Election-Related Violence in NY

Earlier this week three Staten Island men, ages 18, 18 and 21, were charged with federal crime of interfering with voting rights on Election Night. The trio went on a violent rampage when it became clear the Barack Obama had won the election. According to the federal indictment, they "decided to find African-Americans to assault in retaliation for an African-American man becoming president." Among a number of especially violent assaults, they struck a man with a car they were driving.

These alleged acts, prosecuted as a federal crime, are horribly despicable. Voter intimidation and deception is rarely violent, but by no means rare. Nearly every election turns up fliers with misleading information including false endorsements or the incorrect day of the election. The case of challenges inside a Yonkers gym in the election of State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins in 2006 is a good example.

New York should also be able to prosecute voter deception and intimidation in state or municipal elections. There is already a model for legislation. In 2007, President-elect Obama introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act in the Senate. In addition to making such acts criminal offenses, the bill empowered the U.S. Attorney general to correct false information and submit a report summarizing any related activity to Congress.

Silver's Response to Brennan Center Report Misses the Mark

In response to yesterday’s release of the Brennan Center’s report Still Broken: New York State Legislative Reform 2008 Update, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver issued a statement suggesting that our report misrepresents the legislative process in the Assembly. We thought we’d set the record straight. Our responses to excerpts from Silver’s statement (in italics) are below.

In analyzing the work of the legislature, the Brennan Center report completely omits the state budget, as well as countless bills that pass either house every year.

This is incorrect. The analysis that forms the basis of the report included all of the budget bills listed on the New York Legislative Session Information page for 2006 and 2007 except the Legislature and Judiciary Budget Bill and the State Debt Budget Bill in each year. The statistics regarding substantive floor debate, meaningful dissent, and committee deliberation regarding these bills generally conform to the poor performance of both houses in considering the rest of the major legislation analyzed in this report.

The fact of the matter is that while the budget process in New York has become somewhat more transparent in the last few years, it is still far too opaque. Budget deals are still cut behind closed doors – once the budget bills are drafted, most details of budget reductions, tax increases, and member items are briefed and debated outside of public view.

The budget bills included in our analysis are S6456C, S6457C, S6458C, and S6459C in 2006, and S2106C, S2107C, S2108C, S2109C, and S2110C in 2007. To download a PDF with summaries of these bills, click here.

Among the other important reforms the Assembly has adopted over the years to create greater transparency include the passage of rules that:

• End empty seat voting to ensure that Assembly members fully participate in the legislative process and are publicly accountable for their votes.

• Create an open and transparent budget process through joint Assembly – Senate conference committees that analyze and hear public testimony on every aspect of the state’s fiscal plan.

In the 2008 report, the Brennan Center applauds the Assembly’s efforts to conduct budget oversight hearings (though all too often these hearings have been perfunctory); and the joint conference committees on the budget represent some improvement in budget transparency (although, as mentioned above, the system is still far too opaque).

On the subject on conference committees generally, no mechanism exists for bill sponsors or committee chairs to call these hearings to reconcile differences in important legislation. The Brennan Center encourages both chambers to allow committee chairs, bill sponsors, or the leadership to convene conference committees, which should represent members of each party proportionally to representation in the full chamber.

The Brennan Center’s 2006 report recognized the Assembly’s important first steps toward reform, including ending empty seat voting, obligating standing committees to meet once a month, requiring attendance at committee meetings, and reducing the maximum number of committees on which a member can serve. However, the 2006 report shows that these reforms did not solve many of the problems endemic in the legislature, and more work is necessary to ensure a transparent and robust deliberative process.

• Mandate that all Assembly bills are approved by a standing committee other than the Committee on Rules, guaranteeing the participation of committees in the legislative process.

The Committee on Rules is not the only one to keep legislation from consideration by other committees with jurisdiction over the issue at hand. The Assembly rules allow the chair of the Ways and Means Committee to request bills outside its jurisdiction with the approval of the Speaker. While the rules do not grant the Codes Committee the same authority, anecdotal evidence suggests that irrelevant bills are also frequently referred to the Codes Committee – so frequently, in fact, that the joke inside the Assembly is that “Codes is where bills go to die.” These committees can hold up bills with no fiscal implications or a lack of sanction or penalty for months, preventing consideration by committees with legitimate jurisdiction.

• Extend the time period for unlimited bill introduction from early March to the first Tuesday in May, allowing Assembly members more time to draft and submit legislation important to their constituents.

Insufficient time to draft legislation may not be the problem – in 2008, the legislature introduced more than 18,000 bills, most of which never made it to a committee vote. Given that 45% of major legislation passed the Assembly in the final 3 days of the 2007 session, up from 25.5% in 2001, it is not clear that this reform is an improvement with respect to allowing members ample opportunity to consider each piece of major legislation.

