ReformNY Gets a Face-Lift

Don't be fooled by the snappy new colors--you're still at ReformNY! The Brennan Center has a new logo, so we thought we'd also roll out an updated template.

Along with the visual changes, our posts will no longer come from the generic BrennanCenter user. You'll be hearing from different staff at the Brennan Center, depending on which issue the post covers. That way, you can direct your questions and comments (which we welcome and encourage!) to the expert on that topic.

We've also updated and expanded our labels so you can focus on topics that interest you.

Let us know what you think!

Senate Should Restore Funds for Project Sunlight and Campaign Finance Staff

We were disappointed but not terribly surprised to find that the Senate’s budget proposal strips out several important provisions to enhance accountability and oversight of candidates for public office. As the Times reports:

The Senate budget also rejects money for 21 new state workers to oversee compliance with campaign finance regulations and cuts financing for Project Sunlight, a plan by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo to build a public database to track the activity of lobbyists, donors, elected officials and special interests.

Enforcement is a crucial part of a healthy campaign finance system. As we concluded in a report last fall, not enough resources and staff are dedicated to investigating campaign finance violations.

We also found that disclosure, which is another important requirement for an effective system, is not very strong in New York. Candidates are not compelled to disclose some key information, such as their accrued expenses or expenditures that are owed but not paid at the time the service is provided. Moreover, despite improvements in 2005, the accessibility of information on the campaign finance remains inadequate. This is exactly the problem that Project Sunlight is designed to fix.

The final budget should restore funds for Project Sunlight and additional campaign finance staff.

Whither Transparency? Some Troubling News

Bill Search No Longer Includes Past Sessions or Voting Records...

In our copioius spare time here at the Brennan Center, we like to head to New York's Legislative Information bill search and reminisce about past unanimous votes and hearings never held. Recently, we've noticed something a little disturbing -- a move (possibly unintentional) away from transparency.

While New York's bill search site has never been as sophisticated as those of some states (see Ohio’s for a good example), the site has provided information like bill status, text, and sponsor’s memos.

However, since the beginning of the new session, the site no longer has information on bills that were introduced in the 2005-06 session. We made a phone call to the Assembly Public Information Office when we first noticed this in January, and after a few transfers, we were told by a man with a very reassuring voice that this phenomenon was temporary and would be resolved within a week or so.

We’re now regretting not getting that guy’s name and number, as many weeks have passed with no change.

A dearth of information from past sessions severely hampers the public’s ability to understand the history of specific pieces of legislation. This issue is brought into sharp relief by the fact that sponsor’s memoranda, which are available on the site for most bills, often refer to “prior legislative history” that is not available to the user. Without access to information from prior sessions, the public has no direct way of understanding how issues and bills have evolved over time.

Also (and perhaps more significantly) the site no longer appears to provide voting information on bills that have been passed (or defeated, though that rarely, if ever, happens in our Legislature). It is obviously very difficult for voters to hold their representatives accountable in the voting booth if they have no ready access to information about their legislators’ actions.

We are preparing a letter that includes this information and we’ll post it once we send it to the Legislature. And we'll be sending it just as soon as we can figure out who to send it to. So far, our attempts at penetrating the bureaucracy to figure out who runs the bill search website have been unsuccessful. Not a great statement about the transparency of a Legislature that claims to be reforming its ways.

Podcasts from Your Legislator?

When we saw in The Villager that Senator Tom Duane, who represents a fair chunk of the West Side, had released a new episode of his podcast on the legislative process, we got excited.

Unfortunately for us, Senator Duane’s monologue was more for the layman than for policy wonks. He spoke for several minutes, periodically interrupted by catchy, upbeat jazz, giving a quick overview of the structure of the legislature and responding to the charge that minority members are ineffective when it comes to legislating. He admitted that it isn’t easy for members of the minority party to get legislation passed with their names on it, but he contends that the most important factor in pushing an issue through the Senate is passion, not party.

We think it’s great to see a politician using new(ish) technology to reach out to New Yorkers who might not be hit by traditional media. The podcast format has the potential to help rank-and-file members of the legislature to participate in a dialogue with their constituents and disseminate information that would not otherwise be available to the public. We hope to see Senator Duane keep it up and others catch on.

Just don't let Senator Kruger catch you crossing the street listening to Senator Duane's podcast!

Election Reform on the Federal and State Levels

Along with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, our own Senator Hillary Clinton introduced an updated version of the Count Every Vote Act yesterday to coincide with the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965, when several hundred civil rights marchers were attacked by police officers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

We think this bill is a good first step toward making sure that all eligible Americans have the opportunity to vote and to have their votes accurately counted.

The CEVA provides a range of improvements to our voter registration system, including:

• Election Day registration and enhanced registration opportunities for newly eligible voters;


• Improved security for electronic voting machines, including accessible voter-verified paper records and audit requirements;


• Requirements for reducing waiting lines at the polls and ensuring equitable allocation of election resources; improvements to provisional balloting;


• Measures to reduce partisanship and conflicts of interest in election administration; and


• Enhancements to poll worker training and civic education.

In state voting news, Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins also used the opportunity of the anniversary of Bloody Sunday to introduce election legislation. As noted by the Newsday blog Spin Cycle, her four bills “would create the misdemeanor crime of voter suppression, increase penalties for violations of the election laws, and make push polling illegal.” They report that Assemblyman George Latimer is expected to introduce the legislation in his chamber.

