Seminerio Makes the Case for Legislative Rules Reform

The Observer quotes Assemblyman Seminerio on the budget process:

“Eliot may wish he had another way, but there’s only one way the budget is ever going to get done, son,” said Mr. Seminerio, sitting by himself in the Assembly chambers Saturday night, hours before the budget deadline. “It’s three people, each getting a piece of the pie, and that’s it.”

He goes on to say: “The only thing that ever changes in Albany are the faces. The system stays intact.”

What is the most powerful argument for reforming the Legislature's rules to require transparency and greater power for rank and file members? We think Assemblyman Seminerio just made it.

In Case You Weren’t Sufficiently Disappointed With the Budget Process...

It seems that the public will have to wait a little longer to find out how their tax dollars have been allocated for member items, despite the promises of greater transparency made by lawmakers last year.

This budget did mark the first time that these grants have been “lined out” in the budget--previous budgets have simply earmarked lump sums of millions of dollars that were then doled out like candy by the governor and legislative leaders.

But the Sun and the Daily News report that the member items are split up among the overseeing agencies, not compiled in a neat list, and are scattered among the thousands of pages of the budget. More importantly, the names of the requesting members are not included with the items.

It also appears that lawmakers are not in a hurry to fill in the budget information gaps. According to the Sun, Majority Leader Bruno has only promised to release the master member item list prior to the money being spent, while Assembly leaders are apparently still putting their list together.

We were frankly dismayed by Assembly Majority Leader Canestrari’s reaction to questions about transparency. The Sun writes:

But a top lieutenant to Silver, Assembly Majority Leader Ron Canestrari (D-Cohoes), argued that the lack of information about the purpose of the funding and the name of the grant sponsor was not significant.

The purpose of the grant is often "self-evident," he said. "If it says it's for a Little League, it's going to be used for Little League. If anyone has a question, they can call us and we will give them the information."

We think he's missing the point. New York taxpayers deserve to know which members are spending their money, where it's going, and, most importantly, what worthy (or unworthy) purpose the money will serve. If the project is worth funding, why would any grant sponsor feel differently?

Will Conservatives Get Behind Restoration of Voting Rights?

The Brennan Center's James Sample makes the case.

How to Not Win the NCAA Tournament Office Pool

It turns out that there is no correlation between the quality of a state’s campaign finance disclosure laws and its basketball teams in the NCAA Tournament.

Knowing nothing about college basketball, I was looking for a quick and painless way to fill out my bracket. So I turned to the good people at the Campaign Disclosure Project who graded each state based on criteria like their electronic filing system, content accessibility, usability, detail requirements, and filing schedules. I picked teams from states with comprehensive disclosure laws over those with weak ones.

I probably should given up when I realized that this method would result in the first round elimination of North Carolina (#1 in the East but a D+ on disclosure) by Eastern Kentucky (#16 and a C+ on the disclosure scale). I managed to get B+ rated Florida to the Final Four, but otherwise, it was a massacre.

In case you’re looking for the New York hook, one of my few successful picks was Virginia (rated a B) over Albany (D+) in the first round. Unfortunately, California’s B+ led me to bank on underdog Long Beach State making an appearance in the Elite Eight, knocking out Virginia in second round.

The silver lining is that campaign finance disclosure does trump partisanship, at least in this respect. My colleague who filled out her bracket by favoring blue states over red states ended up even closer to the bottom of the pile.

Daily Gotham Readers Weigh In on the Top New York Political Issue

The Daily Gotham reported today on a poll it took over the last month, asking its readers to respond to the question, “What’s your top New York political issue in 2007?”

We were gratified to see that the plurality of votes, 47%, went to “legislative dysfunction, Brennan Center reforms.” Two of our other top issues, election reform and campaign finance reform, came in second with 14%.

The DG characterized their findings:

The results show an interesting divergence between what our readers want and what most New York blogs seem to be writing about. Nobody cares about the Presidential race...as much as about the need to reform Albany.

While we do find presidential politics fascinating, we at ReformNY will continue to keep you up to date on the issues closest to our hearts: legislative reform, voting, campaign finance reform, redistricting, and judicial selection!

Reform NY Day 2007

Are you steamed about the return to the three-men-in-a-room budget process this cycle?

Do gerrymandered districts make your blood boil?

Are you sick of rank-and-file legislators acting as rubber stamps for leadership priorities?

