NY Public Financing Campaigns

New York Governor Cuomo is being pushed by businessmen, clergy, and former politicians to support a system of public financing of state campaigns. During his State of the State address in January, he showed support for this issue.

The group sent a letter asking Governor Cuomo to press lawmakers to implement a campaign funding system similar to New York City. In New York City, candidates for city office can participate in a system publicly funded that provides $6 for every $ they raise from individuals, up to to $175. They also face spending limits and must participate in a debate.

"A public funding system with voluntary limits and matching funds similar to New York city's will dramatically reduce candidates' dependence on special interest donors," the letter said.

Backers argue that New York City's experience shows candidates pay more attention to soliciting small donations increasing public engagement and reduces big donors influence. Opposition is coming from state Republicans who are against taxpayer money to fund campaigns.

Should we support state funding of campaigns like New York City?









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Redistricting in New York

The U.S. and state constitutions require district lines to be redrawn every 10 years. In the past, district lines have been drawn by deal-making legislators through a process known as “gerrymandering,” which discourages competitive elections because the lines are drawn to favor a particular party. That protects incumbents and stifles serious debate on issues, which ultimately results in lackluster government.

One plan was introduced last week by Govenor Andrew Cuomo and a similar bill in the Senate is co-sponsored by Sen. David Valesky, D-Oneida and Sen. Michael Gianaris, D-Queens. Both bills would create an independent, bipartisan commission to re-draw district lines based on the 2010 U.S. Census.

These plans includes:

- A clear prohibition of drawing lines that favor or hurt any incumbent, presumed candidate or party.

- Congressional districts would be nearly equal in population.

- The most populous and least populous Senate and Assembly districts would have to be within 1 percent of the mean population of districts in each chamber, as opposed to 5 percent.

- Districts will be “united communities of interest” that could include cultural interests, and few counties could be divided.

Legislators have never really embraced the idea of independent redistricting. Cuomo promised during his campaign that he would veto lines drawn by the majorities to protect their power. That would mean the Legislature would have to override it, and that would require several minority party lawmakers to join them. Without agreement, a court would draw the districts, an option that provides leverage for Cuomo to get cooperation from legislative leaders.

The package is the same as the one Governor Andrew Cuomo campaigned on during his march into the governor’s mansion in last year’s election. Since then, Cuomo has asked both houses of the state legislature in Albany to join him in supporting those reforms.

Now that the senate Democrats are on board and are urging their Republican colleagues to remember their pledge to enact those reforms, it only remains for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his Democratic majority to get aboard and bring true reform to Albany.

Gianaris, an ardent advocate of independent redistricting while he served in the Assembly, stated: “For too long, the people of New York have been shut out from unaccountable representation.” He said the enactment of his bill will send a strong message that we hear the calls of a public restless for change and are ready to rise to the occasion.

Signaling his total support for the bills, state Senator Jose Peralta stated: “It’s time to deliver on the pledge that we made to voters to fix Albany.”

Lawmakers who truly believe in fair, representative government and not simply self-preservation will support a proposal for independent redistricting of legislative districts.

Contact your New York lawmakers and tell them to do this the easy — and right — way and create the independent commission to redraw the lines.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Wisconsin Voters Remorse

What do voters do when they decide they made a mistake with their vote? RECALL.

The citizens of Wisconsin are granted the authority to perform a recall election by the Wisconsin Constitution, Article VIII, Section 12 to all elective officers after the first year of the term for which the incumbent was elected.

Registration of a Recall Committee
Before circulating a petition for recall, the circulator must register with the appropriate filing officer. This includes a Campaign Registration Statement along with a second statement indicating:

The petitioner's intent to circulate a recall petition, the name of the officeholder for whom recall is sought, and the reason for the recall, which must be related to the official responsibilities of the officeholder.

Signature Requirement
The number of valid signatures required for a recall election is 25 percent of the number of persons that voted in the last preceding election for the office of governor within the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. Each signer must be a qualified voter within the district represented by the officeholder being recalled, and the address of each signer must be located within that district.

Circulating the Recall Petition
Circulation of the recall petition must be completed within 60 days after registration. The completed petition must be returned to the original filing officer no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 60th day from the date of registration. Any signature dated before this 60 day period is invalid.

Preparation and Circulation of Recall Petitions
After the signatures are obtained the certification must be completed by the circulator. Specific requirements of the circulator are:

The circulator must list his or her full address, including municipality of residence, and street and number, if any, or rural route. The circulator must sign and date the certification after they have obtained the signatures. The person signing as circulator must have personally circulated the petition and personally obtained each of the signatures on the paper. The circulator must state that he or she is aware that falsifying the certification is illegal.

Review of Petition by Filing Officer
Within 31 days after the petition (with signatures) is submitted to the filing officer, he or she has 31 days to determine the sufficiency of the petition and also that it meets all necessary requirements. Following this review, the filing officer must attach to the petition either a certificate of sufficiency or of insufficiency, allowing at least 10 days for the officeholder being recalled to file any challenge.

If the petition is considered sufficient, the filing officer will submit it to the appropriate local governing body, which will then immediately call a recall election to be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week after the date on which the clerk issued the certificate of sufficiency.

Not that easy, but doable.

So we will have to see if this elected official can cause his voters, who are union workers, can resolve their problems before his year first year ends.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Filing Fee to Get on the Ballot

The Free & Equal Elections Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy advocacy group dedicated to election reform and improving ballot access laws in the United States. Many states have restrictive requirements that make it difficult for non-establishment candidates to place their names on the ballot. Free & Equal will challenge these laws, through lobbying of state legislators, court challenges, and initiatives. Free & Equal will also engage in activism for causes independent of the current two-party duopoly.


From the site's founder, Christina M. Tobin, I received an email discussing:

Today, State Representative Jim Watson (R-97, Jacksonville) introduced House Bill 2854, a ballot access reform bill for Illinois elections. HB2854, originally proposed by the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, would allow candidates for public office an alternative to Illinois' unequal and burdensome signature requirements by paying a filing fee in its place. The bill would allow candidates to pay a filing fee equal to 1% of the annual salary of the office sought in lieu of gathering signatures. Illinois requirements for independent candidates are in many cases a great deal more restrictive than they are for political party candidates, effectively preventing independents from getting on the ballot. HB2854 would make the requirements equal for independents and recognized party candidates, so that Illinois voters have a choice. If the bill were to pass, Illinois would join Louisiana, Florida, and Oklahoma in allowing certain candidates to pay a filing fee in lieu of the petition requirement.

This option is in my playbook of changes. We have started to discuss this here in New York.

Use the above link to find out more about The Free & Equal Elections Foundation.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).

The bill has passed 31 legislative chambers in 21 jurisdictions (AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OR, RI, VT, WA). In the recent 52–7 New York State Senate vote, Republicans supported the bill by a 22–5 margin (with 3 not voting) and Democrats supported it by a 30–2 margin. The bill has been endorsed by 2,003 state legislators.

Tom Golisano, one of the Founders of New York's Independence Party, endorses the National Popular Vote.



But there is a lot of disagreement with many of the smaller states for fear they will lose their power in the electoral process.

I agree there needs to be a change in the process but have not decided on its final form.

Use the above link to learn more.

How would you change the current process of selecting our president?









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Americans United to Rebuild Democracy

I met the founders of this group at the National Conference of Independents. They are a grassroots organization starting in NH focusing on election reform on the federal level. They have been working hard calling their town and city chairs all over the state and the response has been great. The also been working to contact people from across the country on the far left and the far right to show that these are real bi-partisan issues with hopes to have them shaking hands for their kick off.

Use the above link to view their new website and join their movement.


Their message is: An Alliance Between Conservatives & Progressives for Fundamental Election Reform: Clean Elections, Congressional Term Limits, and a Ban on Gerrymandering.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

General Election Playbook

Continuing my playbook for Structural Political Reform, we come to the General Election. We left off with the running of the Open Primary. Now we need to decide how we get candidates to the General Election. And here is where we run into many walls.

Under our current state and federal systems, the general is where we not only elect our political representatives, states use this election to determine the number of petition signatures to get on future ballots, determine a party's position on the ballot, etc. So reducing who can get on the general ballot requires all states to change their election laws. So I was ready to punt this part of my playbook. Then I can across this comment on someones blog:

"Why don’t the different parties pay for the primary? It is not the election. It is to see who will run in the election according to the different parties..."

Now I had something to work with. Why do we need state run primaries? We only need the states to run state and federal General Elections where all registered voters have a change to take part in the process of voting.

To create a system to answer all the Supreme Court issues, I would create a General Election ballot system with these features:

1. All Candidates selected by their parties (Major and Minor) paid for system.

2. A fee or petition process for non-selected major and minor party candidates.

3. A fee or petition process for independents.

5. A fee or petition process for non-qualified party candidates. It would be up to the state to determine the process to become a qualified party.