Reform Road to the White House?

This morning’s Observer featured an article comparing “reform governors” Eliot Spitzer and our neighboring executive, New Jersey Senator-turned-Governor Jon Corzine. Writer Steve Kornacki wastes no time in calling out the possible higher aspirations of both men:

There is an expression—proven throughout American history—that the road to the White House runs not through Congress but through the State House.

That certainly helps explain why Jon Corzine, five years after purchasing a U.S. Senate seat for at least $63 million, happily walked away from the world’s most exclusive club—with a year remaining on his term—to take up residence in Trenton. Or why Eliot Spitzer, the fabled “Sheriff of Wall Street,” has worked to leverage his phenomenally high-profile tenure as New York State Attorney General into a stint as Governor.

Tellingly, neither man has moved to discourage rumors that they may one day run for President. And each sees reforming the culture of state government—in some of the most dysfunctional and hack-ridden circumstances in the country—as his ticket to the national stage.

We find it fascinating that "reform" of dysfunctional state government has become such a high-profile issue that commentators see accomplishments in this area as a potential ticket to the White House.

Brennan Center Federal Election Reform Website Goes Live

A new opportunity to fix our election systems has arrived, and momentum is building in Congress to ensure that all eligible Americans have a fair and equal opportunity to vote and to have their votes counted. As promised last week, the Brennan Center is launching a new website, http://www.federalelectionreform.com, to serve as a resource for election reform efforts at the federal level. The site is centered on a comprehensive agenda for election reform that has been endorsed by 25 organizations. The Brennan Center has also co-authored a policy paper detailing and expanding on this agenda, which we think Congress should use to guide its policy-making decisions.

Keep checking it out, as information, news and analyses of pending legislation, federal hearings and election reform issues will be updated regularly.

More on Judges from the Poughkeepsie Journal

From today's Poughkeepsie Journal:

A decision by the nation's highest court to review New York's faulty system for selecting candidates for state Supreme Court justice means the process will, regrettably, continue for at least one more election. When it rules next fall, the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold the view of two other federal courts that the method of selecting candidates for the state's trial courts is unconstitutional and must be changed.

The state needs a process that ensures only the most qualified candidates can become judges in the state's trial courts and still gives voters a voice in who serves on the bench. Neither of those objectives are guaranteed under the current setup...

Regardless of what the federal court ends up deciding, it's clear the existing method for selecting state Supreme Court judges needs fixing.

Though it’s an uphill battle to get powerbrokers to give up their influence over the judiciary, we urge lawmakers to do away with the corrupt closed conventions and to provide qualified candidates who have the support of their party's rank-and-file with meaningful access to the political process.

Buffalo News on "The Unholy Hybrid"

From the Buffalo News, in a part of the state where it’s a balmy 2 degrees (negative 17 with the wind chill):

The unholy hybrid now used to select New York trial court judges neither respects the merit of the candidates nor listens to the voice of the people. Two levels of the federal judiciary have ruled that the system is unconstitutional. That should have been the end of it...

Judges hold a great deal of power in our society. They should owe their elevation to either their qualifications or their public support, not to the high-placed friends they’ve had to buy for themselves along the way.

We wholeheartedly agree.

...And the Assembly Rules Fight Ends

As promised, we’re back for an update on last night’s Assembly rules resolutions, and as predicted, each one went down to defeat.

For those of you who are interested in the specific language of the proposals, you can use the Bill Search and check out resolutions E228 through E243.

Here are the highlights:

Strengthening the Committee Process

E230 would have made it easier for rank-and-file members to force a hearing on specific legislation, reducing the threshold from a majority to a quarter of the committee.

E234 would have mandated the transcription of committee meetings. More importantly, these transcripts would be made available on the Assembly website.

Easing the Restrictions on Getting Bills to the Floor

E242 would have eased the requirements for getting a bill discharged from committee. It also would have allowed for five (up from one) discharge motions per day and would have required that motions to discharge be handled at least five days before the end of the session.

E243 would have given each member of the Assembly the chance to choose one of his or her bills during each two-year term and have that bill brought to the floor for a vote on its merits.

Institutionalizing Conference Committees

E228 would have actually required the Assembly Committee on Conference Committees, which was created in the last round of reforms in 2005, to meet at least once before the end of the legislative session. The Committee would be charged with evaluating claims by Assembly bill sponsors that the Senate had passed a similar bill. Significantly, the language of this proposal would have forced the Speaker to call for a conference if recommended by the Committee.

Ending Leadership Control over Resources and Staff

E241 would have required that the minority conference receive a share of staff and resources proportionate to their numbers. This would not necessarily prevent the leaders from arbitrarily doling out resources, but it would alleviate the dramatic resource disparity between the conferences. (During the period from October 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, majority Assembly members spent an average of 47% more than minority members.)


We might have written some of these resolutions differently, but they certainly would have been a significant step toward reform in the Assembly. Unfortunately, it seems that the Assembly Majority is not committed to creating a more responsive, deliberative, accessible, accountable, and efficient legislative process. Members may boo when the Assembly is called dysfunctional, but it's hard to see how the epithet isn't still deserved.