• Ease the Motion to Discharge process by extending the period during which this process may be utilized.

Given that not a single motion to discharge successfully passed in 2006, 2007, or 2008, it is clear that this reform, while a step in the right direction, is insufficient. Motions to discharge should be allowed within 20 days of the date of referral, or within two committee meetings.

The Brennan Center’s report is wrong to dismiss and not include in its analysis bills that have been vetoed as well as the Assembly’s passage of major legislation that is not subsequently taken up by the Senate - bills that often set the stage for eventual enactment of critical legislation to protect New Yorkers.

While we have no reason to believe that an analysis of bills that pass in a single house and fail to become law would differ from our current analysis of major bills enacted into law, questions about the process for passing bills in one chamber are beside the point. As our ally Susan Lerner of Common Cause/NY said yesterday, "We elect our legislators to come up with laws, not bills."

The Brennan Center analyzes major bills enacted into law because this legislation affects the lives of New Yorkers. The Brennan Center’s argument is that a poor legislative process results in poor laws, which is harmful to New York and New Yorkers.

In June 2007, the Assembly passed legislation to ensure marriage equality in New York state - a vote that received support on both sides of the aisle. At the end of the last legislative session, the Assembly also passed legislation on the very issue for which the Brennan Center is a registered lobbyist - Campaign Finance Reform. Until now, the Senate has not acted on this legislation, but it is our hope and belief that these bills will find support in the new Senate and eventually be enacted into law. That is the legislative process and it is mystifying that the Brennan Center would diminish it.

The fact that bills addressing important issues pass one chamber or the other does not necessarily speak to the process behind the development of this legislation. The same-sex marriage bill is an example of substantive and robust floor debate. However, this is a rare exception – hardly the rule. While many believe that congestion pricing and brownfields cleanup development incentives are important, the bills addressing both of these issues reflected a failed legislative process that continues to impact environmental conservation efforts in New York.

Similarly, the Brennan Center fully supports comprehensive campaign finance reform, but no robust bill that results in a cost should lack a substantive fiscal note. Passing legislation that is not rigorously debated, open to public comment, and analyzed for fiscal impact can actually hinder the successful implementation of laws addressing important issues that affect the lives of New Yorkers.

Brennan Center to Senate: This is Your First Test

Yesterday, joined by our friends from NYPIRG, the Empire Center for New York State Policy, and Common Cause/NY, we released Still Broken: New York State Legislative Reform 2008 Update. The report, an update to the Brennan Center's 2004 and 2006 studies of the New York State legislative process, finds that the legislature continues to fall short on a number of measures of legislative transparency and robustness.

The report got the attention of reporters from Newsday, The Daily News, The Albany Times Union, and Public Radio, among others. A New York Times editorial published today echoes the Brennan Center's call for change.

While the report finds that not much has improved in the past two years, we have reason to hope that this year, things will be different. In the words of report co-author Andrew Stengel:

While there isn't much to cheer about looking back in either chamber, there is the promise of substantial reform from the likely new incoming Senate majority. We hope at least one chamber will reform the rules needed to remake the legislature.

Now, the question that remains is whether the incoming Senate leadership will keep their promises.

Ethics in NY, Wherefore Art Thou?

This weekend we learned, despite appearances to the contrary, Florida is actually the most corrupt state, as measured by the number of convicted elected officials in the past 10 years. What about New York According to the New York Times, we rank second on that score. (And 23rd per capita.)

And yesterday, Clyde Haberman proved a good summary of recent (mis)doings in the state.

Legislative Reform 2008 Update Now Due on Jan. 5

Still Broken: New York State Legislative Reform 2008 Update will now be released in Albany on Monday, January 5.

New NY Legislative Reform Report Out on 12/18

The newest edition of the Brennan Center's Report on New York State Legislative Reform will be released in Albany on the morning of Thursday, December 18.

One difference from previous years is that the Senate will switch to Democratic control in January. We've had ongoing conversations with the current Senate Minority about reforming legislative rules. (And, we hope that the Assembly will consider the same.)

The landmark 2004 Report, The New York State Legislative Process: An Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform, found that the entire legislative process was dysfunctional. In 2005, the legislative leaders, despite disagreeing with the Report's findings, announced several changes to the operating rules intended to make the process more open and robust.

The follow-up in 2006, Unfinished Business: New York State Legislative Reform, found that not much had changed in either chamber.

Our 2008 Report will...you'll have to wait until December 18 to find out. What I can say is that alongside several case studies of legislation, we examine a raft of issues that prevent the Senate and Assembly from acting as an accountable, deliberative, representative and transparent body and propose solutions.

