Wednesday, May 28, 2008

DNC Lawyer's Memo

The DNC staff analysis argues that the Rules and Bylaws Committee was fully within its rights to strip all 368 delegates from the two states when they scheduled primaries in January. Party rules said their nominating contests could be no earlier than Feb. 5. Michigan voted on Jan. 15, Florida on Jan. 29.

The Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes — risking a floor fight.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Two New Voter Rights Cases

“The cold war’s not over — they just moved the fence from Berlin to the Texas border,” said DeWayne Charleston, Waller County justice of the peace, who maintains that local officials failed to record hundreds of students whom he registered to vote in 2006. The federal Department of Justice and the Texas attorney general’s office say investigations are under way here, but will not give details.

Meanwhile, the attorney general, Greg Abbott, is a defendant in a separate voting rights case that goes to federal trial on Wednesday in the East Texas city of Marshall, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last month upholding Indiana’s tough voter identification law. Arguing that antifraud provisions enacted in 2003 were being selectively enforced to intimidate minority voters who are largely Democrats, the Texas Democratic Party filed suit against Mr. Abbott and Phil Wilson, the secretary of state, both Republicans. The suit, initially filed in 2006, contends that get-out-the-vote activists who help voters with mail ballots have been “interrogated, harassed and intimidated” by state investigators.

Use the above link to read the entire article.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Rejecting Voter ID

Yesterday, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) vetoed a bill that would require voters starting in 2010 to show identification at the polls. In her veto message, she said, "[N]o elected official should support enacting new laws discouraging or disenfranchising any American who has been legally voting for years." Sebelius added that the bill "seeks to solve a problem of voter fraud which does not exist in our state." Earlier this month, Missouri also rejected a voter ID bill, ending its legislative session before passing a bill that would have required citizens to have both a photo ID and proof of citizenship to vote. While the measure passed the House, "amidst strongly voiced local and national opposition," it never reached a vote in the state Senate. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law, which requires a photo ID before voting. Currently, Arizona is the only state to require proof of citizenship, "a mandate that has led to the rejection of over 38,000 voter registration applications."

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Year of the Independent Voter

Independent voters could be pivotal in November. While membership in traditional parties has weakened in recent decades, independent voters increased -- the number of people registering as "unaffiliated" or "other" since 1987 jumped from 16 percent to 24 percent. For example, in Florida, an important battleground state, the number of "other" voters has more than quadrupled, surpassing 20 percent of the electorate. In another key state, California, since 1988 the percentage of voters "declin[ing] to state" a party preference rose nearly 8 percentage points -- to almost 18 percent.

The looming battle between McCain and Obama for independent voters is evident in polling. On Wednesday, Gallup released a poll that showed McCain and Obama share nearly equal support among independents -- 44 percent for Obama and 42 percent for McCain. So this election would ultimately be about who attracts the most independent voters.

Use the above link to read the entire article by By Jeremy P. Jacobs on The Washington Independent.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, May 16, 2008

Another View of Open Primaries

The Oregon Open Primary initiative would replace the limited-participation primary with one that involves all voters. Every registered voter, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, would receive the same ballot in the May primary and could vote for whichever candidate best represented his or her views. The top two vote getters then would advance to the November election. The underlying difference between open primaries and closed primaries is that open systems put the power fully in the hands of the entire electorate.

I have supported this type of primaries here in NY. But there are others who see it differently. Here is a different view:

"First of all, this is not an open primary. An open primary is when people are allowed to choose which ballot they want to vote on, regardless of their party affiliation. It is handled in different ways - maybe you choose your ballot the day of the election (Texas does this, as they have no party registration), maybe those who are non-affiliated can choose to vote on a partisan ballot, etc. But the open primary still has separate ballots for the Democratic and Republican Parties. And the November ballot contains the Democratic and Republican nominees as well as those selected by the minor parties and independents. This in reality does away with the primary as we know it. In this case, everyone runs on the May ballot. Only the top two will be on the November ballot.

Doing it this way actually takes away participation in the election by the majority of voters. Right now, those registered as Democrats and those registered as Republicans pick their nominee in May. It's held at the same time as many non-partisan elections (and in even years at the same time as the presidential primary). Minor parties select their candidates through conventions and independents through signature gathering. One representative of each party and independents then are on the November ballot.

Under this new proposal, only two candidates will be on the ballot in November - regardless of party affiliation. So in parts of Portland the chance is there would be two Democrats on the general ballot. There's almost no chance a minor party candidate would be on the ballot in November.

It is likely what would happen is that parties would take their nomination process internal (maybe some sort of caucus process or having elected Precinct Committee People choosing). In 2006, more than 80,000 Democrats participated in the primary election. A caucus process or PCP process would bring that number down significantly - maybe down to a few thousand. Their choice would then be the only candidate on the May ballot from that Party. Which is more Democratic - 80,000+ choosing the nominee from multiple candidates or a small number choosing for everyone?

This ballot measure does not (and cannot) change how the presidential primary is done, so you'd still be having a partisan ballot for the presidential race. So either Ds/Rs would get a different ballot that includes president, or they'd have to get a separate ballot that is just for president.

This measure also makes other changes, including how vacancies to the state legislature are filled and the term length for PCPs. If this measure was to be approved by the voters, party affiliation no longer has to be taken into consideration when filling vacancies. Right now, if a Republican legislator resigns, dies, etc., they are supposed to be replaced with a Republican. Under this measure, that would not be the case.