Assembly Rules Fight Begins

The theme of the day at ReformNY appears to be legislative rules. We have just learned that the Assembly Republicans are introducing a series of legislative rules changes on the floor this afternoon. We have not seen the latest version of their proposals, but the fact that they have brought them indicates to us that their attempts at working with the Assembly Democrats to reform the rules have failed. Given what we know about the Assembly, this also means it is certain that all of the Republicans' proposals will fail.

Majority Leader Canestrari has apparently promised (on the floor) that the majority will announce its own proposals for rules reform shortly. We look forward to seeing them. In the meantime, if the Assembly is serious about rules reform, here's what needs to get done:

Strenghten the standing committees, so rank and file members can force a hearing or vote over the objections of the committee chair;

end leadership's stranglehold over what bills get to the floor;

institutionalize conference committees; and

limit leadership control over resources and staff (which includes mandating greater equity in distribution of those resources).

We're not holding our breath, but we'll keep watching and keep you posted.

Update: Capitol Confidential has the Minority Leader's press release that outlines the proposed changes. It looks like a similar list to what was unveiled a couple of weeks ago. The Brennan Center expressed support for a number of these changes -- including a reallocation of resources and institutionalizing conference committees. The devil is in the details, of course, and we have not seen the final language of any of these proposals.

Poor Process, Part Two

This morning’s New York Times featured an op-ed by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky of Westchester. Brodsky argued:

In fact, the Legislature’s record is a good one. A lot depends on how you measure success. A successful legislature will do three things well: pass laws; provide ordinary people access to power and enable them to influence decisions; and, most important, check abuse of executive power.

By those standards, New York’s Legislature is doing well.

While we agree that the Legislature appears to be improving on the first and last of Brodsky’s measures, the middle one, providing access to the public and rank-and-file members, needs some serious work.

As we wrote earlier today, most of the progress that has been made during Eliot Spitzer’s short term as governor has come at the expense of public input -- with deals brokered behind closed doors without hearings and public comment.

We agree with Assemblyman Brodsky that New Yorkers do have access to their legislators in Albany and their home districts, but under the current rules, this access is all but worthless unless you happen to live in the district of a chamber leader or committee chair. Rank-and-file members have very little power to influence policy in the face of leadership opposition. Our research shows that in 2005 (the last year for which complete stats are available), there were almost no hearings held on major legislation that actually became law; there was substantive debate on fewer than 5% of major bills that became law; fewer than 10% of bills introduced were actually passed into law; and neither house voted down a single bill that was subject to a floor vote. At the very least, this casts some doubt on Assemblyman Brodsky's contention that the legislature is "doing well."

The fact is that process matters. The rules matter. A legislative process that is truly open to public comment and rank-and file member input will create superior public policy. It’s time for the Legislature to adopt truly transformative changes to its operating rules.

Real Progress but Poor Process

In yesterday’s Elmira Star-Gazette, Jay Gallagher reminded us not to be dazzled by the recent bargains that have been struck between Governor Spitzer and legislative leaders:

One thing that hasn't changed, though: All of these deals were negotiated behind closed doors, and lawmakers have no intention of holding hearings on the bills to hear what the public thinks.

When asked about the public being shut out, lawmakers cite the fact that all of these issues have been aired for years around the state, and therefore the public has already had its say.

But they never have had a chance to comment on specific ethics, workers' compensation and sex offender bills that are likely to become law.

And they won't this year, either.

We echo Jay’s sentiment. While we applaud the considerable progress that has been made toward solving some of New York’s most pressing problems, we urge our political leaders to put the breaks on long enough to listen to rank-and-file legislators and their constituents.

Real democracy can be messy. Hearings, debate and public participation may mean deals are amended and legislation altered. But ultimately, we believe, this is for the good. It will make for better legislation and solutions, and ensure that the public and rank-and-file legislators are invested in those solutions (and maybe even come up with a few on their own).

Hearings and public input are crucial elements of responsible government that should not be subject, as they currently are, to the whim of chamber leaders and committee chairs.

An Opportunity for Hillary and the Rest of the '08 Field

Yesterday, the Federal Election Commission ruled that candidates who initially opt out of the presidential public financing system for the general election may opt back in if they return the private money they have raised.

As the Washington Post reports:

Until now, candidates believed that once they started to raise a separate pool of money for the general election, they were committing to running without federal matching funds.

The FEC agreed, however, with Obama's contention that rules prohibiting him from "accepting" donations for a general election run, would not prohibit him from "receiving" those contributions, so long as he held them in a separate account, and if he were to decide to take public funds, simply return the money.

This ruling came at the request of Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who has indicated that he would be open to receiving public funds and abiding by the spending limits for the general election if his opponent agreed to do the same. Normally, an agreement of this nature might seem like a pipedream, but the New York Times reported today that Arizona Senator John McCain, who has long championed campaign finance reform, will participate in the system for the general election if his opponent does.

At least for the primary election, the leading candidates are eschewing the system, which (we believe) needs serious updating.

Still, the ruling gives us hope that public financing at the federal level is not dead. We encourage our own junior Senator and the rest of the ’08 candidates to consider a deal to work within the presidential public financing system for the general election. Moreover, we hope to see the candidates come out in support of reforming the system to make it viable in today’s electoral climate.