Brennan Center to City Council: Universal Registration Is the Answer

The New York City Council Committee on Governmental Operations held a hearing this morning about three resolutions: early voting, same-day voter registration and electronic voter registration. Chaired by Councilman Simcha Felder, the hearing also served as oversight of the general election (something that’s missing in, say, other areas of the state).

My testimony (pdf here) focused on a solution to several key election administration issues: universal voter registration. As I wrote: “Automatic voter registration is the most comprehensive means available to ensure all who are eligible may vote and to increase participation in the electoral system. In addition, it shifts the burden of registration from citizens and third-party organizations to the government, removes several barriers and smooths election administration.”

In his testimony, state Board of Elections Co-Chair Douglas A. Kellner echoed my sentiment that universal registration is an ideal solution.

For more information, see the Brennan Center’s Universal Registration Policy Summary.

Paterson Confims: Government is Dysfunctional

Governor Paterson confirms what the Brennan Center has been saying for years: "If it looks like dysfunctional government and it acts like dysfunctional government, it probably is dysfunctional government."

Legislature to Jumps on Election Bandwagon

Following a nap worthy of Rip Van Winkle (apologies to past State of the State messages), the state Legislature may be stirring on voting issues in New York. The reason: the reports of the success of early voting around the country, which isn't allowed in New York.

For the sake of this post, set aside that New York still isn't complaint with major parts of the Help America Vote Act (2002!), and that the Board of Elections may miss the court-ordered September 2009 deadline to replace the lever machines.

Word from Albany is that several members of the Legislature will introduce bills for early voting and no-excuse absentee balloting (by constitutional amendment). The first batch are from Assemblymen Jim Brennan and Rory Lancman on those two issues. The rush will start on this Monday, when members of the Assembly can submit bills to be introduced the next legislative session. (The actual date under Assembly rules in November 15, which falls on a Saturday.)

This comes after a much-needed directive by Governor Paterson last week. Secretary of State Lorraine A. Cortés-Vázquezto is conducting "a thorough assessment of the November 4 election..." and will submit a report within 60 days.

Apart from HAVA , new voting technology and making voting easier there are a litany of other election issues in the state that run afoul of democracy and common sense. For one, more than 1.6 million voters--14% of the rolls--were purged before the election. Since the process is opaque, the timing unknown and without oversight it's impossible if people who were eligible to vote on Election Day had their names removed in error. (We do know about the now-famous case of actor Tim Robbins, which may or may not have been a result of a purge.)

According to the Brennan Center report on Voter Purges, procedures to remove names from the rolls are riddled with errors. Plus, the National Voter Registration Act says that systematic purges cannot occur within 90 days of election and that names moved to the inactive list cannot be removed from the rolls before two federal elections .

The delay in party affliction switches, which can be longer than a year, is another area of improvement. In order to vote in our closed primaries, unaffiliated registrants must do so before the general election before the primary they want to vote in. So, unaffiliated voters who wished to vote in the presidential primary in February or state primary in September had to do so by October 12, 2007. Party switches after didn't take effect until the day after the election, November 5.

I've written it before and I'll do so again: Why is a state whose Latin motto is "Excelsior" (or ever upward) seem to be pointed in the opposite direction where elections and democracy is concerned?

Bloomberg is Right to Fume

Mayor Bloomberg has joined the chorus. Yesterday, the Mayor fumed over the New York City Board of Election's troubling disorganization, just six days before Election Day.

"We keep making suggestions, putting a sample ballot on the Web, they won't do it. What about recruiting poll workers . . . [who] have to have training ... they don't pay any attention to it. What about poll workers from good government groups rather than just political parties? You know, this is an outrage," exclaimed the Mayor.

We couldn't agree more.

Brennan Center surveys in 2003 and in 2006 revealed widespread confusion among Boards of Election in New York about whether a person with a criminal conviction is eligible to vote. Thirty-eight percent of New York's 63 Boards of Election incorrectly responded that individuals on probation cannot vote. A third of the local boards also illegally asked for documentation before allowing persons with criminal convictions to register.

But the New York City boards were among the worst offenders. Three New York City offices—New York County, Queens County, and the New York City Board—incorrectly stated that people on probation are ineligible to vote. In addition, three New York City offices—New York County, Queens County and New York City—improperly required individuals to provide documentation before registering to vote.

This confusion among New York City boards is especially disturbing, considering the majority of people coming out of prison return to the five boroughs. Once the Board of Elections gives an individual the wrong information, it is unlikely he'll follow up a second time to get the right answer and he will be improperly disenfranchised for years, if not for life. In addition, misinformation on felony disenfranchisement spreads through communities, potentially dissuading hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. (and NYC is not alone, as we recently found in the report De Facto Disenfranchisement)

It is the Board of Election's duty to train every election official on the law and registration procedures for all New Yorkers, including those who have spent time in prison. Another solution is to notify people the minute that they leave prison or parole that they are eligible to vote.