So, if this measure was in effect now: If State Representative Karen Minnis (R, Wood Village) were to resign, the Multnomah County Commission (who chooses the replacement) could then replace her with a Democrat. They would then be creating an "incumbent" who is from a different political party than the voters chose.

This ballot measure will end up costing us more, with fewer people getting to participate in choosing who the nominees will be."

What is your opinion about Open Primaries?

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Monday, May 12, 2008

Voter ID Battle

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

Use the above link to read the article.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

NY Voting Machines

In response to a Justice Department lawsuit over the Help America Vote Act (HAVA, or Public Law 107-252), county Boards of Elections throughout New York State were forced to choose new voting machines by Friday, February 8, 2008. Since it is technically impossible to roll out completely new voting systems in time for the 2008 elections, counties will initially only have to provide one new electronic "ballot marking device" in each precinct to make it possible for disabled voters to cast their ballots independently.

In 2008, the paper ballots created by these new machines will probably be counted at each precinct by hand after the polls close, with the results added to the counts from the mechanical machines and then reported to the Board of Elections office. All existing lever machines will serve their final election in 2008 and be completely replaced with, hopefully, privacy booths and paper-ballot scanners in 2009. Assuming there are no significant problems with the initial batch of machines purchased for the handicapped, the vendors that win these initial contracts will almost certainly have a leg up on the larger contracts for 2009.

The NYC Board of Elections has chosen the ES&S Automark ballot marking device. Kudos are also given to Commissioner Anthony Como for breaking ranks with his fellow Republican commissioners and siding with the Democratic commissioners, thus preventing the partisan paralysis that has dragged this process out for years.

51 of New York's 62 counties chose the Sequoia ImageCast, another paper-ballot/optical-scan (PBOS) system which was the only PBOS system approved by the State Board of Elections prior to legal action by manufacturers that forced the other machines back onto the list. Three counties chose the Premier (formerly Diebold) AutoMark, which is virtually identical to the ES&S machine chosen by NYC.

For now, the only county in NY State to chose an all-electronic system with no auditable paper trail is Hamilton County, a sparsely-populated region northwest of Albany that is located entirely within the Adirondack National Park. Hamilton chose the Liberty Election Systems LibertyVote, a very problematic machine that was banned in The Netherlands, the manufacturer's home country. The few, good people of Hamilton County lean conservative and are represented in Congress by Republican John McHugh. Liberty was leading the legal fight to undo the State Board of Elections' decision to not certify any DRE machines, but one has to wonder whether if Liberty's litigation expenses will end up being higher than the profits they can turn on the 11 fabulously-expensive machines that Hamilton County will purchase.

The machines for 2008 are being put in because a federal judge has ordered it. Passing tests is not on his radar. Once those machines are in, New York will officially be HAVA-compliant. (Of course, that doesn't necessarily make them good, but look at who was writing the laws in 2002.)

The next step will be making our election system compliant with the state's 2005 Election Reform and Modernization Law (ERMA). That requires full testing for all voting systems to prove worthiness for certification to state standards. Fortunately, and thanks in large part to both Doug Kellner and all the wonderful people who have been working on this for years (including Bo Lipari, Teresa Hommel, and David Kogelman), the state has actual standards.

Use the above link to see the entire list of selected voting machines by county.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Monday, May 5, 2008

Open Primaries

As an independent activist, I am strongly for Open Primaries. In New York we tried and failed but will continue our efforts. Here is a sample letter you can write to your paper's editor. Get Involved!

Dear Editor,
Everyone's talking about the impact independent voters are having in this presidential election. But in 18 states, independents can't vote in the primaries or caucuses. With polls showing independents making up 40% of the electorate, closed primaries disenfranchise a significant number of the American people. Currently, the law allows the Democrats and Republicans to determine whether independents can vote in primaries. But shouldn't our rights as voters trump the rights of the political parties? Shouldn't all of us, whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, have a fundamental right to participate in every stage of our election process? And who pays the costs associated with holding primaries and caucuses of these quasi-governmental entities, the Democrats and Republicans? In the vast majority of states, it's the taxpayers.

Independent voters in closed primary states don't enjoy the rights of full citizenship and are excluded from what is often the most critical part of the electoral process. In these states, where one party often dominates, the primary election is the only one that matters. The general election is a rubber stamp of the primary's results, and then, the votes of independent voters are irrelevant. Voter interest and participation increase when independent voters are permitted to participate in the primaries. It forces the candidates to be less partisan, and to address problems that affect all Americans, so they appeal to all voters.

FOR CLOSED PRIMARY STATES
Our primaries are not open to independents. Independents are getting together as part of a growing network in our state and in the country (see www.independentvoting.org) to loudly demand that democracy and the voters come before party interests. The parties should open their primaries!

FOR OPEN PRIMARY STATES
Our primaries are open to independents, and we are having a huge impact on this presidential election. Independents are getting together as part of a growing network in our state and in the country (see www.independentvoting.org) to loudly demand that democracy and the voters come before party interests. We must keep vigilant watch on the parties to make sure our primaries remain open, and support our fellow Americans in other states so they can be fully franchised.

Your Name and State

Use the above link to find out where your state stands on this issue.

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon