'Tis the season, year-round

We find it interesting to hear so much talk of campaign finance reform outside of the fall campaign season.

Joye Brown’s column in Newsday this morning quoted former state senator Seymour Lachman on the special election in the Senate 7th:

"It's an important race for Republicans and for Democrats, but even important races shouldn't be bought or sold," he said. "The person who has the most money shouldn't necessarily win."

We agree with Brown and Lachman that the exorbitant (and completely legal) fundraising by both sides in this race highlights the importance of reining in campaign contributions and spending.

The Times Union also ran a campaign finance themed editorial this morning about Senate Majority Leader Bruno’s use of campaign funds to stay at a lavish hotel during a vacation (or perhaps it was a trip to meet potential fundraisers) in Palm Beach.

New York's campaign finance laws need to be sharply refined, so the almost unlimited political contributions that the state allows are restricted to the actual cost of running for a contested political office. And when that happens, New York needs a much more effective agency to enforce those laws.

We agree that campaign funds should be raised and spent only to cover the costs of running for office. Further than that, though, New York needs to implement a public financing program, and, at the very least, dramatically lower its astronomically high contribution limits in order to reduce the undue influence of money on politics and engage ordinary citizens in their government.

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

The D&C Adds Its Voice on Judges

In a well-reasoned editorial on Sunday the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle added its voice to the growing chorus now recognizing the obvious solution for choosing judges in New York State and ensuring party bosses don't maintain total control over the process. The part that we like the best:

The best idea, assertively backed by the Brennan Center for Justice, is to keep the conventions, allowing for candidates to be nominated based on a majority of the delegate vote. But candidates with 25 percent of the delegates would earn an automatic spot on the primary ballot. That option also would be open to candidates going the petition route.

Opening the system in this way provides the best chance to bring diversity among state judges. Of 18 Supreme Court judges in the 7th Judicial District covering the Rochester region, none is a person of color.

What else can we add? Just this: hear, hear!

Growing consensus on judges

As we have noted on many previous occasions, New York state must act to reform its judicial selection procedures to comply with the Second Circuit's decision in Lopez Torres. Today's New York Law Journal reports that there is a growing consensus behind so-called designating, rather than nominating, conventions. The key element of this kind of system is a petition-based "primary bypass" which ensures rank-and-file voters a role. The article also mentions Senator John A. DeFrancisco of Syracuse, who, at this week's New York State Bar Association conference, mentioned the idea of county-by-county judicial districts, a reform Brennan Center wholeheartedly supports as a way to reduce campaign costs and increase racial and geographic diversity.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Johnson, O'Connell, the Bigger Better Bottle Bill & rules

Perhaps you've heard about Assemblyman DiNapoli and Senator LaValle’s “Bigger Better Bottle Bill,” which would expand New York's bottle deposit law to cover not just soda and beer cans, but other ubiquitous recyclable containers like water bottles. (According to industry studies, worldwide sales of bottled water increased by 30 percent between 2000 and 2003 alone. Up to 20 percent of the United States population gets its drinking water exclusively from a bottle.) It's a bill with lots of popular support and a long history of failure.

This week, Artvoice, an alternative paper out of Buffalo, has a great article about the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, tracing its history and giving some interesting stats on how even the small sum of five cents is a big incentive for people to recycle them instead of chucking them in the wastebasket. A five-cent deposit increases return rates by 50 percent, and in Michigan, which has a 10 cent deposit, the return rate is over 90 percent.

While we found this article interesting in its own right, we took particular note of the fact that like so much in Albany, its failed history appears to be closely intertwined with the Legislature's opaque and undemocratic rules. For one thing, this appears to be yet another example of legislative leaders bottling up bills (pun definitely intended) in committee:

Albany Times Union columnist Fred LeBrun told Artvoice that Senate Majority Leader Bruno is "adamantly opposed [to the Bigger Better Bottle Bill] because he is the spokesperson, really, for the business and corporate community. He has not let [the bill] out of committee for two years. And he will try not to again this year but he will have less to say about it if Mr. Johnson wins and not Ms. O’Connell. So it is definitely a race to watch."

We're not convinced by Mr. LeBrun's final conclusion. Unfortunately, as our research has shown, what really matters in Albany is not how many Senators support a bill, but who controls the committees. And no matter what happens on February 6th, we're pretty sure that on February 7th, Majority Leader Bruno will still control them. And he'll still have the power — under the "new" rules adopted on January 19 — to make sure any bill he doesn't like never comes to the floor for a vote.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

For those of you who were holding your breath, the new Senate rules

We’ve finally tracked down the new Senate rules (they’re not posted on the Senate website yet, even though they were adopted more than a week ago), and not surprisingly, the changes were meager.

First off, it appears that the Senate is trying to save some trees, as several of the tweaks simply reduce the number of copies of certain documents that must be filed.

Here are some of the more substantive changes:

• Any senator can now be approved by the committee chair to speak for five minutes on a nomination being considered.


• The rule prohibiting people with a stake in legislation from being on the Senate floor was strengthened to explicitly apply to people who would be allowed under other circumstances. This essentially means that senators’ family members or former Senators who are now lobbyists are not allowed on the Senate floor.


• Instead of requiring a majority of all senators, a motion to petition a bill out of committee may now also be made to a standing committee. This means that a majority of committee members can approve moving a bill out of committee, even over the objection of the committee chair.

Unfortunately, the Senate also made some changes that can hardly be considered positive reforms:

• There is now a thirty minute limit on the amount of time a particular senator may speak during the four hours of debate allowed on each bill.


• Senators are not allowed to direct motions to petition at the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is where the Senate leadership sends many bills to die, so this exception severely weakens the impact of the rule allowing members to petition committees instead of the full Senate.

While we appreciate any steps in the right direction, we are disappointed that the Senate Majority, after rejecting the Democrats’ attempt to institute comprehensive rules changes, did not significantly improve the way the Senate does business. The sparse reforms they did adopt do little to make the Senate a more deliberative, accountable, and responsive body.

Here is a red-lined pdf of the new rules (see the bookmarks for quick links to the revised sections).

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Big moves on member items (well, big for New York)

Yesterday, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced a new approval process for member items, which would require grant recipients to disclose any ties to the sponsoring legislator and whether they had ever violated past state contracts.

This came on the same day that the Senate and Assembly passed reforms that, among other things, would itemize member items in the state budget.

As the Daily News points out, though, the member item deal between the Legislature and Governor Spitzer came out of the same “three men in a room” process that Spitzer disparaged throughout his campaign.

They compare the reform agreement to ideas making their way on the national stage: proposed congressional legislation would require lawmakers to post earmarks on the web, identifying the member sponsoring it, at least two days before the vote actually occurs.

The Daily News argues:

Spitzer should have included ideas like those in a gold-standard reform bill, then challenged lawmakers to pass it, improve it or explain why not. That would have taken more time and energy, but it would also have shown he was serious about changing the status quo.

Despite its limited nature, we do appreciate the importance of the steps taken yesterday toward more transparency in the budget process.

However, we also note that there was almost no coverage of the actual passage of the budget reforms. Much like watching Punxsutawney Phil come out of his hole, most papers, rather than wasting ink on the formality of the vote, simply covered the emergence of the three men from the room last week. Unfortunately, that still seems to be the news that matters.

Categories: General

Malcolm Smith on rules reform

From the Times Union: "We cannot truly reform the legislative process in Albany until we have successfully reformed the rules that govern the Legislature."

We wholeheartedly agree and applaud the Senate Minority for trying to push through a set of rules that would have introduced more equity, responsiveness, transparency, and accountability to the Senate.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

New York State officials should take a lesson from Albany-area colleges

In stark contrast to the handling of impropriety in the Legislature, when there was evidence of an ethics problem at Albany-area Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Professor Linda Layne took swift action to deal with the issue. She is pushing for an honor code at the school after discovering a student cheating on a quiz in – get this – her ethics class. Similarly, Union College just received a grant that would give professors a stipend for incorporating ethics lessons into their curricula.