Do you yearn for elections that reflect the will of the people, not big-money special interests?

Then join us in Albany on Monday, April 23rd for Reform NY Day 2007! The Brennan Center is partnering with Common Cause NY and other reform groups and activists from around the state to rally public pressure to support crucial reforms to campaign finance, redistricting, and legislative rules & government transparency. Busses will be leaving for Albany from New York City, Westchester, Rochester, and Syracuse, so register to attend today!

If you can’t make it to the event, you can still show your support for these important reforms by signing the petition.

Check back here for more updates as we get closer to the event, and use the comment function if you have questions or need more information.

Sausage-Making May Be an Unsavory Spectator Sport, but Voters Deserve a Chance to See It

The AP reports that Governor Spitzer and legislative leaders, “after six hours of closed-door meetings,” have emerged with a deal that they hope will result in the third on-time budget in a row.

So what’s wrong with an on-time budget?

Governor Spitzer is right that we should expect our leaders to produce a budget by the April 1st deadline, but we don’t agree that transparency of the budget process should be sacrificed to timeliness. Our leaders should also show that they are committed to opening the process to public scrutiny. After all, while important, the novelty of on-time budgets has worn off to some degree--before reform fever hit Albany in full force this year, Governor Pataki and legislative leaders had managed to usher two budgets in a row to the finish line on time.

Unfortunately, this budget cycle seems to have been more about securing the outcome by the deadline, no matter how rushed, secretive, and possibly unrepresentative of the people’s will, than it was about employing an open, accountable process.

We were encouraged, though, to see that a few rank-and-file members have tried, however unsuccessfully, to assert themselves as representatives of their constituents and not rubber stamps for party leadership. The Journal News notes that Assembly members Sandy Galef and Greg Ball have been making noise during the budget process. Galef tried to push one of the budget conference committees, normally “window dressing,” to take real action. Ball has repeatedly denounced the lack of member and public participation in the budget process, dubbing himself “Albany’s loudest advocate for reform.”

We applaud Assembly members Galef, Ball, and other rank-and-file lawmakers for attempting meaningful participation in the process. To everyone else, we say, “New Yorkers have strong stomachs. Show us the sausage.”

Different Third Man, Same Room

We agree.

Bringing the U.S. Attorney Controversy Home to NY

Alan Chartock in the Troy Record this morning warns that we should keep an eye on the investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bruno by the FBI and “an independent but Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney.” He writes:

Since all of New York and specifically all the players in Albany have been waiting to see whether Bruno would be indicted and since there have been numerous leaks from the Justice Department and FBI to the media about Bruno's prospects and status of the investigation, one has to wonder whether the alleged White House meddling in the Justice Department has taken its toll on the investigation. Look at it this way: New York has become so blue (Democratic) that you can't even see through the water. The last vestige of Republican power in Albany is Joe Bruno and the Republican Senate is holding on for dear life...If an indictment was to be handed down, Bruno would have to move aside and a serious spike would have been driven into the heart of Republican hopes to hold onto the state Senate. If you were Karl Rove or the President and you saw this happening, would you want your own Justice Department to have hammered the last coffin nail?

A bit of a stretch, perhaps, but certainly an interesting perspective on a controversy that has been so prominent in the news over the last few weeks.

Can A Rash of New York Retirements Be Far Behind?

In today's New York Times, Ronald Smothers has an interesting take on a dramatic changing of the guard in New Jersey's legislature. 11 of the State's 40 Senators are about to step down, including the "longest-serving legislator in the State's history." Smothers writes that state senators attribute the high number of retirements this year in part to age and burnout," and notes that the retiring lawmakers have "an average of nearly 26 years of service." (italics ours).

26 years? Is that a long time? We can't be so sure here in New York. For the record, below are the numbers on New York Legislators who have been around for a while:

Assembly
23 Assemblymembers serving 20 years or longer
16 Assemblymembers serving 25 years or longer
6 Assemblymembers serving 30 years or longer

Senate
14 senators serving 20 years or longer
9 senators serving 25 years or longer
7 senators serving 30 years or longer

Longest serving member: Assemblyman Richard Gottfried at 36 years (elected in 1970).

Time to Limit Campaign Funds to the Campaign Trail

Yesterday, the Buffalo News ran an editorial praising the ethics bill that has passed both the Senate and Assembly and is on its way to the Governor, calling it “a 10-foot fence that will push the purchased-access crowd to start buying a lot of 11-foot ladders.”