ReformUSA

Tonight, as part of its ongoing series of public conversations here in New York, the Brennan Center will host "Reforming and Renewing American Government," featuring:

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, House Subcommittee on the Constitution & Civil Liberties
Joe Conason, Author, It Can Happen Here
Adam Cohen, Editorial Board, The New York Times
Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor, The Nation

The conversation will begin at 6:30 at NYU Law School. It will be moderated by the Brennan Center's Director of Public Initiatives, Kirsten Livingston. Space is limited -- if you'd like to attend, call 212-998-6735 to reserve a seat.

Raft of Bills Voted Out of Assembly's Election Law Committee

Assembly Committee Reports Voting Rights Notification and Restoration Act

The Assembly’s Election Law Committee had a busy day yesterday, reporting out several bills, including A510, A554, A641, A1539, A1540, and A5432. In the coming days we will provide commentary on several of these.

Today, our first stop is Assemblyman Keith Wright’s Voting Rights Notification and Restoration Act. The bill would notify people with felony convictions of their rights, facilitate voter registration, and improve communication between corrections and elections officials.

What exactly are the rights of people with felony convictions, you may ask? Unfortunately, this is a question that many people with felony convictions and even election officials, charged with enforcing the law, have struggled with. (Check out a study by the Sentencing Project about the perceptions of people with felony convictions of disenfranchisement policy.)

During imprisonment and parole, New Yorkers with felony convictions are not allowed to vote. However, upon completion of their prison term and parole, their voting rights are automatically restored.

As a fairly recent survey by the Brennan Center and Demos showed, there is widespread confusion about the law and how it should be properly implemented. By law, former offenders should be registered by elections officials in the same manner as everyone else, but the survey found that nearly one-third of all counties illegally required documentation before registering eligible voters with felony convictions; moreover, many illegally refused to register individuals on probation. (Check out our report on the findings of the survey.) We are happy to report, though, that elections officials have recognized this problem and are working to fix it.

Assemblyman Wright’s bill, which he has reintroduced in this session (A554), would further alleviate the confusion and misinformation surrounding this issue. Yesterday, Wright’s Election Law Committee reported the bill, which was then referred to the Ways and Means Committee.

We're glad to see this bill make it out of the Election Law Committee, and encourage the Assembly to once again pass this important legislation. We hope to see similar movement in the Senate.

Read more about the restoring voting rights to people with criminal convictions.

Also, be on the lookout for the launch of another Brennan Center page, which will feature our perspective on federal election law.

Justice Brennan Might Praise this Melting Pot as Well

Like the Constitution, the Guinness Book of World Records is a living, breathing document...

As many people do with items that interest them, we have set up Google Alerts to let us know when the Brennan Center is mentioned in news articles. And from time to time, we get e-mails about things that come up in a search that have nothing to do with the Brennan Center.

We think today's mistaken hit takes the cake. Or rather, the bread dipped in cheese.

Chef Terrance Brennan was in Rockefeller Center this morning with the Today Show crew creating, you guessed it (or not), the largest ever fondue. The fondue weighed in at 2,100 pounds, qualifying it for the Guinness World Record.

And here's a photo of Al Roker sampling the humungous vat of cheese.

Buzz from New York Heard on the Bayou

The Bayou Buzz, coming at you from way down in Louisiana, reminded us that the first part of Governor Spitzer’s Executive Order 3 is coming into effect tomorrow.

Executive Order 3 stipulates that by March 1st all agencies and public authorities have to submit to the Governor a list of all of their meetings that are covered under the Open Meetings Law. Along with the list, they must come up with a plan for making broadcasts of those meetings available on the internet. Unless an exemption is granted, all meetings are required to be broadcast on the internet by July 1st.

Finally, to add a little accountability to the mix (rare for Albany, we know), the agencies and authorities will have to submit records by December 31st of the meetings they broadcast and include any public comments and any recommendations for improvement to the program.

We’ll definitely keep our eyes peeled for movement on this. Get it right, and maybe we’ll be the envy of the whole country, not just Louisiana.

A new era of ethical conduct in the Comptroller's Office?

We are pleased to hear, via the New York Post, that Tom DiNapoli is instituting new ethics rules in the Comptroller's office. According to the Post:

DiNapoli's order bans his employees from making personal use of state phones and computers except under narrowly defined circumstances, bars the acceptance of gifts or gratuities, and prevents employees from making campaign contributions to his campaign committee.

Of course, these are positive steps from an office that has recently experienced scandal; we hope that all government offices take a lesson and implement stronger ethics rules.

Check out our report on ethics in New York and our model ethics bill.

Hooray for...Albany?

The lights in Hollywood shine a little bit brighter on Oscar night, but who knew how much light they would cast on New York? Notwithstanding NY native Martin Scorcese’s victories for Best Picture and Best Director, several parallels can be drawn between the Academy Awards and New York’s political process. The state legislature, like the Academy, has voting practices viewed by outsiders as mysterious, if not secretive. Reform efforts have been ushered stage-right like an Oscar winner who’s thanked a few too many people in a rambling speech. And the incumbency advantage of elected officials combined with their control of redistricting ensures that, like the awards show, that though the outfits change in the legislature, the people wearing them rarely do.