However, just as legislators inevitably push back against new ethics proposals, the Times Union reports that students at RPI and Union College are skeptical about the need for ethics education and tougher enforcement. Along with many legislators, the students feel that they simply don’t have a problem.

These protests seem to be misguided. It turns out that, according to a study by the Center for Academic Integrity, “70 percent of students acknowledge some cheating on most campuses.” Yet schools with honor codes see about one-third to one-half the amount of serious test cheating experienced by schools without a similar ethics policy.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see the same improvement in state government?

We think it’s time for lawmakers to take a page from Professor Layne’s book and adopt tools to curb ethics violations and encourage fair and decent conduct. It’s time for lawmakers to pass legislation that would create a single agency with enough teeth to effectively oversee ethics in all aspects of New York government.

Categories: General, Government Ethics

Ethics Breakthrough?

No, we're not talking about the recent changes in ethics and lobbying rules in Congress.

Believe it or not, we're talking Albany. Yes, Albany.

Michael Gormley of the AP reports that:

High level legislative and executive branch officials are negotiating to create a single, far-reaching ethics agency that could break down jurisdictional walls that currently limit investigations, officials familiar with the talks said Thursday.

If the agency is created, it would mark a historic step toward reforming a state government culture derided for years by critics and government watchdog groups as unseemly, even corrupt.

We believe if this happens, it will be an extraordinary step. But also not so extraordinary. As Gormley notes:

A report by NYPIRG and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found 39 states have a single ethics commission for executive and legislative branches.

It seems that in Albany -- at least in matters related to ethics, lobbying and campaign finance -- to be ordinary is extraordinary.

Categories: General, Government Ethics

Majority Leader Bruno: We Don't Understand

See the headline in the Daily News and a similar headline in the Times, that left us scratching our collective heads.

Apparently, Senate Majority Leader Bruno is in a tizzy about Governor Spitzer’s intention to attend a Democratic Party fundraiser, the proceeds of which will likely go to Craig Johnson, a candidate running in the special election for the recently vacated 7th Senate District. Bruno called Spitzer’s plans “inappropriate” and added:

I wouldn’t be talking campaign finance reform on one hand, and then on the other hand, doing 25,000 price of admission to funnel money – funnel money, launder money – into a Senate contest.

Color us confused. Is Bruno saying that he doesn't like the fact that under New York's current and very lax campaign finance laws, the Democratic Party can collect $25,000 a plate at a fundraiser -- and then send all of that money to a candidate in a single race? Or is he saying that people who take advantage of such laws to compete politically in New York don't have the right to search and argue for a more fair and equitable system?

If it's the latter, we think we now understand the Majority Leader's repeated efforts to kill campaign finance reform.

If it's the former, he should get on board with the campaign finance reforms we have long championed, such as greatly lowering the exorbitant $84,400 per year an individual can give to a party committee and capping the currently unlimited amount party committees can funnel to candidates.

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

Senate Rules Fight -- A First Hand Account

We were present in the Senate Chamber for the fight over rules last night. It was an unusual and pointedly ironic spectacle. Liz Benjamin provided some of the details in the Times-Union but more detail follows for Rules junkies (like us).

As the Senate's rules had expired on January 15, the first order of business in the Senate yesterday was adopting a new set of rules. The Senate Democrats introduced a resolution that would have made the chamber a more open, transparent and representative body by, among other things, banning the "canvass of agreement," whereby a majority of Senators can defeat certain measures by just leaving the Senate chamber (thereby avoiding having their votes recorded as "no.").

For about two hours following the introduction of these proposals, there was a fair amount of pandemonium in the normally placid chamber, as the majority and minority debated over one point: whether individual Senators would have to go on record in opposition these proposed reforms in order to defeat them. Not that there is a problem with transparency in the Senate, or anything.

Senators Duane and Connor, both Democrats, asked for a roll call vote (meaning each member's vote would be recorded) on the Democrats' proposals. Senator Skelos (R), among others, argued that this was inappropriate -- a voice vote was sufficient. David Patterson, who now presides over the Senate in his role as Lieutenant Governor, denied the roll call vote.

In response, Senator Duane appealed the Lieutenant Governor's ruling and asked for a roll call vote to override this ruling (under Senate Rules, a majority of members can override a ruling by the Lieutenant Governor on procedure). The Lieutenant Governor -- having happened to have researched this issue earlier in the day -- found that he must allow a roll call vote of his appeal. Members would have to go on record with their votes.

For the next two hours, both sides argued over whether there would be a roll call vote -- with Republicans theatening to continue to appeal decisions of the Lieutenant Governor all night if they had to. The parties finally compromised on a vote by hands. No votes were attributed to individual members, but a count of "no" votes will be recorded (from what we understand). The number will be 32 -- the exact number of Republicans present in the chamber at the time.

And there you have it -- the new transparency in Albany.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Will the Senate Opt for Self Improvement Today?

Today, the internal operating rules of the New York State Senate expire. Will the Senate grab this opportunity to change the way it does business? We hope so. Today, several New York senators introduced a resolution to reform the Senate’s rules to make the body more open, transparent and democratic. The Brennan Center, along, with 11 other groups, sent a letter to all Senators, calling upon them to adopt the proposed resolution. The resolution proposes many changes, notably,

• Ending the majority leader’s control over individual and committee resources and staff, permitting a more equitable distribution of funds;

• Prohibiting the use of the canvass of agreement, a parliamentary decision-making method that permits opponents of motions and bill amendments to avoid having their dissent recorded; and,

• Allowing rank-and-file members to meaningfully participate in committees, by eliminating proxy voting in committees and giving members some power to hold public hearings.

Two years ago, a Brennan Center report tagged the New York State legislative rules as “the most dysfunctional in the nation,” and a follow up report this year concluded that little had changed, despite some minor rules changes and promises from both State houses that their undemocratic and unaccountable way of doing business would become a thing of the past.

On the very same day that a column in the Daily News highlights the broken nature of the New York State Legislature, the Senate can make great strides towards fixing itself. If it adopts the resolution proposed today, it will be a clear signal to the public that it has heard the call for reform.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Adding Color to the Bench

As we have previously noted, Governor Spitzer will probably appoint three judges to the seven member Court of Appeals this year. Today, Capitol Confidential reports that Governor Spitzer has just announced his first Court of Appeals nomination, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones.

We are certain that there are many ways in which Justice Jones differs from any of the six members Governor Pataki appointed in his 12 years in office. But as Capitol Confidential points out -- there is one way that is immediately obvious and is likely to garner significant media attention: Justice Jones is African American.

Governor Patatki's final appointment on August 18, 2006 of Eugene Pigott left the Court of Appeals without a single judge of color for the first time in over 20 years. At the time, many of the State's leading politicians were mystified. "To think that in this state, with the enormous minority population that we have, that of those seven jurists (on the Court of Appeals) there's not one of color I'm saddened," former Mayor Dinkins said in an interview with The New York Times.

The need for more judges of color is more than just symbolism. A survey conducted by the Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections found that 71 percent of registered voters in New York believe that the state's judges are fair and impartial, but only 51 percent of black voters surveyed believed that they are. Having more minorities on the bench would go a long way toward making all New Yorkers feel that they can receive a fair day in court. More diversity among judges would also mean that decisions would reflect a broader range of perspectives.

Accordingly, we applaud Governor Spitzer for turning around an ABYSMAL record on diversity with his first nomination. The Senate will have to confirm or reject Justice Jones within 30 days of receiving his nomination.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Just Asking . . .

Could there be a better advertisement for campaign finance reform in New York than the New York Times's weekly exposes of the Senate Majority Leader's creative and apparently legal use of campaign funds?

For a detailed description of all that is wrong with New York's campaign finance laws, and how rather troubling practices -- like investing hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds into local companies -- can be legal, look here and here.

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

Deal Emerging on Judicial Selection?