Mayor Bloomberg is worried about chaos at the polls on Election Day, and wants the city's election officials to implement changes to reduce disenfranchising voters. In his words, "the public is as badly served by this agency as any city thing or state thing that I've ever seen."

Mr. Mayor, we have a few more things to add to your wish list

New Voting Systems: New York Can't Catch A Break

This won't help New York get new voting systems any faster.

Another Absentee Ballot Error

More than 3,000 absentee ballots were mailed to voters that listed Assemblywoman RoAnn DeStito as a candidate for the Conservative Party instead of the Working Families Party according to a story in Utica's Observer Dispatch.

Times to City BOE: Open Your Books Now

Voters in New York City may face an obstacle course of issues on November 4.

As a New York Times editorial points out today: more than 30,000 voters were purged from the rolls, which raises the questions--when, how and who was dropped in error; because of late mailings to voters, absentee ballots may not be received in time to be postmarked by November 3 in order to count; and new voters may not find their names on the rolls due to a surge in registrations and a backlog of entering data.

As the Times suggests, the city Board of Elections should address these issues immediately and inform the public of the status of each. The unfortunate alternative is the status quo, i.e., silence.

Obama/Osama Is Spellcheck's Fault!

Remember the news that Upstate New York's Rensselaer County mailed a few hundred absentee ballots with the name "Osama" instead of "Obama?"

It was spellcheck's fault! Or, as the Albany Times Union's headline puts it: "Blame the computer for the Obama-Osama goof, officials say."

A report released to the Legislature about the mistake said: ""This error may have been due to a spell-check function on the operating system of the computers utilized by the Board of Elections."

Here's a reasonable question: why rely on a spellcheck program to verify names? How many last names would the most up-to-date software recognize?

While my last name is recognized, most likely due to Casey Stengel, RNY's editor "Larry Norden" would become "Larry Noreen" if spellcheck had its way.

What would your name become?

10%+ of NY Voters Purged from Roll, But When and How?

According to a story out today by the ATU's Rick Karlin, 1.6 million named were purged from the voter rolls. To put that in perspective that's more than 10% of total registered voters (using the state Board of Election enrollment figures for March.)

The issue with purges, as detailed in a recent Brennan Center report, is that they're usually done in secret. As the report details tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters are wrongly purged around the country; that's scary.

There may be legal issues with New York's purge under the federal National Voter Registration Act and state election law. Basically, systematic purges cannot occur within 90 days on an election. (Tell that to Colorado's Secretary of State who is using the depends-on-your-definition-of-systematic defense for their state's purge that happened within the 90-day period.) Moreover, possible duplicate names shouldn't be removed from the rolls until they are moved to an inactive list and after two federal elections pass.

New York's purge may be entirely lawful, but given the large numbers involved the Board of Elections should immediately explain how and when those names were purged.

Where in the World Is "Osama?" On Renssselar's Ballot

The Albany Times Union reported this weekend that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's last name was spelled "Osama" on 300 absentee ballots mailed in Rensselaer County last week.

According to the ATU story, a GOP Commissioner admitted that three staff members proof the ballots.

What are the chances of hitting "s" instead of the correct letter "b?" About 4% (or 3.84% to be exact).

NYPIRG's Last Chance Voter Reg

With New York's October 10 deadline for voter registration, NYPIRG has deployed more than 200 volunteers at tranist hubs across the city.

Tomorrow at 11am they're holding a press conference about the effort in the Times Square subway station.

1 Down, Still 211 to Go

Last week we posted Assemblyman Micah Kellner's ethics disclosure form and invited members of the state Legislature to send theirs to us too.

As the Observer's Azi Paybareh pointed out, there are 211 members of the Assembly and Senate left. One week later, we're still 1-212.

BC: No Position on Term Limits

From the Brennan Center homepage: The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law takes no official position on term limits. This comes after the NY Times reported today NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg "announced on Thursday he would abandon his earlier opposition to changing the term limits law and seek a third term as mayor, arguing that the economic crisis buffeting the nation called for continuity in municipal leadership." Bloomberg still maintains he supports term limits, despite his announcement to seek a third term. The Times reports that details of the legislation the mayor supports remain unclear, and many Council members are unsure how Bloomberg would alter the term limits law.

Voters Make Sure You're on the List

The state Coalition for Voter Involvement and Fair Elections is on the case of possible voter purges that may have removed people from the rolls in error.

A report released this week from Brennan Center called Voter Purges shows that the process by which people are removed from the polls is far too often done in secret and an inconsistent manner making in difficult, or in some cases, impossible to know how many eligible voters were removed in error.

While the coalition is working on the issue, Bo Lipari shrewdly recommends checking your registration. The state Board of Elections maintains a look up page. Following the steps listed on Bo's post is a good start and idea.