Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Brooklyn Federal Court braces for NY State redistricting

A federal court that recently redrew New York's congressional districts is now preparing for the possibility of intervening in the redistricting process for state legislative elections as well. In an order last week, the court appointed Columbia Law School professor, Nathaniel Persily, to analyze what action the court must take to ensure New York has an electoral map in time for nominations for state legislative primaries on June 26.

In a lawsuit, Favors v. Cuomo, community leaders and activists asked the Eastern District of New York to intervene in the redistricting process for the state legislature and also in a separate process for New York's districts for elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. The plaintiffs claimed the legislature's inability to reach an agreement on House of Representatives districts and the possibility of legal impasse over the state legislative districts could disenfranchise voters. The federal case is Favors et al. v. Cuomo, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 11-5632.

Whether the court takes over redistricting for the state legislature depends on the outcome of several pending legal proceedings:

1 - The legislature's plan must be approved, or "precleared," by the U.S. Department of Justice, in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. This is because several districts in New York City, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, have a history of discriminatory voting practices. The preclearance process, which began on March 16, can take anywhere from a week to 60 days.

2 - To speed that up, state lawmakers have filed a parallel preclearance proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. which also has the authority to vet Voting Rights Act compliance. If the redistricting map fails to win preclearance, it would go back to the state legislature for changes, a delay that could cause the Eastern District court to intervene.

3 - Even if the state legislative map is precleared, it could still be derailed by a challenge in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. New York Senate Democrats have filed a lawsuit, Cohen v. Cuomo, that seeks to declare the state's addition of a 63rd Senate seat unconstitutional. Oral arguments in the state case have been scheduled for April 6. Depending on when and how the judge rules, the result could send lawmakers scrambling to redraw their maps with weeks or less to go before state election primaries can begin.

In its order March 21, the Eastern District panel did not define the scope of Persily's analysis, which he is set to begin April 9. But one of the judges, U.S. Circuit Judge Reena Raggi, indicated the work may entail analyzing what steps, if any, the court must take to redistrict the state's legislative lines, including what information it must have and which areas of the maps it is legally obliged to address. This panel, is made up of Raggi, U.S. Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch and U.S. District Judge Dora Irizarry.

Update
One set of complainants comes from the town of Ramapo, and says the new Assembly lines unfairly split the Orthodox Jewish community into three assembly districts.

“Based upon the proposed districts and the 2010 election results, there is no question that the Proposed Assembly districts were drawn specifically to separate the Villages of New Square and Kaser,” the plaintiffs write, alleging the new maps violate the state constitution and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Another plaintiff’s amended complaint finds fault with both the Senate and Assembly’s lines in Nassau County, which the complainants argue crack districts that should be minority majority districts, disenfranchising black and Hispanic voters.

Still another complaint says the Assembly has not yet submitted its plans for redistricting to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance, and that the lack of an approved plan constitutes a violation of New Yorkers’ rights. The Senate submitted on 3/16/2012 and on 3/20/2012 with more information, under submission number 2012-1445.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Monday, March 26, 2012

NY Legislature to Get Corporate Money Out of Elections

New York is poised to play an important role in the movement to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited corporate spending on elections.

K1016 is a resolution that would put the New York State Legislature on record as calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

If you are in the Albany area, attend the New York Assembly Election Law Committee Hearing tomorrow (Tuesday, March 27) at 9:30 a.m. in Room 715 of the Legislative Office Building.

If you believe that corporations should not have the same rights as people to contribute money to political campaigns. Please notify the New York Legislators to vote YES on #K1016.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Friday, March 23, 2012

NY Redistricting Lines Still Open to Change

Last week Governor Cuomo signed off on the new State Senate and Assembly districts, seemingly ending the redistricting saga, but those lines still have some hurdles to overcome.

First, the U.S. Justice Department must certify that the lines conform with the Voting Rights Act.

Then the State Senate Democrats filed a lawsuit that the creation of a 63rd State Senate seat violates the state constitution and was done only to help the Republican majority retail power.

There is still a possibility these lines could be struck down and the courts would have to step in once again. So in Brooklyn Federal Court, a panel of federal judges directed a court-appointed expert to start looking at new state lines by April 9, a move cheered by civil rights groups.

"Today the court has agreed to hold onto the case just to make sure that if there's a problem with the maps, that the court will be ready to step in," said Esmeralda Simmons of the Center for Law and Social Justice.

That same Brooklyn court has already created new Congressional lines, setting the stage for some interesting primary races for and between incumbents.