This blog has devoted a considerable amount of space to Lopez-Torres (a case brought by the Brennan Center) and the Second Circuit's holding that New York must find a more open system for selecting judges for the Supreme Court (currently the system is dominated by party bosses at "judicial conventions").

As Jason Boog of Judicial Reports notes, since that decision has come down, the Brennan Center has been at odds with many of its traditional allies over how to satisfy New York State law and ensure that party bosses do not continue to dominate the selection of judges.

Finally, however, a compromise floated by the Brennan Center's Fritz Schwarz may bring these groups together:

Although [Fritz Schwarz] continued to insist on allowing candidates to petition their way onto primary ballots, he also embraced a continuing convention apparatus — albeit earlier in the year and with spots on the ballot for anyone gaining even a quarter of delegate votes. The idea emulates the nominating systems used for statewide offices, many of which have a convention bypass option to gather signatures and force primaries.

“This solution would give voters and candidates a real voice and a genuine opportunity to participate, while involving political parties in a way that is familiar to all participants in our State,” he explained.

Judicial Reports notes that "interviews this week with other key players in the reform debate indicate growing support for some version of such a compromise."

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

The Brennan Center Does Not Support or Oppose Political Candidates

Despite recent insinuations to the contrary, the Brennan Center does not support Assemblyman Morelle in his bid to become the new Comptroller. But Morelle's supporters should not be too crestfallen at this because the Brennan Center does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.

There was some confusion this week when lawyer Jeremy Creelan released a letter praising Morelle's commitment to reform and recommending him for the Comptroller position. Creelan previously worked as a Deputy Director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, but he is now an associate at Jenner & Block and, we stress, a private citizen. In his letter, he was in no way speaking for the Brennan Center.

Read our official statement on the issue.

After initially posting otherwise, the New York Observer's Politicker now correctly writes: "Creelan was in private practice by the time he sent his letter in support of Morelle. The Brennan Center does not support any candidates."

Categories: General

A Democratic, Efficient and Equitable System

The Albany Project has a great graph showing the discrepancy in member item allocations for Republican and Democratic members. Brace yourself -- it's huge.

Categories: General

Times Union responds to Bruno on redistricting

Yesterday’s editorial in the Albany Times-Union on redistricting and campaign finance was another impassioned and well-reasoned statement about the need for reform in New York government. The editorial points out that electoral competition is inhibited by the state's current laws, which do little to limit the amount of money in politics and allow legislators (through a commission that does their bidding) to draw their own district lines. New York has had its fair share of problems stemming from foxes guarding the proverbial henhouse, and some, the Brennan Center included, believe that more should be done to wrest control of linedrawing from those who stand to benefit the most from it. Further, we agree the ball needs to start rolling on this now, well before the 2010 and subsequent redistricting. If not, politicians will continue to drag their feet, stalling until they can make the argument that there is not enough time to successfully implement an independent commission.

To blame redistricting and campaign finance for the dysfunctional legislature's problems, is, of course, not the whole story. Indeed, New York seem to like their incumbents despite stagnation and gridlock, reelecting these legislators by large margins (Joseph Bruno was not even opposed in the 2006 general election) in districts that are highly competitive in other races (presidential, gubernatorial, etc.). It is unclear whether Spitzer’s victory will signal new voting patterns, but it certainly pointed to a mandate for reform, which he has placed at the top of his agenda. Campaign finance reform, in particular, is crucial to leveling the playing field for quality challengers, which is, in turn, an important piece of maintaining a responsive and accountable government. And redistricting reform can ensure that those challengers aren’t suddenly drawn out of the districts where they have built support. In 2006, 52 candidates in the state legislature were unchallenged. The voters deserve a better choice.

In short, we give high praise to the Times-Union calling Majority Leader Bruno to action. Additionally, we recognize that the focus of the Governor’s agenda is to make our state legislature an institution responsive to all New Yorkers, and that deserves even more applause.

Categories: General, Redistricting

Promoted from watchdogs to lions?

In this morning’s Ithaca Journal, Jay Gallagher uses a metaphor right off the pages of National Geographic to describe the current mood in Albany:

It wouldn't be surprising if members of the state Legislature these days feel like a herd of antelopes on some African savannah, cowering as the lions, or in this case “reformers,” circle around them.

Who will they pick off next? Better not fall behind the herd. They will show no mercy.

And indeed, if legislators refuse to get on board with the transformative changes New York so desperately needs, like an overhaul of the state ethics law, campaign finance reform, and an end to legislators drawing their own districts, they don’t deserve any mercy. Not from reformers and not from the voters they pretend to serve.

Categories: General

More Thoughts on Ciber Fall Out

Nick Confessore reports in the New York Times on Friday that

New York State elections officials said on Thursday that they would consider suspending the testing of new voting machines in the state, after learning that the laboratory hired to perform the tests was temporarily barred by federal authorities last summer from accrediting new state voting systems.

State officials expressed dismay and shock at Ciber's problems with federal authorities, lending support to our theory that bad news for Ciber may be good news for New York officials who were afraid they might cost the state millions of dollars for failing to meet yet another federal deadline to purchase new voting machines:

“If we had known that, and if we had seen the report from them, we would have known why they were decertified, and maybe we wouldn’t have hired them to begin with, or maybe we would have made some remedial changes,” said Lee K. Daghlian, a spokesman for the New York State Board of Elections.

Mr. Daghlian said the board had requested a copy of a report prepared by the federal commission and would review it before making a final decision.

“It may not delay use of the new machines,” he said. “If this report comes in and it’s something really bad that we didn’t know about, we may have to start all over again.”

And if they have to start all over again because federal authorities didn't warn them of Ciber's problems -- well, certainly the Department of Justice and the Federal courts can't blame them.

Categories: General, Voting

And What Will Happen on January 16th?

As our Executive Director Michael Waldman has noted, January 3 was a very good day in New York for attention to issues the Brennan Center cares about. The new Governor introduced important proposals to reform New York’s campaign finance, legislative redistricting and ethics laws.

The one sour note was the decision of both chambers to continue to operate under their old rules -- the same rules that have produced the opaque, unrepresentative body we know too well. Just minutes before the Governor's State of the State, both chambers adopted the same operating rules they used last year. For now.

In the Assembly, just before the vote, Majority Leader Canestrari stated that the Assembly was adopting its old rules with the understanding that reform was an ongoing process and, leaving New Yorkers with some hope, anyway, that they might return to reforming the rules later in the session (as they did in February 2005).

Of more interest to us at the Brennan Center was the action in the Senate -- where the new/old rules were adopted only through January 15. On the 16th, the Senate must adopt new rules again. This should provide reform minded Senators with an opportunity to introduce new and better operating rules for the rest of the session. Who knows, there may be fireworks.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

How Ciber's Problems May Help New York

Christopher Drew of the New York Times reports today that Ciber, the laboratory hired by New York State to test its new voting systems, has been temporarily barred from approving new machines.

At first blush, this might appear to be another voting system catastrophe for New York -- just one more bump on its incredibly slow and bumpy road to complying with the Help American Vote Act ("HAVA") and finally purchasing new voting machines (New York is behind every state in the nation in approving and buying new machines).

In fact, however, Ciber's problems may be just the excuse New York needs to get out of a sticky situation. Last year, after being sued by the Department of Justice for its failure to comply with HAVA's mandate to purchase new machines (while still taking money for them), New York State agreed -- under a court ordered consent decree -- to purchase and use new voting machines by September 2007. As the Albany Times Union and others reported last month, the New York State Board of Elections has recently determined that complying with this deadline was not going to be possible.

This was troubling for a number of reasons, not least that it might mean a loss of millions of dollars for New York. As the Times Union noted in December:

It's also unclear whether the latest setback will further jeopardize federal money the state was to get to help modernize its voting systems. New York was slated to receive at least $200 million, but the Justice Dept. may seek to cut that by $50 million for the missed deadlines so far.

