New York, the EAC and CIBER

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

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

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

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

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

Truly a mess.

'Tis the season, year-round

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

The D&C Adds Its Voice on Judges

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

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

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

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

Growing consensus on judges

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

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

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

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

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

Here are some of the more substantive changes:

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily News argues:

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

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

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

Categories: General

Malcolm Smith on rules reform

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

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

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Government Ethics

Ethics Breakthrough?

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

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

Michael Gormley of the AP reports that:

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Government Ethics

Majority Leader Bruno: We Don't Understand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

Senate Rules Fight -- A First Hand Account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Will the Senate Opt for Self Improvement Today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Legislative Rules

Adding Color to the Bench

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Just Asking . . .

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

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

Categories: General, Campaign Finance

Deal Emerging on Judicial Selection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

The Brennan Center Does Not Support or Oppose Political Candidates

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

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

Read our official statement on the issue.

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

Categories: General

A Democratic, Efficient and Equitable System

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

Categories: General

Times Union responds to Bruno on redistricting

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

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

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

Categories: General, Redistricting

Promoted from watchdogs to lions?

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

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

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

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

Categories: General