Eileen Markey’s article in City Limits alludes to another parallel. The majority of our state's prisoners come from downstate (New York City), but virtually all the state's prisons are upstate. More importantly, those prisoners are counted as "residents" of upstate towns in the decennial census, but they are unable to vote. Thus, for the purposes of reapportionment and redistricting in NY, prisoners are like seat fillers at the Oscars: they give districts the appearance of being full, but they have absolutely no clout.

This practice has meaningful economic and political consequences. The resources diverted to districts upstate do little to aid prisoners, while the actual residents get a disproportionately large slice of the pie. In turn, less money is directed to downstate districts that already lack resources and support returning prisoners upon their release. Politically, this method has favored Republicans, who are heavily concentrated upstate. By allocating prisoners up north, redistricters respecting one-person/one-vote doctrine must create more districts upstate; these puffed-up districts have tended to elect GOP candidates.

There are simple ways to change New York’s method of counting prisoners. Some states simply do not count prisoners when redistricting. Others, including Sen. Eric Schneiderman have proposed creating a database with the last known addresses of prisoners, and counting them there. Either proposal would bring more fairness to the system and help end the current practice in NY which heaps insult onto injury: not only are prisoners being used for partisan gain, but their home districts suffer as well. Or, put another way, not only are they little more than nominees with no chance at a statue, they're left without the coveted swag too.

More thoughts on Lopez Torres

From today’s Daily News:
New York's notoriously rigged, boss-driven system for electing judges must go.

From today’s Legislative Gazette:
“Whoever the delegates appoint as the Supreme Court candidates is who will run in November,” said Chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, Sen. John DeFrancisco, R,I,C,WF-Syracuse. He said the process is unconstitutional because it prevents anyone but the convention-nominated candidate from running.

From Saturday’s Times Union:
It's difficult to fathom how the high court could fault Judge Gleeson's logic, or the patent disenfranchisement of New York voters by party leaders.


The Brennan Center represents the plaintiffs in Lopez Torres v. New York State Board of Elections, and you can check out opinions and court filings on our website.

More News on Campaign Finance

Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a story on one of the many open secrets relating to New York's atrociously weak campaign finance laws: even after they have retired, politicians legally use campaign finance funds for personal matters (and what under any reasonable, non-legal interpretation would have to be termed "personal use.") Key quote:

New York’s campaign finance laws have been widely criticized by public interest groups as being riddled with loopholes that permit excessive contributions from special interests and inappropriate expenses by candidates. Over the years, the Board of Elections has lent its approval to candidates who wanted to spend money on car payments and repairs, baby-sitting expenses and luxury gifts, provided such expenses were somehow connected to political activities.

And what were the expenses "connected" to political activities incurred by these retired politicians? Dinners, wine, salaries to spouses, cell phone bills and car payments, among other things.

In other, somewhat related news, Capitol Confidential reports that five junior Assemblymembers -- Hakeem Jeffries and Karim Camara, of Brooklyn; Michele Titus, of Queens; Linda Rosenthal and Brian Kavanagh, of Manhattan -- have agreed to some self-imposed campaign finance restrictions:

The five will voluntarily restrict fundraising activities in the Albany area while the Legislaure is in session, prohibit contributions from employees of organizations that receive member items, ban the receipt of “soft money” cash and decline donations from Assembly employees.

It's a good start. Might we also suggest a restriction on the kind of personal use of campaign finance funds detailed in the New York Times on Saturday, which has also left the public deeply cynical about whose interest politicians in New York are really looking out for? And while we're at it, whither the other 145 members of the Assembly (or 62 members of the Senate)?

An Excellent Choice for Project Sunlight

From the Times Union's Capitol Confidential, we learn that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has selected Blair Horner of NYPIRG to head up his "Project Sunlight," which the Times Union describes as "a comprehensive Internet database for public information on elected officials, lobbyists, special interests, state contracts, political donors and the links between them. "

We at the Brennan Center cannot hide our disappointment at losing a crucial ally in our work to reform New York from the "outside". But given his accomplishments at NYPIRG, we have little doubt that within months New York will have one of the best campaign finance databases in the country. And that will certainly represent an important step for reform in New York.

Newsday: We still need reform of judicial elections

This morning’s Newsday has a great editorial explaining the undemocratic nature of New York’s judicial conventions and encouraging state officials to support reform of the system no matter what happens in the U.S. Supreme Court this fall.

Here’s a peek:

So despite the trappings of elections, party bosses control the process from top to bottom. They effectively choose the largely anonymous delegates, who are rubber stamped by voters. The delegates then rubber stamp the bosses' preferred candidates, ensuring them a place on the ballot. And in jurisdictions dominated by one party, those candidates often run unopposed.

That's tantamount to appointment, but by unelected, unaccountable party bosses.

If New York wants to continue electing State Supreme Court justices, officials should provide some realistic route onto the ballot for qualified candidates not favored by a political party. Albany should make sure that happens, regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rules.

Initiative

(Second in a three part series)

On Friday, we posted an explanation of the recall process in response to a letter to the editor in the Times Union. Since recall is often thought of as part of the “Initiative-Referendum-Recall” triumvirate, we thought we’d shed a little more light on the rest of the Progressive Era gang.

The definition of the term "initiative" in the government context has a lot to do with its common definition: citizens take the initiative to collect signatures in support of forcing a vote on a law or constitutional amendment. Direct initiative measures are voted on directly by the voters, while indirect initiative measures are sent to the legislature and only submitted to the voters if the legislature fails to act. Twenty four states have initiative procedures.