The State is going to have to go back to the Justice Department and the Federal Court and work out a new agreement. It seems likely that Ciber's problems will provide the State with some cover as it seeks to have the consent order re-opened and modified.

Categories: General, Voting

Spitzer Says Tinkering with Judicial Selection Not an Option

Since prevailing in the landmark case Lopez-Torres -- which struck down the State's current party boss dominated process for selecting Supreme Court Judges -- the Brennan Center has argued that mere "tinkering" with that process (as proposed by some) will not be sufficient. If there are to be elections for Judges, the voters must have a say — the party bosses cannot continue to control who becomes a Judge in New York.

Today's New York Law Journal reports (subscription required) that at a post-State of the State news conference, Governor Sptizer made clear that he agrees with the Brennan Center, and that he will not allow such tinkering to substitute for changes the Courts have made clear are necessary:

"There are some who are saying let the court's mandate sit where it is and have an open primary," Mr. Spitzer said. "I think there is a superficial appeal to [open primaries] but the very real concern articulated by those who have spent a great deal of time looking at the judicial selection process is that the impact of money in those elections could be monumental. Whether we have an open primary process or restructure the conventions . . . there must be a way to primary onto the ballot. I will not support anything that has a closed convention structure, where only those who came out of the convention could be on the ballot."

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Bruno on Bonacic's Fate After Vote for Majority Leader

A Republican senator from the Catskills area, John Bonacic, has been trying to drum up a movement within the majority caucus to boot Joe Bruno out of the top majority position. He hasn’t had much success in recruiting members to his cause, and there has been some speculation about Bonacic’s fate after today’s leadership vote.

However, as reported by the Times Herald-Record:

When asked whether Bonacic might suffer repercussions for his insurrection, Bruno said, “There are no repercussions about anything.” “Life is what it is.”

We hope Majority Leader Bruno lives up to this statement. Under current Senate rules, the Majority Leader holds what amounts to absolute control over office space, resources, and which bills reach the floor of the Senate for a vote, which means that Senator Bonacic has taken a real chance by challenging Bruno’s power.

We also think that if Senator Bonacic is concerned with Bruno’s position in the Senate, he should sponsor a resolution amending the rules to relieve the Majority leader of exclusive control over the most basic member needs. The ability of a legislator to represent his or her constituents in government should not be contingent upon loyalty to a party leader.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Time for State Legislature to Step Up?

On the heels of Spitzer's inauguration, and with momentum for reform building, papers around the State call for the Legislature to become a more transparent, accountable and representative body. And to start making changes this week.

From the Daily News, an editorial entitled "Day One for the Legislature":

As is well known, after a nationwide study, NYU Law School's Brennan Center branded the Legislature America's worst a few years back. To rise above being a laughingstock, lawmakers made minimal changes. It was considered revolutionary, for example, that they ended empty-seat voting, a convenience that counted them as present and voting "yes" as long as they were somewhere in the Capitol.

Both houses will soon get down to formalizing new rules and procedures. This will be the time when lawmakers will first show whether they take seriously Spitzer's reform message. Will they ban the receipt of all gifts more pricey than a cup of coffee, as he is doing for the executive branch? Will they provide all members, whether in the majority or the minority, with equal staff and resources, as happens in Congress? Will they end their enslavement to lulus? They must.

And from the Syracuse Post Standard, "Be Fair And Share: Stop Allocating Tax Dollars on the Basis of Party and Loyalty." The Post-Standard points out what the Brennan Center highlighted in its most recent report on the State Legislature:

In a comparable period, the average member of the Senate majority was allotted $361,143.90 to spend on his or her office, compared with $197,390.80 for the minority senator. In the Assembly the numbers were $161,575.80 for the average majority member, $109,804.50 for the average minority member.

In other words, the average Senate Republican was able to spend 82 percent more than the average Senate Democrat. The average Assembly Democrat spent 47 percent more than his or her minority Republican counterpart.

The paper instists that the Legislature must do what's right: Equalize resources available to majority and minority lawmakers, including member items. Additional resources should go to legislators solely on the basis of need or other objective criteria - not party affiliation or loyalty.

Finally, we would be remiss if we didn't highlight Mark Bitz's excellent New Year's Eve op-ed, "How Legislative Rules in Albany," in which he calls on the Legislature to embrace basic rules changes, this week, to make the legislature more transparent and accountable.

We'll all be watching.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Day 2: Some Friendly Suggestions

The New York Times leads with stories about Spitzer's likely push to change Albany's culture, and more particularly to overhaul the state's ethics laws.

The Brennan Center, Citizens Union, Common Cause New York, League of Women Voters New York and NYPIRG think the new Governor is on the right track. In Albany today, at 11 a.m., we have presented our "top 10 list" of needed ethics reforms. They are as follows:

Create an Independent Ethics Commission. Create a commission with jurisdiction over statewide elected officials, state officers and employees, state legislators, and legislative employees.

End “Pay to Play.” The infusion of large sums of money by businesses and unions with public contracts and lobbyists into the campaign coffers of elected representatives has generated a widespread public belief that contributors are “paying” those officials for the opportunity to “play” with the government. New York should join a growing number of states and localities with “pay to play” restrictions on lobbyists and public contractors.

Ban honoraria. As of January 2006, at least 23 states prohibited honoraria in some manner if offered in connection with a legislator’s official duties. Giving speeches and participating in public policy discussions are important parts of a public official’s job. To allow groups to offer state lawmakers honoraria for performing these duties, however, creates a real or apparent conflict of interest for public officials.

Restrict the personal use of campaign contributions. Restrictions on the personal use of campaign funds must be strengthened and enforced.

Strengthen the “revolving door” ban. Bans on “revolving door” lobbying seek to restrain former state government and party officials from using their government connections to benefit themselves, their clients or their business interests after they leave office.

Create more stringent requirements for financial disclosure for public officers. Financial disclosure requirements for state employees must be strengthened. It’s important that any ethics reform include ways to enhance the requirements for disclosure of financial information by state employees in various ways.

Require ethics training for lobbyists and for the governor, legislators, legislative employees, state agency officers, and state agency employees. Once good laws are on the books, the good way to prevent ethics violations is through education. A reform package should expressly require ethics training for all state officials, including the governor, and legislators, as well as continuing education in these areas provided by the state ethics commission.

Strengthen accountability of “member items” and other lump sum appropriations. Some of the most recent scandals have resulted from misuse of “member item” spending. Any ethics reform package should address such abuses. At the very least, the choices made about how to spend this money should be made public. If a member item system is to be continued, then a fairer allocation system coupled with better oversight must be established.

Strengthen ethical standards for public officials. We recommend that a new ethics law prohibits business relationships between public officials and lobbyists and those with receive government contracts. Moreover, a new law must make it clear that public officials cannot use public employees in order to provide personal services.

For more detail on these recommendations, look here.

Categories: General, Government Ethics

Urban Justice Center v. Pataki

Yesterday, the First Department of the Appellate Division dismissed the lawsuit against Governor Pataki, Assembly Speaker Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Bruno filed by the Urban Justice League, Democratic Senator Liz Krueger and Republican Assemblyman Tom Kirwan.

The original complaint, which relied in part on our 2004 report on New York’s legislative process, argued that, among other things, minority members in both chambers received less money for member items and office operations than majority members. It also alleged, as we have argued, that it is practically impossible for minority members to bring bills to the chamber floor for a vote without the express approval of the speaker or majority leader.

As the New York Post writes, “In a decision late last year, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Jane Solomon tossed out the bulk of the suit's claims, saying it was up to the Legislature to change the way it did business.”

The appellate court agreed, saying that the claims were largely political matters and nonjusticiable by the courts.

With this ruling, it is now even more important that the Legislature take the reins and institute changes to its legislative process. Without a change of heart by the leadership or an uprising from the rank-and-file members, an open and accountable legislative branch will always be beyond our grasp.

Funding for members’ offices should not be contingent on keeping good favor with the legislative leaders.

Bills with overwhelming support should not be left to languish in committee because the chamber leadership disapproves.

The legislative process should be efficient, responsive, deliberative, accessible, and accountable to the people of New York State. It is time for the rules of the Senate and Assembly to reflect this fact.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Government Disclosure under Pataki

An article in this morning’s Times Union reviews Governor Pataki’s record on agency disclosure in state government.

The article notes that while the paper had to take legislative leaders to court to force them to disclose member item spending, Pataki was more forthcoming and provided details of his own discretionary spending without litigation.

Also highlighted is Pataki’s support for three bills during his tenure that strengthened the Freedom of Information Law. Pataki has also overseen improvements of agency websites that allow the public to access government documents.

We applaud Governor Pataki for his modest but important moves to make government more transparent and urge Governor-elect Spitzer to build on this legacy. With Spitzer’s strong stance on government reform and accountability, we expect that he will indeed pick up the mantle of making government agencies more accessible to the public.

Like the Times Union, though, we also hope to see the leadership in the Senate and Assembly work harder to make the legislative process more open and accountable. We know first hand, from the research on our latest report, that obtaining documents from the Legislature can be frustrating, expensive, and time-consuming, even for an organization with a full-time staff.

We strongly believe that both the executive and legislative branches should build an online system for providing important government documents to ordinary New Yorkers.

Categories: General

Newsday on judicial elections

This morning’s Newsday included an overview of the reforms the editorial board believes should be implemented in the state’s court system, including a switch to "merit selection" of judges from the convention system that was recently found unconstitutional.

The constitutional amendment process that would be required to implement "merit selection" would take a number of years, and whether that form of an appointment system would be an improvement over an elective system is still an open question, in our view. The devil is in the details in both cases, but we are interested in examining any system that is constitutional and is likely to improve diversity on the bench. None of the current proposals to “tinker” with the convention system satisfies either of those criteria.

It's also important to clear up one misconception in the editorial: Newsday didn’t quite capture the current status of judicial elections when it said: “The legislature has to adopt an alternative.” In fact, if the Legislature fails to act, we will move to a direct primary system in September 2007, as directed by U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson and affirmed by the 2nd Circuit.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Residency Law

Christopher Ketchum in Monday’s Times Union made this shocking revelation:

I am a repeat offending felon, but the cops in New York have yet to catch up with me. The offenses revolve around my licentious voting habit. I enjoy voting, and I try to do so in every election. The problem, where state law is concerned, is that I am illegally registered to vote from my father's house in Brooklyn, where I occasionally crash but where I haven't lived with any permanence in more than a decade. As a freelance writer, I am by nature and inclination nomadic. So I figured the easiest thing to do was to maintain a voting address at my dad's place, which isn't going anywhere.

Ketchum writes that state courts and county officials have long ignored what he considers to be a “lunatic” part of New York residency law:

It demands that voters maintain, in the language of the statute, a “fixed, permanent, principal home.”

Of course, there are scads of New Yorkers who face the same problem as he does; students, the homeless, and those who are simply transient by nature simply do not have “permanent” residences.

Ketchum notes, though, that in 1999, a lawyer and reformer named John Kennedy O’Hara was prosecuted for registering from one of his two legitimate residences in Brooklyn.

Under this precedent, even Bill and Hillary Clinton could be prosecuted for voting in Westchester County when they established a residence there while they were still living in the White House.

Certainly, the government has the right to demand that people only vote in one location that they consider their primary residence. But the right to vote is as fundamental for students, freelancers, and other “mobile” residents as anyone else, and states and localities should ensure their registration laws do not discourage or block these citizens from registering and voting.

For more on student voting, read our policy brief.

Categories: General, Voting

Spano's reflection on his last days as a legislator

This morning’s Journal News featured a story describing outgoing Senator Nick Spano’s final days as a state legislator and reviewing his 28 years of service. We thought this quote from Spano about the recent special session was interesting:

It's not surprising we're ending my final active day in the state Capitol with hours and hours of intense negotiations that ultimately led to nowhere.

The frustrating, ultimately unsuccessful special session is indicative of how back room dealing is simply not the most efficient, effective way to govern. Instead of shoving through as many bills as possible at the end of June and in special session, the Legislature should have transparent, substantive debate during committee meetings, bill hearings, floor sessions, and conference committees.

In our analysis of major bills passed in 2005 for our latest report, we found that 36% of major bills were passed in the Senate and 40.4% were passed in the Assembly during the last three days of the session or during special session.

There was also very little floor debate on major bills during 2005: 89.9% of major bills were passed in the Senate and 89% were passed in the house without discussion on the chamber floor at all.

Similarly, we found that there were almost no hearings on specific major legislation that passed both houses in 2005, and there were almost no conference committees held to reconcile differences between major bills.

Clearly, we need an open and accountable legislative process, not closed door deal making, to formulate innovative solutions to the serious problems facing New York State.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Spitzer in response to special session

From the Times Union blog, Spitzer on the Legislature's special session:

As I’ve said, I oppose a pay raise, unless and until we have fundamental reform in an array of areas, including ethics, lobbying, elections, campaign finance and budget reform.

If those reforms are enacted, I would support a comprehensive pay bill for judges, legislators and commissioners similar to the proposal recommended by Chief Judge Kaye.

Categories: General

Does New York need term limits?

The Politicker, the New York Observers blog, noted yesterday that a new Quinnipiac poll shows that New Yorkers overwhelmingly favor term limits for state representatives, 67 - 27%.

While the Brennan Center does not have a formal position on term limits, we believe the perceived need for such a change could be ameliorated by implementing other effective solutions that would go a long way toward making officials more accountable to their constituents.

What New York really needs are elections that matter. Right now, we have a Legislature with an almost 100% reelection rate, yet our representatives dont deliver the kinds of innovative policy solutions our state needs.

We need campaign finance reform (which the Quinnipiac poll found to be very or somewhat important to 82% of respondents) to keep campaign contributions from unduly influencing elected officials and ensure that officials are responsive to all their constituents; we need redistricting reform to promote fair representation and competitive elections; and we need legislative rules reform to make sure that rank-and-file lawmakers have the power and the resources necessary to effectively represent their constituents.

These reforms would enhance the quality of representatives and representation in New York and make term limits unnecessary.

We know term limits have been a hot topic in the state for years, so we'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject!

Categories: General, Campaign Finance, Legislative Rules, Redistricting

The Brennan Center and Manhattan Institute Will Soon Take Over the World

In a series of statements we can only descibe as "curious," Senator Volker attacks the Brennan Center's recent analyses of the New York State Legislature as a nefarious plot by New York City residents to tax upstate. And our next door neighbor the Manhattan Institute (who knew they were so close by?) is apparently in on the plan as well.

Our response can be found here.

When the Times and the Sun Agree

It isn't every week that the editorial boards of the New York Times and the New York Sun issue editorials with similar conclusions. But looking at the state of the State Legislator and whether or not our legislators deserve a pay raise, both papers agree that there is a serious need for reform in the way the legislature operates.

From the Times on Sunday:

[Legislators] have failed to create rules that make the Legislature democratic. Right now, the Assembly and State Senate work more like political dictatorships than the democratic bodies they are supposed to be. The governor, the Assembly speaker and the Senate majority leader should not be the only representatives of this entire state. There should be real committees and some voice for minority party members, just to name two concepts that have atrophied in Albany.

And from the Sun yesterday:

[E]ven most town meetings or small city councils and county boards of supervisors have agendas that are set in advance, with items docketed and noticed to the public and the press in writing well in advance. Often, elsewhere, there are public committee hearings, extended floor debates, and dissenting votes, all of which are rare in Albany. Mr. Pataki may yet pull a rabbit out of the hat this week and announce some final significant accomplishments. We wish him luck . . . But if any deal is announced at the last minute as a fait accompli, it will be diminished by the knowledge that for all Mr. Pataki's accomplishments, opening up government in Albany for the public to see is one area where the secret last-minute negotiations never seem to result in a legislative breakthrough.