The editorial specifically focuses on the gift ban:

Gifts from lobbyists to public officials, beyond the traditional knickknacks of coffee mugs and commemorative pens, are banned. Officials can still chow down on a special interest’s dime at banquets and seminars, where their presence is both honorable and public, but not in the corner booth at the oyster bar, where quids and quos may be quietly exchanged. And the all-expense-paid weekend at the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews? Right out.

But we agree that there remains a significant loophole that absolutely must be closed. As the BN puts it, donors can’t spring for gifts or travel “unless, of course, the lawmaker or other office holder flies to Scotland at the expense of his or her own campaign fund, to which the lobbyists and their patrons have generously, and legally, contributed. That’s one of those 11-foot ladders that will require more legislation to block.”

Now that we have the 10-foot fence, how about a little barbed wire? Let’s finally pass legislation to crack down on the use of campaign funds for activities off the campaign trail.

More Transparency for Member Items and a Pledge on Project Sunlight

After losing a lawsuit to the Times Union late last year, the Senate and Assembly grudgingly posted on their websites information about the member items that have been doled out within legislators’ districts in the last few years. The Times Union reports this morning that Attorney General Cuomo has closed a deal with legislative leaders to shed more light on member items.

Among the new regulations is the requirement that grant recipients disclose whether they have any close ties to the member delivering the funding. Recipients must also pledge, under penalty of perjury, to use the funds for public purposes.

Tucked in with this was another item of good news about something we have written on since the Senate released its version of the budget. Majority Leader Bruno has apparently pledged to support the $700,000 the Governor asked for to fund Project Sunlight. The Senate, despite being criticized for hiking the budget price tag beyond what the Governor and Speaker Silver had requested, had trimmed this seemingly miniscule amount from its proposed budget.

Now, if only Bruno would get behind the funding for 21 additional workers to oversee campaign finance compliance that the Senate also nixed...

No Teeth

Yesterday's Utica Observer Dispatch makes the case that campaign finance reform is desperately needed in New York . We certainly agree.

To illustrate their point, the editors state that Majority Leader Bruno was recently caught using the state Senate GOP's campaign funds to help cover legal costs associated with a federal investigation of his activities. As the OD points out, even New York's lax campaign finance laws may not have left room for this questionable use of campaign finance funds:

The use of state campaign funds for legal defense purposes by New York politicians is permitted when the investigation is "related to the political campaign or the holding of public office." That wasn't the case here. The ongoing federal investigation involves Bruno's private dealings with business associates and friends and the flow of state funds to companies with ties to those business associates and friends. Bruno has denied any wrongdoing.

This got us thinking about a very important issue that often gets overlooked when discussing New York's campaign finance laws. Yes, you could cut New York's campaign contribution limits in half, and they would still be higher than almost any other limits in the country; yes, New York has among the worst set of regulations restricting personal use of campaign finance funds (allowing legislators to use funds for things like purchasing pool covers and buying pet food for the office cat); but even where it does have actual restrictions, the enforcement provisions of New York's campaign finance laws have virtually no teeth.

The penalty for violating New York's campaign finance laws is frequently less than a slap on the wrist. When New York finally gets to re-writing its campaign finance laws, making sure that they are followed will be extremely important. The new laws must have teeth.

Barnyard Animals and Redistricting Reform

Back in high school, my father coached my AAU basketball team- a hodgepodge of players who were just good enough to get invited to tournaments, where we would then get manhandled by teams with actual talent. We had very little size, but we played solid, scrappy defense. Unfortunately, we didn't get a lot of rebounds. This incensed my dad, whose primary coaching tool was screaming "BOX!" (as in "box out") as loudly as possible, whenever a shot would go up.

One day, after a particularly disappointing game, he told us the story of some barnyard animals who avoided all of the tasks necessary to prepare a meal for themselves, yet they still wanted to partake in the feast. The protagonist, Henny Penny, would ask them all "Who will pick the grain?" or "Who will knead the dough?", and animals like Lucy Goosey and Turkey Lurkey would summarily reply, "Not I!" Henny Penny was left to do all of the work, but, predictably, the other animals were more than happy to dig in once it was time to eat. The goal of the story was to point out our team's reluctance to do the grunt work that needed to be done (i.e, rebounding), even though all of us wanted to reap the rewards of victory.

Enter Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton. Her guest column on redistricting in the Ithaca Journal illustrates how Henny Penny and Turkey Lurkey are sometimes the same creature. The beginning of her piece is in the Henny Penny mold, presenting some important considerations and questions for redistricting reform, including compliance with Voting Rights Act, respecting communities of interest, etc.

But these considerations begin to sound more like excuses that undermine reform as the article goes on. For instance, Lifton wonders aloud whether we could find non-partisans "who would be willing to take on the complex task" of redrawing the boundaries for New York's Congressional and state legislative districts, even though 2.3 million New Yorkers are not registered to any political party. And she struggles to understand how an independent commission might be structured (as if one must be adopted out of whole cloth) ignoring the fact that such commissions already exist elsewhere. In short, it's as if she's premptively saying "Not I!", a la Turkey Lurkey.

In fairness, I have no trouble with being cautious on redistricting reform; we should be wary of recreating the current structure that keeps the power to draw district lines, in essence, with the legislature. Similarly, we must ensure that minority communities get a fair shake. However, those who are facilitating the discussion should, at the very least, present redistricting reform as an issue with obstacles and substantial benefits, not simply highlighting the negatives. Had Henny Penny pitched the work as back-breaking labor to produce a meal that was "pedestrian" or "lacking inspiration", the story wouldn't make any sense. Who's going to give up a day of frolicking on the farm for that?

The Brennan Center salutes any and all who support meaningful and effective redistricting reform, including Assemblywoman Lipton. But we hope said supporters are converting more of our state's Turkey Lurkeys into Henny Pennys, and not the other way around.

The Journal News on Restoring Funds for Project Sunlight

The Journal News ran a great editorial this morning criticizing the Senate’s stripping of funds for Project Sunlight from their proposed budget. They put the $700,000 item in the context of a budget of $120 billion, “give or take a few billion dollars,” and conclude that Project Sunlight would give us some great bang for comparatively few bucks:

Imagine being able to type in your lawmaker's name, hitting a button, and in an instant learning who butters her bread and how? Think that might get us a better brand of leadership?

That would definitely be a refreshing development in a state that has too long suffered under obfuscating lawmakers.

Majority Leader Bruno and the Senate majority should restore the funds to their proposed budget, and Governor Spitzer, Assembly Speaker Silver, and Attorney General Cuomo shouldn’t take no for an answer.

Congress Should Mandate Effective Post-Election Audits

This afternoon, our own Larry Norden presented testimony on post-election audits before the House of Representatives Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections.

He argued that, while voter-verified audit records are a necessary component of secure election systems, they are not by themselves sufficient to address the security and reliability issues that the Brennan Center and other groups have identified. Voter-verified records will only have real security value if they are regularly used to check electronic tallies.

The Brennan Center has concluded that an effective audit scheme will do the following:

• Use transparent and random selection processes for all auditing;


• Allow the losing candidate to select precinct(s) or machine(s) to be audited;


• Place an independent person or body in charge of the audits;


• Implement effective procedures for addressing evidence of fraud or error;


• Encourage rigorous chain of custody practices;


• Audit a minimum percentage of precincts or machines for each election, including at least one machine or precinct for each county in the state;


• Record and publicly release numbers of spoiled ballots, cancellations, over-votes, and under-votes;


• Audit the entire system, not just the voting machines themselves; and


• Increase scrutiny in close elections.

If Congress fails to act, we urge New Yorkers to support strong audit procedures on the state level to bolster the audit requirements already in place.

Rochester Businessman Enumerates Crucial New York Reforms

The Democrat and Chronicle ran an essay by Joseph Klein, president of Klein Steel Services in Rochester, detailing how to pull upstate out of its “decline into the ‘new Appalachia.’”

We were especially pleased to see that he considers our recommended reforms to the way the Legislature operates (item #7 on Klein’s list) crucial to reversing this downturn.

Indeed, regardless of partisanship, ideology, and geography, all New Yorkers need and deserve a properly functioning Legislature that is responsive, deliberative, accessible, accountable, and efficient. This means that legislators must reform the operating rules of the Senate and Assembly to allow rank-and-file members to force hearings and votes on bills; end the stranglehold leadership has over getting bills to the floor; institutionalize conference committees; and codify a formula for giving all members an equal base allowance for office resources and staff.

