usability, accessibility and cost of new systems (usability should be out early next week).
Here are some suggestions we have for the commissioners:
Perform extensive usability tests before purchasing machines: this means letting actual members of the public vote on the machines and gauging both their reaction to the machines (did they like them? Did they find them confusing? Were the confident that their votes were recorded accurately? did it take them a long time to complete their ballots?) and whether they made any errors while they voted (we found the correlation between liking a machine and voting error free is not necessarily related -- some voters are confused by the machines and make errors, but don't realize it).
Perform extensive accessibility tests before purchasing the machines: ask the elderly and disabled in your county to use the machines you are thinking about buying. Observe the entire voting process from approaching the voting machine, to making selections, to casting the final vote. And consider how easily people with multiple disabilities (e.g., citizen with both sight and manual dexterity problems) can vote on these machines.
Categories: General, Voting
Certainly, we agree with the sentiment that the public should be involved in this process. As we've been mentioning over and over again on this blog, we've already issued a security analysis of the most commonly purchased electronic voting machines, and we've got three more reports coming in the next few weeks: looking at the usability, accessibility and cost of new systems (usability should be out early next week).
Here are some suggestions we have for the commissioners:
Perform extensive usability tests before purchasing machines: this means letting actual members of the public vote on the machines and gauging both their reaction to the machines (did they like them? Did they find them confusing? Were the confident that their votes were recorded accurately? did it take them a long time to complete their ballots?) and whether they made any errors while they voted (we found the correlation between liking a machine and voting error free is not necessarily related -- some voters are confused by the machines and make errors, but don't realize it).
Perform extensive accessibility tests before purchasing the machines: ask the elderly and disabled in your county to use the machines you are thinking about buying. Observe the entire voting process from approaching the voting machine, to making selections, to casting the final vote. And consider how easily people with multiple disabilities (e.g., citizen with both sight and manual dexterity problems) can vote on these machines.
Categories: General, Voting
Friday, June 23, 2006
More Assembly Appreciation
On June 21, the entire New York State Assembly took a significant step toward reducing barriers to civic participation by passing the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act (VRNRA), a bill that would notify individuals with felony convictions of their voting rights, facilitate voter registration, and improve communication between corrections and elections officials. As mentioned here and here , recent studies have documented that both elections officials and the formerly incarcerated frequently don't know the voting rights of those involved in the criminal justice system.
We would like to congratulate the Assembly and Committee on Election Law Chair Keith Wright for moving so quickly on this important piece of legislation and hope the Senate will do the same in next year’s session. The New York City and State Boards of Elections have also affirmed their dedication to voting rights in recent months, training local elections workers on proper eligibility requirements and providing accurate and clear information on felon voting rights to the public.
This move by the Assembly has taken place within the context of a larger national trend to eradicate archaic laws that strip those with felony convictions of their fundamental right to vote. Such laws directly contradict what we know about rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders as well as the core American value that citizens should be able to choose their government representatives. We’re encouraged by the Assembly’s action as well as the recent improvements made by the New York State and City Boards of Elections. However, many barriers to participation still remain. In 2004, 122,018 New Yorkers were disfranchised because of a felony conviction, not including the thousands of additional eligible voters who were potentially mislead by elections workers into believing they were ineligible to vote. The Assembly’s passage of the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act is an important step. We hope the entire legislature will pass this bill into law in the next session and strongly consider restoring voting rights to all New York citizens. An open and democratic New York deserves no less.
Scott Novakowski
Policy Analyst, Democracy Program
Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action
Guest Post
Categories: General, Voting
We would like to congratulate the Assembly and Committee on Election Law Chair Keith Wright for moving so quickly on this important piece of legislation and hope the Senate will do the same in next year’s session. The New York City and State Boards of Elections have also affirmed their dedication to voting rights in recent months, training local elections workers on proper eligibility requirements and providing accurate and clear information on felon voting rights to the public.