They must be on to something. Greater transparency, deliberativeness, accountability: no matter the political ideology, almost all disinterested parties can agree that a better process will lead to better crafted and more thoroughly considered legislation. If you believe in democracy, that has to be a good thing.

The Times Union on transforming the Albany power dynamic

The Times Union yesterday morning:

Even a governor with a strong mandate will not be able to convince legislators to change their internal rules. Patronage, endorsements, photo-ops and other traditional tools a governor has will not suffice.

We agree that it will take more than a reform-minded governor to convince legislators to change their ways. That’s why it’s crucial that we keep our legislators’ feet to the fire by calling and demanding that they create a more responsive, deliberative, accessible, accountable, and efficient Legislature. Ask your senator or Assembly member to support a resolution that makes the following rules changes:

• Strengthen the committee process by creating mechanisms to force hearings and votes on bills;
• End the stranglehold that leadership has over bills getting the floor by creating a mechanism for rank-and-file members to force floor votes;
• Institutionalizing conference committees; and
• Ending leadership control over the resources and staff available to members and committees.

You can find your senator here and your Assembly member here.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

As if you needed another reason to support campaign finance reform

If someone told you that an elected official had used campaign contributions to pay for lawyers to defend him against a criminal investigation brought on by corruption charges, you’d probably expect that official to be in even more trouble than he was to begin with.

But because we live in New York, you’d be wrong.

According to the Daily News, State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who is in the middle of a controversy surrounding his use of public funds to pay for his wife’s chauffer, has used $750,000 of campaign funds on criminal defense fees.

Why is this legal?

The Daily News reports:

A 1989 advisory opinion by the state Board of Elections…is that campaign dollars can be used to pay legal fees if the case “arises out of the holding of public office.”

This is only one of the more outrageous loopholes in a truly atrocious campaign finance system. See our own Suzanne Novak’s op-ed earlier this year on these types of personal use abuses.

We urge the Legislature to act in the spirit of Governor-elect Spitzer’s recent executive actions and pass real campaign finance legislation that includes a public financing system, dramatically lower contribution limits, stronger disclosure laws, and enhanced enforcement.

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

(Re)allocation of resources

The Utica Observer Dispatch calls on Governor-elect Spitzer to demand reform in the way the legislature allocates member-items (also known in some circles as pork):

Every year, Albany leaders divvy up $200 million of your money. It's far from equitable, since majority legislators — Senate Republicans, Assembly Democrats — feed first at the trough, leaving the scraps for those in lesser standing, even though their constituents pay taxes and live in communities in need of new fire equipment or children's playgrounds, too.

True, true. And might we add, the same holds true for member spending on staff and office resources, where majority members (Republicans) get 82% more than minority members (Dems) in the State Senate, while in the Assembly majority members (Democrats) get 47% more per member than minority members (Republicans). This stands in stark contrast to the way things work in Congress or even the New York City Council -- where all members are given the same allocation, regardless of party.

Categories: General

Majority Leader: Flawed Process = Flawed Outcome

Assembly Majority Leader Paul Tokasz on the hospital closing process: “A flawed process cannot result in anything but a flawed outcome.”

We couldn't agree more Majority Leader Tokasz! Wouldn't it be great to have a legislative process where there were actually hearings on major legislation that was destined to become law? Where a bill could be debated on the floor and brought to a vote even if the Speaker objected? Where conference committees were institutionalized, so there was a public airing of the differences between bills, rather than a closed-door resolution (or no resoluation at all)?

Call your legislator and tell him or her that you agree with Majority Leader Tokasz. A flawed process leads to flawed outcomes. Process matters. And we need a more open, representative, deliberative process in New York.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Guest Blogger Mark Bitz

NYS Senate and Assembly Rule Reform Matters

Process matters! The rules matter! Democratic principles generate superior legislation. When feedback from all of the citizenry enters the mix, creative synergistic solutions that balance the needs of the individual community, business, and environment emerge. Everyone wins. In contrast, when the process is rigged to further partisan power and lifetime incumbency, as it currently is in NYS, the legislation is neither creative nor synergistic, marginalizes large numbers of people, distorts free market signals, and generally harms our economy.

How bad is the problem? Speaker Silver represents one of the 150 state Assembly districts, yet earmarks for his district $7 million of the $50 million member item money available for all 150 districts. Silver takes 21 times his fair share. In addition, he uses the remaining $43 million to control the representatives in his party. The rules, which allow this behavior are inequitable, undemocratic, and an outrage!

The NYS Senate and Assembly's implementation of the Brennan Center's 2006 Update recommendations is essential to our citizens and state's future!

Mark Bitz is President of Plainville Farms and FreeNYS.org and author of Creating a Prosperous New York State.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Now that we've voted, the hard part

In a terrific essay in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Reginald W. Neale hits the nail on the head: voting isn't enough; if New Yorkers want to take back their state government, they have to make sure that their elected legislators follow through on their promises. Money quote:

We aren't paying attention. It's time for citizens to understand clearly that the steady decline of our once great state cannot be reversed until we acknowledge the causes: bad legislative rules, self-interested redistricting, autocratic leaders and a Capitol awash in special-interest money.

The Assembly Democrats are caucusing in New York City today, starting to think about their agenda for the next session. The Senate Republicans will be doing the same shortly.

Now is the time for New Yorkers to contact their local legislators and tell them they want action. The first step is reforming the legislative rules -- both chambers will adopt rules for the new session as soon as they reconvene in January. Real reform of the rules means doing the following:

• Strengthening the committee process by creating mechanisms to force hearings and votes on bills;

• Ending the stranglehold that leadership has over bills getting the floor by creating a mechanism for rank-and-file members to force floor votes;

• Institutionalizing conference committees; and

• Ending leadership control over the resources and staff available to members and committees

It's the first test, and legislators need to hear from voters that we'll be watching. If you can, call and tell them.

Assembly Names Names on Pet Projects

Late yesterday afternoon, the Assembly came through with its promise to provide detailed information about member earmarks. The Legislative Initiatives documents, available for fiscal years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 include the recipient’s contact information, a short description of the purpose of the grant, the funded amount, the agency overseeing the project, and in a departure from previous disclosures, the member or members requesting the funding.

According to the Times, though, the Hearst Corporation is not satisfied. Eve Burton, a lawyer for the company, said, “It’s not usable, readable information.”

It’s not data the way the court ordered it, so that consumers can use it. If they do not comply immediately with usable data, we’re going back to the judge to seek relief.

She even went so far as to say that “there is a deliberate attempt not to provide the public with the information.”

We won't comment on Ms. Burton's allegations, but we will say that we hope that both legislative chambers expand upon these initial steps toward full disclosure. At the very least, they should create a system for retrieving information about member items that is closer to both chambers' legislative bill search function.

Categories: General

The easy choice: prevent the loss of 175,000 votes

If you were purchasing voting machines in New York City (or anywhere else in the State, for that matter), and you knew that one choice would likely result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of votes more than the other -- in every election -- would it take you long to figure out which one to buy?

On Sunday, the Daily News again endorsed optical scan machines for New York (second editorial), noting that the Brennan Center had done the same last Tuesday. As the News noted, the Brennan Center's endorsement came down to a very simple, but incredibly important reason: optical scans lose less votes than any other system New York is currently considering.

New York will be choosing its replacement for the old lever machines in a matter of months. The choice is between two types of machines: Precinct Count Optical Scans (where a voter marks a ballot by fillling in ovals, much the way she would an SAT exam) and "full face" touchsreens or "DREs" (choices are listed on a computer screen; voters make their choices by touching the part of the screen that lists their favorite candidates).

Usability experts have long argued that "full face" DREs -- which list every candidate and every race on a very large computer screen -- are inherently confusing. There's just too much information presented to the voter on a computer screen at once. These experts have long predicted that this confusing interface would lead to voters skipping races and accidently choosing the wrong candidates.