As the National Conference of State Legislatures notes, the constraints on initiatives differ from state to state. Most states require review of the proposed petition before it is circulated for signing. Also, most states limit each initiative to one question or issue.

One interesting take on the initiative is a law that was considered (but ultimately died) in the New Jersey Legislature. A concurrent resolution in the 2001-02 legislative session sought to gives citizens a sort of limited initiative power: they would be allowed to put questions before the people that had to do with government reform. As we wrote in an analysis of this proposal, "The New Jersey model would empower citizens with the right of direct legislation in policy arenas of great importance to the public, while keeping some of the perceived excesses of the initiative process in check."

Certainly an interesting idea for New York.

Check out this nifty slide show about initiative (and our next topic, referendum).

Cert Granted in Lopez Torres

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in the Lopez Torres litigation that lawyers from the Brennan Center argued, along with pro bono counsel Arnold & Porter and Jenner & Block. This means that the Court will hear the case.

Senior counsel for the Brennan Center Fritz Schwarz had this to say:

Two federal courts, including a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have said that New York’s corrupt conventions violate the First Amendment. New York’s Constitution is clear in its requirement that voters – not unelected political party bosses – select nominees for the Supreme Court bench. We look forward to the Supreme Court hearing on this case, and hope that the Court will uphold the lower court rulings and end forever New York’s sham party boss system.

In August, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the convention system used by political parties in New York to select judicial nominees deprives New Yorkers of their right to cast a meaningful vote for trial court judges.

Five More Chances To Push Reform?

As the Albany Project notes there are potentially five special elections coming up in the Assembly in May of this year:

AD16: Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli (D) was just chosen by his colleagues to become the next state comptroller in the wake of Alan Hevesi's resignation.

AD61: Sadly, John Lavelle (D) passed away last month. He was only 57.

AD62: Vincent Ignizio (R) is running in a special election for New York City Council. If he wins, a special election will be necessary in this district. Notably, Ignizio is the only Republican Assemblymember in the city.

AD65: Spitzer has tapped Alexander "Pete" Grannis (D) (who happens to be my Assemblyman) to run the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

AD105: Paul Tonko (D) will reportedly leave to head up the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Together, these races have the potential to represent an early-in-the-session referendum on the Legislature's performance. Will New Yorkers use these elections to remind our legislature that we are looking for far more ambitious reform than we have yet seen? We can certainly hope so.

Your questions answered: Recall

First in a three-part series

To our delight, we found an opportunity this morning to act as a sort of political “Dear Abby” for inquisitive New Yorkers. In a letter to the editor of the Times Union, Steven Flax of Albany laments the process by which the Legislature chose a new Comptroller. At the end of his letter, he asks, “Is there some way the governor and the public together can hold a recall election and vote them all out of office?”

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term, recall is the process by which citizens can remove an elected official from office and replace him or her before the end of the term of office. Recall (pun definitely intended) how California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger came to office: he was chosen by California voters in a special election after the recall of former Governor Gray Davis in 2003.

To answer your question, Steven, New York is not among the eighteen states that allow the recall of elected officials. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin (along with the District of Columbia) all have recall provisions. Sources place the number of states that allow recall elections in local jurisdictions between 29 and 36.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 1903, Los Angeles became the first municipality to recall an official, while Michigan and Oregon, in 1908, became the first states to adopt recall provisions for state officials.

The NCSL notes, however, that the recall has been rather unsuccessful on the state level. Before the recall of Gray Davis, the governor of North Dakota in 1921 was the only governor to be ousted using this device. Similarly, only a handful of state legislators have ever been recalled.

Where New York Ranks First

The Times Union rightly rails against New York State's ever increasing maximum campaign contribution limits. Money quote:

Only in New York. Only in a state that makes an utter mockery of campaign finance laws, with the highest maximum contribution limits of any state that bothers to have them, would the high-rolling special interests and other deep-pocketed donors be further enabled while the genuinely needy get no additional help at all.

The maximum donations -- previously $50,100 for contributions made directly to candidates for statewide office, and $84,000 to political parties -- are going up.

Why? Because state law stipulates as much, as an adjustment for inflation.

Indeed, this is just one of the many troubling aspects of a campaign finance system that pretends to address the undue influence of money in politics, but is in reality a sham. It is, unfortunately, one area where we can say unequivocally that nobody does it better.

For an empirical analysis of how New York's campaign finance laws are either the worst or very close to the worst in the country in several key areas, look here.

Snow Day Poll

While we're out shoveling the snow on Sixth Avenue, we thought it would be worthwhile to ask, which of the Brennan Center's New York Reform issues is most important to you?

Which New York Reform Issue Is Most Important to You?
	Legislative Rules
	Campaign Finance Reform
	Redistricting
	Government Ethics
	Judicial Selection
	Voting Rights and Voting Machines
pollcode.com free polls

Praise for Assembly Republicans

It has long been clear that the New York State legislature badly needs reform. Today the Assembly Republicans proposed changes to the Assembly's operating rules. Some of these proposals would significantly increase the transparency and accountability of the legislature, as well as strengthen the role of rank and file members of both parties.