This move by the Assembly has taken place within the context of a larger national trend to eradicate archaic laws that strip those with felony convictions of their fundamental right to vote. Such laws directly contradict what we know about rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders as well as the core American value that citizens should be able to choose their government representatives. We’re encouraged by the Assembly’s action as well as the recent improvements made by the New York State and City Boards of Elections. However, many barriers to participation still remain. In 2004, 122,018 New Yorkers were disfranchised because of a felony conviction, not including the thousands of additional eligible voters who were potentially mislead by elections workers into believing they were ineligible to vote. The Assembly’s passage of the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act is an important step. We hope the entire legislature will pass this bill into law in the next session and strongly consider restoring voting rights to all New York citizens. An open and democratic New York deserves no less.
Scott Novakowski
Policy Analyst, Democracy Program
Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action
Guest Post
Categories: General, Voting
Friday, January 15, 2010
Concerns About New York's New Voting Machines
Study argues that new voting systems purchased in New York could lead to significantly higher rates of spoiled ballots.
As we all know, New York State and City are expected to replace our long used lever machines with new optical scan voting systems, in time for this year's statewide primary. With optical scan systems, voters fill in a bubble next to their choices with a pen, much the way they'd fill out a lottery ticket or SAT exam.
At least one of the two systems, the ES&S DS200 (to be used in New York City, among other jurisdictions) has an unusual feature: unlike most optical scan systems, if a voter makes a mistake (voting for two candidates when she was only entitled to vote for one, for instance), the machine doesn't "spit" the ballot out and direct the voter to correct her mistake. Instead, it keeps the ballot and gives the voter the opportunity to either cast the ballot as is (in which case, the mistake will remain, and the voter's vote in that contest not counted) or request the ballot back, to make a correction.
We can imagine reasons why election officials may want systems that keep the ballot rather than automatically sending them back to the voter for correction. Automatically sending the ballot back would likely slow the process down (everytime a voter made a mistake, the machine would send back the ballot, the voter would have to review, and all the while other people would be waiting on line), and there are legitimate concerns about voter privacy (will other voters or pollworkers see the filled out ballot when it comes back out of the machine?).
But in a state like New York, where voters are used to machines that won't allow them to overvote (it is impossible to vote for more candidates than you are allowed to vote for on lever machines), where there is fusion voting (the same candidate listed twice or three times under different parties in the same contest), and there are very often contests where voters can choose up to two or three or four candidates, there is reason to be concerned that a signficant number of people will overvote ballots, and as a result, won't have their votes counted. This is particularly worrisome because, as a Brennan Center analysis has shown, New York's current requirements for what must be on a paper ballot makes them more confusing than necessary to use.
A recent study out of Florida, confirms that this is a potentially serious concern. The authors of this study argue that counties which used the ES&S DS200 had an overvote rate on Election Day 2008 that was as much as 18 times (!) that of the systems used in other Florida counties (if a ballot is overvoted, it will not be counted). They have also told me in an interview that they believe the Dominion Imagecast (the other system to be used in New York State) has the same feature and will result in similarly high overvote rates.
Paul Malischke, a voting rights advocate in Wisconsin, tells me that his state conditioned its purchase of the DS200 on a promise from ES&S that the machine be reconfigured to immediately return a ballot to the voter if it detects an overvote.
It's not clear to me that this is possible in New York, and no doubt, given their privacy and voting time concerns, many election officials would be opposed to such a reconfiguration. But at the very least, the State Board and legislature should be looking at this issue and figuring a way to address it.
In this letter, the Brennan Center, Usability Professionals Association, Center for Plain Language and Design for Democracy, urge the State Board to conduct usability testing to figure out how best to educate voters and poll workers about this potential problem, and to figure out what changes to the state's ballot layout and design requirements would make it less likely that people will overvote. We have yet to receive any response.
In a close election, as Florida and a few other states could tell New York, large numbers of overvotes can be an election nightmare, resulting in recount litigation, and shaking the faith of the public in their voting systems.
The State Board and State legislature should be taking action, soon, to address this problem. It should be addressed before these machines are deployed statewide, not after a close election, when the problem could lead to a post-election meltdown.
As we all know, New York State and City are expected to replace our long used lever machines with new optical scan voting systems, in time for this year's statewide primary. With optical scan systems, voters fill in a bubble next to their choices with a pen, much the way they'd fill out a lottery ticket or SAT exam.
At least one of the two systems, the ES&S DS200 (to be used in New York City, among other jurisdictions) has an unusual feature: unlike most optical scan systems, if a voter makes a mistake (voting for two candidates when she was only entitled to vote for one, for instance), the machine doesn't "spit" the ballot out and direct the voter to correct her mistake. Instead, it keeps the ballot and gives the voter the opportunity to either cast the ballot as is (in which case, the mistake will remain, and the voter's vote in that contest not counted) or request the ballot back, to make a correction.
We can imagine reasons why election officials may want systems that keep the ballot rather than automatically sending them back to the voter for correction. Automatically sending the ballot back would likely slow the process down (everytime a voter made a mistake, the machine would send back the ballot, the voter would have to review, and all the while other people would be waiting on line), and there are legitimate concerns about voter privacy (will other voters or pollworkers see the filled out ballot when it comes back out of the machine?).
But in a state like New York, where voters are used to machines that won't allow them to overvote (it is impossible to vote for more candidates than you are allowed to vote for on lever machines), where there is fusion voting (the same candidate listed twice or three times under different parties in the same contest), and there are very often contests where voters can choose up to two or three or four candidates, there is reason to be concerned that a signficant number of people will overvote ballots, and as a result, won't have their votes counted. This is particularly worrisome because, as a Brennan Center analysis has shown, New York's current requirements for what must be on a paper ballot makes them more confusing than necessary to use.
A recent study out of Florida, confirms that this is a potentially serious concern. The authors of this study argue that counties which used the ES&S DS200 had an overvote rate on Election Day 2008 that was as much as 18 times (!) that of the systems used in other Florida counties (if a ballot is overvoted, it will not be counted). They have also told me in an interview that they believe the Dominion Imagecast (the other system to be used in New York State) has the same feature and will result in similarly high overvote rates.
Paul Malischke, a voting rights advocate in Wisconsin, tells me that his state conditioned its purchase of the DS200 on a promise from ES&S that the machine be reconfigured to immediately return a ballot to the voter if it detects an overvote.
It's not clear to me that this is possible in New York, and no doubt, given their privacy and voting time concerns, many election officials would be opposed to such a reconfiguration. But at the very least, the State Board and legislature should be looking at this issue and figuring a way to address it.
In this letter, the Brennan Center, Usability Professionals Association, Center for Plain Language and Design for Democracy, urge the State Board to conduct usability testing to figure out how best to educate voters and poll workers about this potential problem, and to figure out what changes to the state's ballot layout and design requirements would make it less likely that people will overvote. We have yet to receive any response.
In a close election, as Florida and a few other states could tell New York, large numbers of overvotes can be an election nightmare, resulting in recount litigation, and shaking the faith of the public in their voting systems.
The State Board and State legislature should be taking action, soon, to address this problem. It should be addressed before these machines are deployed statewide, not after a close election, when the problem could lead to a post-election meltdown.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
New Yorkers Take Action to Restore Voting Rights
Cross-posted from brennancenter.org The effort to restore voting rights in New York is gaining momentum. Today, over 100 New Yorkers sent postcards to their legislators and Governor Paterson urging them to restore the right to vote to people in New York who are on parole and probation.
New York law disenfranchises individuals in prison or on parole. As we have mentioned in previous posts, this law has a stark impact on people of color. A new Brennan Center report, titled Jim Crow in New York, confirms that the current criminal disenfranchisement law traces back to a century-long effort to keep African-American citizens out of the voting booth. As a result, over 80% of those denied the right to vote in the Empire State are African-American or Latino.
And New Yorkers are finally calling on our state leaders to end this injustice.
This writing campaign stems from a lively public conversation held at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture on this very issue. The discussion included Rev. Dr. Calvin O. Butts III from the Abyssinian Baptist Church of the City of New York, Hazel Dukes from the NAACP New York State Conference, Glenn Martin from the Fortune Society, and Columbia Law Professor Theodore Shaw.
Hopefully Albany will heed its constituents’ demands. There are several bills pending in both the Assembly and the Senate that would restore the right to vote to people with a prior criminal conviction.
Among them is legislation introduced by Assemblyman O’Donnell and Senator Thompson that restores voting rights to people on parole. The bills have been referred to the Assembly Committee on Election Law and the Senate Committee on Elections.
Senator Montgomery and Assemblyman Wright have also introduced the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act that would help eliminate some of the confusion about who is eligible to vote. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and the Board of Parole to provide information to individuals about their voting rights once they regain eligibility. The bill passed the full Assembly in June 2009 and is currently pending in the Senate Elections Committee. (The Brennan Center testified in favor of this bill in April 2009). Similar bills have passed the Assembly twice before.
Contact us to request postcards to tell your elected officials that it is time to restore voting rights to people with prior convictions.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Time to look to Governor Spitzer?
The Assembly took a step in the right direction yesterday by passing A554, the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act. This bill, introduced by Assemblyman Keith Wright, seeks to clear the fog of misinformation and confusion that currently surrounds the voting rights of people with felony convictions in New York.
The bill would amend the election code to require clear and systematic notice to individuals of their voting rights once they regain their eligibility. It will also require criminal justice agencies to provide assistance with voter registration and voting by absentee ballot, and will assure that corrections and elections agencies share the data necessary to verify voter eligibility.
While New York election law disfranchises only those individuals incarcerated or on parole because of a felony conviction, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the law among affected communities and elections officials. A 2005 report by The Sentencing Project found that close to 60 percent of New Yorkers under the supervision of the criminal justice system did not know that an individual on probation could vote, and more than 60 percent reported that no one ever informed them of their voting rights.
A 2006 survey by the Brennan Center and Demos found that approximately half of New York's 63 local boards of elections were not aware of the eligibility requirements. Thousands of eligible New Yorkers may have been misinformed as a result.
The New York State Board of Elections has since taken steps to educate elections officials about the voting rights of people with felony convictions. Nevertheless, this legislation is necessary to both remedy past errors and to ensure that these errors are not allowed to continue.
Given that there was no companion legislation in the Senate and the legislative session ends in a matter of hours, the bill’s passage in the Assembly will not result in a change in New York law. Unfortunately, bill A554 is destined to be the 23rd bill in a period of eight years that attempted to ensure the voting rights of eligible New Yorkers with felony convictions but failed to become law. Going forward, advocates will look to Governor Spitzer to provide leadership on this important issue.
Judith Joffe-Block
The bill would amend the election code to require clear and systematic notice to individuals of their voting rights once they regain their eligibility. It will also require criminal justice agencies to provide assistance with voter registration and voting by absentee ballot, and will assure that corrections and elections agencies share the data necessary to verify voter eligibility.
While New York election law disfranchises only those individuals incarcerated or on parole because of a felony conviction, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the law among affected communities and elections officials. A 2005 report by The Sentencing Project found that close to 60 percent of New Yorkers under the supervision of the criminal justice system did not know that an individual on probation could vote, and more than 60 percent reported that no one ever informed them of their voting rights.
A 2006 survey by the Brennan Center and Demos found that approximately half of New York's 63 local boards of elections were not aware of the eligibility requirements. Thousands of eligible New Yorkers may have been misinformed as a result.
The New York State Board of Elections has since taken steps to educate elections officials about the voting rights of people with felony convictions. Nevertheless, this legislation is necessary to both remedy past errors and to ensure that these errors are not allowed to continue.
Given that there was no companion legislation in the Senate and the legislative session ends in a matter of hours, the bill’s passage in the Assembly will not result in a change in New York law. Unfortunately, bill A554 is destined to be the 23rd bill in a period of eight years that attempted to ensure the voting rights of eligible New Yorkers with felony convictions but failed to become law. Going forward, advocates will look to Governor Spitzer to provide leadership on this important issue.
Judith Joffe-Block
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