The empirical evidence is now in. And guess what? The experts were right. Professor David Kimball (who worked with the Brennan Center on its voting system usability studies) examined the "lost vote" rates in over 2,000 counties in 2004. For the Presidential race, there were substantially more "lost votes" (i.e., where no vote was recorded) in jurisdictions that used full face DREs than those that used optical scan machines. That difference increases as we examine races further down the ballot. In fact, 15.4% of voters who used full face DREs did not have votes recorded on state ballot initiatives (generally at the bottom of the ballot), compared to only 8.8% who used optical scan ballots. The higher lost vote rate on full face DREs applied to every single model of full face DRE used in 2004.

Putting this in perspective, the difference in lost votes between full face DREs and optical scans on state ballot initiatives is roughly 7%. That easily represents 175,000 voters in New York City in a high turnout year.

In other words, if New York City purchases full face DREs instead of Optical Scans, it may well cost itself tens or (more likely) hundreds of thousands of votes on every state ballot initiative, every year. And every county in the state that chooses full face DREs over optical scans is likely to cost itself significant political power.

Call us crazy, but these facts seem to make for a very easy choice.

Categories: General, Voting

Join the Conversation!

On Election Day, we opened up ReformNY to comments, and we want to hear from you! Tell us what you think about the tough issues facing New York!

Here's one great comment from John O'Neil:

With every Election Day there is good news and bad news.

Starting with the good news – with virtually no turnover in the state legislative elections your Assemblymember's and Senator's contact information is probably the same.

The bad news is that there is much left for us to do to help our legislators enact the reforms it so desperately needs and time is short. At the beginning of each session, in early January, the Assembly and the Senate vote to enact the rules that will govern their houses for the next two years.

Prior to that the Republicans and Democrats hold private caucus "workshops" where the legislative agenda and rules are discussed and most likely decided before the official opening.

In the most recent Brennan Center report there are four necessary changes that will help our legislature do what it's sent to Albany for: to be a representative, deliberative, accessible, accountable and efficient legislative body.

The changes are: (1) strengthening the committee process, (2) institutionalizing conference committees, and, at the leadership level, (3) ending the Speaker's and Majority Leader's complete control over resources and staff, and (4) ending their ability to block bills from getting to the floor.

Something you can do – Call, write, or send an e-mail to your legislators, starting this Monday, to inform them about your continued concern over the broken process and to insist that they consider the four reforms above in their pre-session caucus meetings.

Some helpful links:
http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_37893.pdf

http://www.assembly.state.ny.us

http://www.senate.state.ny.us

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Some of the "Best Disinfectant" for Member Items

As we noted on October 27th, the Heart Corporation, which owns the Times Union, recently won a lawsuit against New York’s legislative leaders--the State Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature must publicly provide records of member items. Assembly Speaker Silver and Senate Majority Leader Bruno have decided not to appeal the decision, and both the Senate and Assembly have pledged to begin making these records available within the month.

The New York Times pointed out this morning that the Senate began complying with the court order last Wednesday, and records from fiscal years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are currently available on their website. The files, labeled "Community Projects Fund," are monstrous, so we recommend right-clicking and saving the files to your disk first rather than trying to open them directly from the site. The Senate is expected to produce the more current records in the next few weeks.

The Assembly website currently features “Legislative Initiatives” documents, but these files only provide information about the recipients of member items, not about the individual legislators that earmarked the funding. The Times reported that the Assembly is slated to release detailed records today.

A Journal News editorial suggested that an individual lawmaker’s member items should be listed on his or her website. We admit that the Senate’s first attempt at public disclosure is a bit clumsy, and we hope to see the Senate make an effort to streamline these files.

It’s great to see the Legislature moving to make the legislative process more transparent, even if they are simply complying with a court order. Hopefully, this is just the first in a series of moves to provide the public with the information necessary to finally hold their representatives accountable for their actions.

Categories: General

Assembly Hearings on Judicial Selection

Yesterday, the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing in Manhattan to discuss judicial selection in light of the recent Second Circuit decision that found New York’s system of judicial conventions to be unconstitutional. Judge Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York ordered that “until the New York Legislature enacts another electoral scheme, [Supreme Court] nominations shall be made by primary elections.” The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Gleeson's decision.

The hearing, the first in a series that will also take the Committee to Rochester and Albany over the next month, featured our very own Fritz Schwarz, who was lead counsel in the litigation that invalidated the old system of picking judges. Fritz’s testimony stressed that the Legislature, in assessing the proposals before it, must take care to only consider systems that would pass constitutional muster. He argued:

Those who contend that cosmetic changes will satisfy the courts have seized on a few details but ignore the profound and most fundamental constitutional infirmity of the convention system they are promoting: it does not envision a meaningful opportunity for voters to actually cast a vote for the candidates they support. Without such an opportunity, no convention system can stand.

If the legislators rejected the permanent adoption of open primaries, Fritz urged them to consider “a system analogous to the conventions now used to designate nominees for all state-wide offices.” Candidates could garner the support of convention delegates, or they could petition onto the primary ballot.

Jason Boog of Judicial Reports notes:

No one other than Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr…really wrestled with the 800-pound gorilla swinging between the chandeliers. These tinkerings, he argued, failed to solve the immediate problem at hand – Judge Gleeson’s finding that voters constitutionally deserve vastly more meaningful participation in the process.

Bravo, Fritz! We hope the Legislature will heed your warnings and, in your own words, build a system “that gives parties their appropriate role, but gives voters a true voice, as they have in balloting for every other elected office in the state.”

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Call Your Legislator and Demand Reform!

The next two weeks are critical in our effort to reform the rules of the Assembly and Senate, and we need your help! Call your state legislators and tell them that you support rules reform! (To find your state senator, click here. To find your Assembly member, click here.)

You can tell your legislator about our recommendations or simply express your support for the Brennan Center reforms. Here are the recommendations from our newest report:

• Strengthen the standing committees so rank-and-file members can force a hearing or vote on specific legislation, even over the objections of the committee chair
• End leadership’s stranglehold on getting bills to the floor
• Give the average legislator greater independence from leadership by ending leadership control of their staff and resources
• Institutionalize conference committees to give more than two individuals power to negotiate compromises from differences in legislation passed by both the Assembly and the Senate

These reforms are crucial to making our legislature into the responsive, accountable, deliberative, accessible, and efficient body all New Yorkers deserve. So call Aunt Sally in Great Neck, Grandpa Jim in Rochester, and Cousin Bobby in Schenectady and tell them to contact their legislators and support legislative rules reform!

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

The Consequences of Abolishing Member Items

Yesterday, the Politicker, the New York Observer’s blog, noted that member item reform might actually serve to consolidate more power in the hands of legislative leaders. On the Assembly side, they argue:

Restricting how members give out money in their districts will undoubtedly allow Spitzer to claim credit for instituting a needed reform, but it would also have the effect of depriving the rank-and-file members of what little discretion they have, making them even more dependent on Silver.

We think that the abolition of member items in both the Assembly and Senate can only lead to a better, more transparent legislature. However, we would point out that the adoption of critical rules changes would empower rank-and-file members to participate more fully and fairly in the legislative and appropriations process and counteract the problem identified by the Politicker. Legislators wouldn’t be able to target spending to their pet projects if member items were taken away, but combined with rules changes, reform would give rank-and-file members a more effective and responsible voice in how tax dollars are spent in New York.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Big Week for Voting Machines in NYC

The elections are over, and New Yorkers may have voted on lever machines for the last time. Pursuant to an agreement with the Department of Justice, all lever machines in New York should be replaced by some form of electronic voting by the primaries in September 2007.

There are several vendors looking to sell machines in New York, but the choice really comes down to one of two basic type of machines: precinct based optical scan machines, whereby a voter fills out her ballot by hand and has it read electronically, or "DRE" or touchscreen machines, which work a little like ATM machines.