6. Write-ins.

Ballot Format

There would be two boxes next to the candidate's name: One optionally indicates the candidates registered party, the other optionally indicates all endorsements.

A possible additional element in the primary could be IRV. This would allow your first selection of a favorite son or daughter, vanity candidate, etc., and the use of other selections to rank your choices.

Please let me know how you would run an election.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Republican suit to close primaries

Here is an example of why we need to continue the fight for this independent version of Open Primaries.

The South Carolina Republican Party’s legal efforts to close its primary elections to those outside its ranks has met resistance both from the state attorney general of its own party and an unlikely coalition of independents who say they want voting influence in the state’s dominant political organization.

A group of independents and state Legislative Black Caucus members — each being represented by former Democratic state legislator Fletcher Smith of Greenville and New York attorney Harry Kresky — is awaiting an answer from the judge on whether it can have a stake in the lawsuit. The groups listed in the motion to intervene are three self-described South Carolina independent voters, the South Carolina Independence Party, South Carolina Constitution Party, Progressive Network Education Fund, Columbia tea party, IndependentVoting.org and 13 members of the Black Caucus, including Greenville Rep. Karl Allen.

If the party wants to close their primary, let the party pay for their primary.

In South Carolina, any registered voter is allowed to participate in any primary without revealing political affiliation — though the voter must choose only one primary on that day.

For me this says it all. The concept of being forced to only pick candidates from one party is the Structural Political Reform we are fighting for. With over a third of registered voters not registered with the two major parties, we want to select candidates not parties.

Use the above link to read the entire article by Eric Connor, Staff Writer of the Greenville News.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Open Primaries / Open Ballots Playbook

Since returning from the National Conference of Independents and posting about it, I have been thinking about the question of Open Primaries and Open Ballots. If you have been reading this blog, you have read how I looked at opening the primaries and ballot access. But after the conference, I realized that the audience of independent activist have many different opinions on what the idea means and how it is looked at in their states.

The morning panel:


Panel Discussion
Moderated by Jackie Salit and IndependentVoting.org General Counsel, Harry Kresky with:

•John Avlon, Senior Political Consultant, TheDailyBeast.com; Founder, No Labels
•Theresa Amato, Ralph Nader’s Presidential Campaign Manager in 2004
•James Mangia, Executive Director, St. John's Well Child & Family Center and Founding Secretary, National Reform Party
•Bradley Tusk, Founder, Tusk Strategies; Campaign Manager Bloomberg 2009
•Lenora Fulani, Co-founder, IndependentVoting.org
•Michael Hardy, General Counsel, National Action Network
•Cathy Stewart, Chair, New York County Independence Party
•Douglas Schoen, pollster and author

Use this link to view the panel discussion.

Before I can decide on how things could work, I need to define what they should fix in our current political process. These panelist's thoughts helped me to begin this process:



As I have been blogging this issue, I have said that it is time for all voters to take part in the political process and should be able to select candidates and not parties. So the concept of opening a party's primary forces the voter to only select candidates pre-selected by the party and fails the ability for the voter to pick any candidates those choose for each position on the ballot . Then there is the issue of denying potential candidates the opportunity to get on the ballot.

The ballot issue should be easy to address by designing a process that is even and fair to all protential candidates: filing fee, equal number of petition signatures, write-ins, and the parties paying for their selection process. Write-ins are a little harder to decide. They are part of any primary system, but should they also be part of the General Election with the type of primary I am looking at? Of course what ever primary system we pick must take into account prior Supreme Court decisions.

Now we have the General Election. I have been looking at CA's Top Two but now I am not sure. Since most voters in our current system may not take part in the primary and only vote in the General. So I disagree with the concept of some % value that will negates a candidate from going to a general election. I will continue this General Election problem in future posts.

To create a system to answer all the Supreme Court issues, I would create a system with these features:

1. All Candidates selected by their parties paid for system, ballot accepted new and existing minor party candidates, independents, and write-ins are on one ballot.

2. There is two boxes. One optionally indicates the Candidates registered party. The other optionally indicates all endorsements.

3. General Election - TBD

A possible additional element in the primary could be IRV. This would allow the first selection of a favorite son or daughter, vanity candidate, etc.

What do you think is a way to Break the Two-Party Monopoly?









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us