Going Beyond the "Maine" Parties

You may remember us mentioning in October that Massachusetts was considering the adoption of fusion voting, which would allow candidates to be listed on the ballot next to more than one party. This system, which has found great success in New York, was unfortunately resoundingly opposed by Massachusetts voters last November.

Now some in Maine are similarly looking to us for inspiration on ballot access. The Kennebec Journal ran an op-ed yesterday by the director of a public affairs program at Colby College, calling for Mainers to take a hard look at fusion voting. L. Sandy Maisel writes:

I have long opposed third parties as divisive and argued that those who support third parties waste their votes, often with the effect of electing the person they least favor in a multi-candidate race. Think of Green Party voters in Florida in 2000 who elected President Bush, despite the fact that most of them would have favored Al Gore if only the two major party candidates had been running.

But that argument does not hold in New York, because in New York minor parties are allowed to nominate one of the major party candidates as their candidate as well -- and the votes cast for that candidate on any party lines on which his or her name appears are added to that candidate's total vote.

We at the Brennan Center have long touted fusion voting as an effective way for minor parties to gain some footing while avoiding the spoiler problem mentioned by Ms. Maisel. We hope Maine voters will use New York as a positive example and adopt some form of fusion voting.

A Fair Formula for Member Allocations Should Be Codified in the Rules

Yesterday afternoon, the Times Union’s blog Capitol Confidential detailed how the Assembly minority during the Pataki years received money to help compensate for the fact that they were allocated less for staff and resources than their majority counterparts. This year, though, Assembly Speaker Silver increased the level of funding for the minority conference from $40,000 per member to $100,000, which would make up for the money they used to receive from Governor Pataki.

While we appreciate the steps Speaker Silver has taken toward more equal allocation of funds, it is still unacceptable that members of the minority, who are elected from districts with the same population as members of the majority, are not guaranteed an equal allocation of staff and resources to represent their constituents.

It would not even be sufficient for a proportional amount of the budget for staff and resources to be allocated to the majority and minority conferences to be distributed to the individual members by the party leaders. While this would introduce a much needed element of fairness, it would still not ensure that resources are distributed based on objective criteria rather than loyalty to leadership.

The base allocation of funds—representing the bulk of office and staff allowances for legislators—should be distributed equally among the members, regardless of party or loyalty. Extra funds for members with leadership positions should be small compared to the base amount received by each member. Most importantly, the formula for member allocations should be codified in the chamber rules.

Times Union Responds to Bruno on Budget Provisions for Transparency

This morning's Times Union takes Senate Majority Leader Bruno to task (and rightly so, we think) for the Senate's stripping of provisions for Project Sunlight and additional campaign finance overseers from its proposed budget.

BC, CCNY, NYPIRG and NYLWV Urge Restoration of Funds in Senate Budget Proposal

As we mentioned yesterday, the Senate’s proposed budget strips out funding for new campaign finance overseers and for Project Sunlight, Attorney General Cuomo’s initiative that would create a campaign finance database with information about legislators, lobbyists, and special interests.

These provisions in Governor Spitzer’s budget would be a great step toward enhancing accountability and transparency in state government. We have joined Common Cause, NYPIRG, and the League of Women Voters in sending a letter to Senate leaders, urging them to restore the funds in the budget for these important items.

We Must Go Beyond "Modest" Tinkering on Judicial Reform

From Crain's New York Business:

On other matters, Judge Kaye defended the current convention-based system of choosing judges, saying only modest reforms are needed, such as modifying the conventions to allow for more candidates to participate and winning legislation requiring judicial screening committees.

Her position differs sharply from many groups -- namely the Brennan Center for Justice, the New York Bar Association, the Fund for Modern Courts -- who support fundamental reforms including merit selection.

While the Brennan Center has publicly supported judicial pay raises, this article misrepresents the Center's position on reforming New York's selection process for state Supreme Court judges. The Center is agnostic as to the question of appointments versus elections in the abstract.

Where, however, as in New York, elections are required under the state constitution, the Center's unequivocal position is that voters and candidates are entitled to more than a sham that merely masquerades as an election - which is what New York has now. The Center's position is that fundamental democratic reforms - rather than the "modest" tinkering Judge Kaye references - are necessary both as a matter of law and policy.

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