Except in New York our touchscreens won't work exactly like ATMs. Normally, an ATM gives you one choice at a time: enter your pin code on the first screen, when that is done, choose whether to withdraw or deposit, when that is done, choose which account to withdraw from, etc. In New York, because of an outdated law, we're stuck with a terrible "full face" design: instead of being presented with one race at a time, every race and every candidate are presented on the same screen at once. As the Brennan Center's comprehensive study on electronic voting machines shows, this design produces terrible results: voters get overwhelmed by all the choices on a computer screen and end up missing some races.

New York City residents will have a chance to view some of these machines up close this week. There will be two public demostrations this week, followed by a public hearing at the New York City Board of Elections next week. We encourage you all to go and make your voice heard.

Senate Rules Changes Crucial to Real Reform in NY

The Democratic sweep of the nation and much of New York yesterday did not include a takeover of the state Senate. According to a column by Michael Cooper in this morning’s Times, the race between Nick Spano and Andrea Stewart Cousins was the only one in the Senate that turned out to be intensely competitive. As of this writing, Spano is behind in the count but refusing to concede.

As Cooper points out, control of the Senate, despite big Democratic gains at the statewide level, gives Republicans an effective veto over all legislation. If a bill doesn’t make it through the Senate, it doesn’t make it at all.

Further, since leadership currently controls the fate of bills from the moment they are introduced, it is in effect Majority Leader Bruno who continues to have veto power over legislation in New York.

We sincerely hope to see all senators, including whoever is elected from Yonkers, support critical changes to the operating rules of that body. We understand that there are legitimate policy differences between Democrats and Republicans in New York and don’t expect every bill introduced to be passed (especially since the Legislature averages at least 15,000 introductions per year). But we do hope to see transformative rules changes that make it easier for rank-and-file members to get hearings and votes on bills in committee, that remove hurdles to getting bills passed out of committee to the floor, regardless of leadership disapproval, and that institutionalize conference committees to resolve differences on similar bills.

This is not a partisan issue. We believe it is the duty of both parties to come together to pass these vital reforms to create a more representative and accountable Senate.

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Report Problems at the Polls

While we hope for a smooth Election Day and encourage everyone to get out and vote, we have pointed out the many issues voters may face when they go to the polls today, from electronic voting machine glitches to confusion about ID requirements. If you experience a problem at the polls, we encourage you to fill out the form on the home page of our website http://www.brennancenter.org and tell us about it. This project is led by VoterStory.org in collaboration with the Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation and with support from Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institute.

Make sure to fill out all of the information on the form so that, if necessary, you can be contacted for more information about the problem you experienced. Thanks for helping to make our elections better!

Categories: General, Voting

Be Part of the Discussion!

In honor of Election Day, we've decided to open up our blog for comments. Now that Blogger has a comment moderation feature, any comments made will be reviewed for spam and then will be approved to show up on the blog!

So after you vote today (or if you promise to vote just as soon as you're done), feel free to leave us comments on both future and past posts!

Happy Election Day!

Categories: General

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:

• 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.

The elimination of fusion voting would not be an effective solution to this problem—in effect, it would simply give the major parties a monopoly over patronage. Moreover, eliminating fusion would make it more difficult for third parties to strive and contribute to the political process in the state.

Click here to read our policy paper on fusion voting.

Categories: General, Voting

Spano's Condemnation of Attempted Voter Intimidation

As an update to our post earlier in the week, it appears that we have all gotten on board with the idea that having a police officer show up at your door is pretty intimidating. On Wednesday, Nick Spano wrote to the Westchester County Board of Elections to condemn last-minute challenges to 5,929 registered voters in the 35th Senate District, joining Andrea Stewart Cousins in rejecting the challenge operation. As Senator Spano explained:

While most reasonable people would agree that there are appropriate times for the Board of Elections to review and purge registration lists (such as the removal of deceased individuals), the week or even the months directly before an election is definitely not the appropriate time --- and using the police as a vehicle to facilitate the purge is most definitely not the appropriate mechanism.

We reasonable people wholeheartedly agree. Last-minute mass challenges with the serious potential to intimidate and disenfranchise should be roundly shouted down, across the board. We’re very pleased to see both major parties’ standard-bearers take up that call.

Update: Read Spano's letter to the Westchester Board of Elections.

Categories: General, Voting

Snowbirds Registered in Two Places or Two Distinct Voters?

It’s not every day that we comment on articles in publications a thousand miles away, but maybe the chilly New York morning has us subconsciously longing for more temperate climates. This morning the Palm Beach Post ran a story about an activist searching for double-voting in Palm Beach and New York.

Bill Skinner, the Secretary of the Republican Club of Central Palm Beach, found, as he describes it, 11,609 people who are registered in both Palm Beach County and New York State. The Palm Beach Post correctly pointed out that “being registered in more than one state isn’t illegal, but casting more than one ballot in an election is a felony.” Mr. Skinner says he plans to follow up on his research after Election Day to see if any of those “dual registrants” actually voted in both states.

Two big problems with Mr. Skinner's suspicions: first, as the Post noted, it is very likely that most of the supposed dual registrants had probably just moved to Florida and had forgot to cancel their registrations. (Heck, we're lucky if we remember to forward our mail every time we move.)

Second (not noted in the Post Article): he compiled his list of 11,609 people by matching only first name, last name, and date of birth. It is fairly like that some of the "matches" are actually false positives. For instance, what if there are two women named Susan Jones, one in Palm Beach County and one in New York, who were both born on October 1st, 1964? Thus, the mere fact that a Susan Jones in Palm Beach County and in New York both cast votes is not, in and of itself evidence of voter fraud. Similarly, a search of only first and last names would reveal Susan M. Jones and Susan L. Jones as the same person.

We applaud Mr. Skinner for taking an active interest in the upcoming election, but we hope that he will add more criteria to his post-election analysis before making any accusations of voter fraud.

Update: Also check out our Investigator's Guide to "Voter Fraud."

Categories: General, Voting

Assembly More Transparent with Website

The Assembly has been quite busy posting hearing announcements and press releases on its website. At this point, they have a fairly comprehensive summary of the 2006 legislative session; it is far more impressive than anything they put up in the past. All to the good for New Yorkers (like those who work here) who want to know and understand what the Assembly is doing.

Categories: General

A Hundred Years from Now...

Reverend Scott Thomas waxes nostalgic in a heart warming piece about lever voting machines in this morning’s Buffalo News. We just hope our grandchildren can do the same in a hundred years when electronic voting machines with voter verified paper records(our dream for the near future) are replaced by some new-fangled space-age voting gizmo!

Categories: General, Voting

Intimidated Yet?

There have been a lot of stories lately pushing back against the idea that some public officials and organizations are trying to discourage people from voting in next Tuesday’s election. They argue that voter registration restrictions, for example, and voter ID laws are necessary to counter fraud (even though they can’t prove that widespread fraud exists).

Well, we may not be able to agree on many of the nuances of election administration, but surely we can all get on board with the idea that having a police officer show up at your door is pretty intimidating, right? According to an AP piece that ran in Newsday and the Washington Post yesterday, that’s exactly what may happen to thousands of voters in Westchester County this week.

The hubbub is centered in the 35th Senate District, where incumbent Nick Spano is facing off against Andrea Stewart Cousins, the challenger who came within 18 votes of unseating him in 2004.

Spano’s lawyer John Ciampoli, who fought for a recount in the last election, is leading this year’s vote suppression effort. Ciampoli and others have filed 5,929 challenges “based on change-of-address cards received by the Postal Service.”

To check an address, a first-class letter is sent to each person. If the letters come back undelivered, police are asked to visit the address and see whether the registered voter lives there.

Never mind that the vast majority of challenged voters are registered members of the opposing party. Never mind that most are also minorities. And never mind that basing challenges on undelivered mail is notoriously unreliable. This is just a patriotic push to ensure that our elections are free of fraud.

It couldn’t possibly be a political ploy to win an election by disenfranchising voters, using a tactic that was prohibited by a federal court in 1986.

Categories: General, Voting