In particular, the Brennan Center applauds the proposals to (1) allow prime sponsors of bills passed in the Assembly to call for conference committees and (2) provide equal funding for the operating costs and staff of member's individual offices, regardless of the member's party affiliation or seniority.

In October 2006 the Brennan Center issued Unfinished Business: New York State Legislative Reform, which noted that although the Assembly made some important positive changes to its operating rules since 2004, the Legislative process in both the Senate and Assembly remains broken. The Brennan Center called for:

(1) A strengthened committee process;
(2) Ending the stranglehold that leadership has over getting bills to the floor;
(3) Institutionalizing of Conference Committees; and
(4) Fairness in allocation of resources and staff.

The Brennan Center supports proposals that would create a more deliberative, transparent and dynamic legislative chamber. If enacted, several of today's proposals would represent important steps in that direction.

Bringing legislators and their constituents together

When we advocated for reform of the rules of the Senate and Assembly that would require representatives to actually attend committee meetings and be in their seats for floor votes, members balked. They complained that being forced to be physically present for meetings and votes would prevent them from meeting with constituents to hear their concerns.

One of our responses to this objection was that both chambers should reduce the number and size of their committees. Members would not only have more time for their constituents, but they would also have the chance to develop a depth of knowledge about committee business, instead of just skimming the surface.

An article in Saturday’s Newsday reminded us of another reform that would allow members more time to spend with their constituents: public financing of campaigns.

As Newsday writes:

Beyond reducing the influence of special interests, this system could give a real shot at election to candidates who can’t run under the current dialing-for-dollars system, and it could let incumbents spend more time with constituents, instead of begging endlessly for contributions.

We think if legislators truly want to free up time to hear from the people of New York, they should follow Governor Spitzer’s lead and support public financing.

Categories: General, Campaign Finance, Legislative Rules

The power of incumbency

Tuesday’s State Senate election was billed as a test of Eliot Spitzer’s political strength, but the more powerful message reiterated was the power of incumbency (albeit without an incumbent present).

According to unofficial returns, Craig Johnson (D) leads Maureen O’Connell (R), 53-46%. While Long Island has long been a Republican Party stronghold, the 7th Senate district is the only district on Long Island in which Democrats outnumber Republicans. Currently, there are roughly 78,000 Democrats and about 72,000 Republicans in the district, with another 56,700 or so registered with third-parties or unaffiliated with any political party.

The precise effect of partisan and swing voters on the election is unclear, but it seems that many voters voted differently this week than they did just three months ago. Last November, Michael Balboni (who vacated his seat to become chief of Homeland Security for NY) won reelection by more than 15% of the vote. However, his victory bucked underlying voting trends in his district. His district is the most Democratic-leaning in a county that Governor Spitzer carried by a 2-to-1 margin, and Gore carried the 7th District by 20 points in 2000.

Political analysts have noted that Balboni’s seat was a personality seat, meaning his support was based less on partisanship than interpersonal factors. Mr. Balboni is hardly alone in this respect. Several downstate Republicans are currently seated in districts that tend to strongly support Democratic candidates in other elections. Indeed, the number of registered Democrats is double the number of registered Republicans in two Queens Senate districts, but both elected Republicans in 2006 (one candidate even ran unopposed!). Not surprisingly, both of these GOP Senators have tenures spanning at least three decades, and have been able to stave off defeat (and in some cases, competition) by turning their districts into “personality seats”.

In short, incumbency matters a great deal, and the advantage incumbency affords make it difficult to determine the partisan leanings or competitiveness in a district. And so it's interesting to see what happens when a seat appearing to be a partisan lock (due to incumbency) becomes open: a close race between two quality candidates in a district that's suddenly up for grabs.

Categories: General

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

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

Largest campaign price tag in history

According to this morning’s New York Times, the candidates and party committees in the campaign for the Senate 7th have spent more than $5 million during the month-long campaign, breaking New York’s record for state legislative races.

By our calculations, that shakes out to about a dollar per registered voter per day, much of which has flowed into the campaigns through the porous holes in New York's campaign finance laws. For instance, individuals contributing directly to the candidates are limited to $13,900, yet those same individuals can give over $84,000 per year to parties, which in turn can funnel that money in unlimited amounts straight to campaign coffers.

We hate to sound redundant, but isn’t it about time for meaningful campaign finance reform?

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

Nassau Commissioners: Protect voters' rights in tomorrow's election

Saturday’s New York Times reported on some disturbing developments related to tomorrow’s special State Senate selection in Nassau County. Among them was a state party chair expressing the intent to direct his poll watchers to challenge voters without identification documents. Or, in his own words:

Our poll watchers and election inspectors will challenge people to show some kind of identification as to who they are…They have a right to ask for identification to make sure you are John Smith.

Except that, actually, they don’t.

In New York, it’s simply not the case that every voter has to show an identification document before they vote on the machines. Some do, yes – but only new registrants whose information hasn’t been successfully matched against information in another government source, like the motor vehicles database. Your grandmother, who has been voting for the last 60 years, doesn’t have to suddenly pony up a passport.

Along with several prominent non-profits in New York, we are sending a letter to the Commissioners of the Nassau County Board of Elections explaining that neither poll watchers nor election inspectors have the right to force Grandma to produce a magic document that she very well might not possess. If, and only if, a poll watcher knows or suspects that she is not entitled to vote in her district – which has nothing to do with whether she has shown ID or not – the watcher can institute a challenge. And according to the law, if after answering questions put to her by the election officials, your grandmother looks the official in the eye and swears an oath that she’s eligible to vote (and acknowledging the criminal penalties for voter fraud), she can vote. Simple as that.

It’s a shame when elections take place under the cloud of threatened sweeping challenges to voters’ eligibility. Last November, when such a spectre arose in Westchester County, candidates of both major parties recognized the harm, and issued clear public statements condemning the contemplated challenges.

Let’s hope that the voters of Nassau earn at least that much respect from those who want to earn their votes.

Categories: General, Voting

In defense of publicly financed presidential campaigns

We find the editorial in this morning’s New York Sun about the presidential public financing system to be severely misguided. The Sun argues, like Senator Mitch McConnell in the New York Times several weeks ago, that the low incidence of taxpayers choosing to contribute to the program is evidence that the public believes the system should be abolished:

We have a theory as to why this is so. It's because American voters are nothing if not smart...Every taxpayer has had a chance to check this box...It's right there prominently on the tax form...The vast majority of American taxpayers just don't want anything to do with the idea of public funding of campaigns.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that many polls actually show public financing to be popular with voters across party lines, we take issue with the assumption that the unpopularity of the current system is evidence that voters are against it.

The Brennan Center commissioned a study last year to test why taxpayers do or do not check off the election fund box. It turns out that two-thirds of those polled lacked basic knowledge about the fund.

This phenomenon isn’t hard to explain. The fund was established after Watergate, which means that many taxpayers were born after its implementation. Moreover, the last major public education effort on the fund was in 1993. One of our bloggers, born in 1984, missed this education campaign because she was a third grader distracted by Clifford books and spelling bees.

The point is that taxpayers who lack familiarity with the fund are less inclined to participate. This lack of participation, though, cannot be used as evidence that people fundamentally disagree with the aim of the system.

Voters are sick of the influence of money in politics. An education campaign explaining how public financing puts political power back into the hands of ordinary voters would dramatically raise taxpayer participation.

We recognize that the current system has become outdated, but this does not mean that it should be dismantled. Indeed, public financing should be revived, revamped, and widely publicized to make it a viable alternative to today's special interest-saturated elections.

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

What we have in common with Bill Murray

We're feeling a little bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. In the movie, weatherman Phil Connors is sent to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania to cover the ceremonial emergence of the groundhog who shares his first name. To his horror, Phil discovers that each day after that dawns not anew but as that same Groundhog Day.


For us, the nightmare is waking up every day and reading about the same people doing the same thing: New York politicians, with their nearly 100% reelection rates and few viable challengers, legally raising astronomical amounts of campaign cash that, after the election, they can use for things clearly unrelated to campaigning.

Next week we’ll get a fresh reminder of this constant fundraising; a law passed in 1995 is set to cause contribution limits, already sky-high, to escalate even further. Every four years (this is the third iteration), the limits are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index, which has risen almost 12% since the last adjustment in 2002.

The resulting change in the New York contribution limit for individuals giving to gubernatorial candidates, shaking out to around $4,000, will actually be larger than the entire allowable contribution in 21 states.

In the words of Phil/Bill: “There is no way this winter is ever going to end as long as that groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't see any way out of it. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.”

We echo the sentiment and vow to keep pushing for more reasonable contribution limits and other critical campaign finance reform.

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

Andrew Cuomo on "Project Sunlight"

It appears that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s "Project Sunlight” has the potential to be just as revealing as some of the outfits on "Project Runway". The proposal, which Governor Spitzer’s budget proposes to fund, would collect and consolidate important government data on one website. The AG’s Public Integrity Bureau would use the site to reveal information about "legislative activity, campaign finance, lobbying, state contracts, and corporations."

Cuomo said in a statement yesterday:

The web site will be searchable, easy-to-use, and allow for cross-referencing of the data. Our current disclosure system is balkanized and unconnected. The state now provides scattered “dots” of information. We will connect those dots to show the full picture. In fact, not only will we bring together this disparate information – we will improve it. In so doing we will increase trust and accountability, and empower citizen activists, journalists, bloggers, and public interest groups to monitor government.

Being bloggers from a public interest group, we tip our hats to Cuomo for taking steps toward making government disclosure not only more complete but more accessible. We look forward to trying out the website as soon as it comes online!

Categories: General

New York, the EAC and CIBER

For those of you that haven't seen it, the Election Assistance Commission (the federal agency that sets guidelines for voting machines) finally released at least some of its papers relating to CIBER, the independent testing authority hired by New York to certify its new electronic voting machines. The most disturbing sentence that comes up over and over in these reviews of CIBER is "CIBER has not shown the resources to provide a reliable product."

Joe Hall at UC Berkeley has estimated that CIBER qualified the voting systems used by 68.5% of registered voters (67.9% of precincts) in the 2006 election. To which, all we can say is yikes!

Meanwhile, Frank Lombardi in the Daily News reports that the recent revelations about CIBER's problems may force New York to cancel its contract with the testing authority:

A showdown with ... Ciber Inc., could come as early as Tuesday in Albany at a meeting of the state Board of Elections.

If Ciber's contract is canceled, the state's certification process would face even more delays, leaving the state's counties and New York City up in the air about what machines they could buy.

Truly a mess.

'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