For example, Congressman Charles Rangel's district has been redrawn to encompass a large chunk of the Bronx, which is now majority Hispanic. So State Senator Adriano Espaillat has begun the process of gathering signatures in order to challenge Rangel in a primary.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NYC Needs a Complete Vote Count

The two candidates for a, Special Election on March 20th, for a Brooklyn State Senate seat, came through election night separated by a razor-thin margin in votes cast on electronic scanning machines, forcing a count of absentee ballots filed on paper. Republican David Storobin and Democrat Lew Fidler should insist that the New York City Board of Elections tally every vote, using a single method.

Contrary to all fairness and equality, not to mention common sense, the New York City board’s standard operating procedure uses differing approaches for determining whether a vote is validly cast. When a voter fills in an oval beside a candidate’s name, the vote will be counted either by a scanner, assuming the machine works correctly, or by the board as workers inspect absentee ballots. When a voter leaves an oval blank, but, say, circles a candidate’s name, the vote won’t be counted by a scanner, but will be counted if the board finds such a marking on an absentee ballot.

This probably happened in the Storobin-Fidler battle. The scanner tally lists 42 ballots on which voters filled in no choice, unlikely, as those people were dedicated enough to go to the polls to make a choice in the only race on the ballot. Odds are they made a selection without filling in an oval. Their votes are, for now, lost, while similarly cast absentee ballots will be included. In such a super tight race, 42 ballots could be decisive.

The board will inspect all the paper ballots only if the margin ends up below .5%. With a total tally of about 21,000, that comes out to roughly anything more than 105 votes. Now, the preliminary margin is 118 votes. At that level, there would be no visual ballot inspection without a court order.

The bumblers at the New York City Board of Elections are not to be trusted to make such fine distinctions. On election night, they came up with tentative results by adding up votes for each candidate by hand after cutting the paper receipts from the scanners into little piles of scraps. They came in 82 votes over for Storobin and 80 votes over for Fidler compared with a later computer tally.

Storobin and Fidler can safeguard the accuracy of the count and set an invaluable precedent for New York by demanding to see, under the state Freedom of Information Law, photographs of ballots that the scanners record with each vote.

The Daily News used the law recently to review ballots cast at a Bronx polling place whose returns defied possibility. The inspection found a haywire scanner had miscounted hundreds of votes.

Storobin and Fidler should file the request now to search out the missing votes even as the board labors though the absentee ballots.

Doug Kellner, co-chairman of the New York State Board of Elections, wants such images posted on the Internet for every election. It’s a great idea, and it should get a boost from this race. The campaigns have nothing to lose and perhaps a seat to win.

This seat will be eliminated at the end of the year due to redistricting.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Thursday, March 22, 2012

How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans




Mickey Edwards is the Director of the Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership and lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He was a member of Congress from Oklahoma from 1977 to 1992, elected as a Republican.

Since leaving Congress he has taught at Harvard, Georgetown, and Princeton Universities and has chaired various task forces for the Constitution Project, the Brookings Institution, and the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition, he is currently an advisor to the US Department of State and a member of the Princeton Project on National Security.

In his upcoming book The Parties vs. The People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans, Edwards offers a six step plan to fix Congress, designed - as he puts it - "to turn our political system on its head, so that the people, not parties, control our government."

Edwards calls for open primaries to "break the power of the partisans ... so "They [elected officials] would be our representatives, not the representatives of their political clubs."

Use the above link to read Edward's article in The Atlantic for a preview of what's to come.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Monday, March 19, 2012

New Yorker's Still Could Face Three Primaries

From the New York Daily News.

New Yorkers will go to the polls four times between now and November thanks to the insanity of the election calendar and petty, political maneuvering by state Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and his Republicans.

April: Presidential primary.

June: Primaries for Congress.

September: Primaries for State Legislature.

November: General Election.

Cost: $200 million.

Gov. Cuomo and Assembly Democrats agreed to move the September primaries to June and combine them with congressional races. That would have saved $50 million, but Skelos claimed the early primary would distract lawmakers from Albany duty.

He thinks a fall primary is better for the Senate GOP, so who cares about taxpayers and voters?

Use the above link to read Assembly Bill A09271 that was passed by the Assembly but rejected by the Senate.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Thursday, March 15, 2012

NY Redistricting View from a State Senator

This is from my New York State Senator.

I want to take the opportunity to explain what happened after midnight last night in the State Legislature.

Last night, around midnight on the morning of the Ides of March, my Senate Democratic colleagues and I refused to support a backroom deal on redistricting that protects incumbent legislators by disenfranchising minorities, discriminating against voters from New York City and Long Island, and blatantly violating the Voting Rights Act.

When we tried to raise these issues in debate, the Republican Senate leadership silenced us – violating a previously agreed-to timeframe for debating the measure. Faced with a bill that would violate New Yorkers’ voting rights, and denied even the opportunity to speak on the floor of the Senate, we stood up for New Yorkers in the only way left to us – by standing up and leaving the Senate Chamber. We refused to legitimize their cowardly censorship of floor debate, an open attack on deliberative democracy. We were thus marked absent on the vote, but let me be clear: my vote was NO!

Then, continuing into the dead of night, the Senate passed bills that had just been introduced on Tier VI Pensions, casino gambling, teacher evaluations, and DNA collection. All of these bills were then voted on while the ink was still wet, after I and my Democratic colleagues had left the chamber. These are all important legislative measures that should have been reviewed, discussed and debated on the merits – but instead they were passed between midnight and 4 a.m., with no real opportunity for legislators to review or consider them.

There was no committee review or discussion and no public notice, nor did they age for three days as required. They were delivered with Messages of Necessity from the governor – which allows skipping the normal process under emergency circumstances. What was the emergency?

This procedure was used because passing them was the tradeoff for the governor agreeing to sign the gerrymandered redistricting lines. I and my colleagues would have loved the opportunity to study and debate these specific proposals, but because that was not permitted, we were prepared to vote no last night.

I feel my colleagues made an important statement by refusing to participate in the farce that occurred last night in the Capitol. There has been much talk about a ‘new New York’ and in particular a new, functional, transparent Albany, but passing bills in the dead of night certainly does not meet that description. With backroom deals on redistricting and constitutional amendments, with 4 a.m. votes on bills too new to even have been read, with the doors to the Capitol literally locked down to shut out the public – we have been brought back to the ugly days of the past.

I am proud of my Democratic colleagues for being the only ones willing to take a stand for 19.5 million New Yorkers’ voting rights, for small-‘d’ democracy in our state, and for the ‘new New York’ I will continue to fight for that is, sadly, not yet a reality.

Sincerely,

Liz Krueger
State Senator










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Paying for a Closed Primary

Most states uses tax payers money to pay for their state primaries. In a closed primary, only registered party members can vote in their party. So we have a problem, some of the tax payers paid for something they can not take part in.

If you have followed this blog, you know I want open primaries as a state's candidate selection process.

So how could we change how a state pays for a closed primary. Well how about making the party reimburse some of the cost of running their primary. They could pay the cost of printing the ballots, the cost of opening the public building for the day, the poll worker's salary, and the cost to program and run the voting system.

What do you think is the better way of paying for a closed primary?









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY Redistricting Update

New York's Legislature version of transparency is to pass bills and laws in the middle of the night. So why think the redistricting and primary dates would be any different and they did this after passing a resolution calling this week "Sunshine Week".

With the Democratic Senators leaving the chamber, the Republican Senate passed new maps, a constitution amendment to create their version of an independent commission, and added a new 63rd Senate district. The independent commission change would also cancel a prior passed bill that would have counted prisoners where they lived at the time of arrest and not their prison location.

The Assembly passed the change to the state's primary date from Sept. to June 26, the same as the the congressional date, the new lines, and the constitutional amendment.

Now we watch what Governor Cuomo will do.

For Immediate Release: March 15, 2012

GOVERNOR CUOMO ANNOUNCES PASSAGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND LEGAL STATUTE THAT PERMANENTLY REFORMS REDISTRICTING PROCESS
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the passage of the constitutional amendment and legal statute that reforms the redistricting process in New York state by putting an end to the partisan and incumbent-protection gerrymandering that has plagued the process for over a century.

“This agreement will permanently reform the redistricting process in New York to once and for all end self-interested and partisan gerrymandering,” Governor Cuomo said. “With the legislature agreeing to pass this historic constitutional amendment twice by a specified date, and passing a tough statute that mirrors the amendment, we have taken a major step toward finally reforming the state’s broken redistricting process. New York is now a leader among the growing number of states that have reformed their redistricting process in an effort to stop such gerrymandering.”

Dr. Michael MacDonald, Associate Professor of Government and Politics, George Mason University and non-resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, said, “Thanks to Governor Cuomo’s principled stand and the legislature’s willingness to think beyond their immediate political calculations, New Yorkers have an unprecedented opportunity to permanently improve the process of drawing political boundaries to better reflect the needs of New York’s communities over the desires of the politicians. This is a truly remarkable development. Never before in the history of American politics has a governor negotiated such a redistricting reform with the legislature in the midst of this decennial power struggle. The constitutional amendment announced today will bring much-needed independence and fairness to the redistricting process in New York.”

The agreement announced today includes three components, as follows:

Constitutional Amendment: The Senate and the Assembly each agreed to introduce a resolution this session that will amend the state Constitution to establish a new redistricting process for both state legislative and congressional district lines. The separate statute discussed below requires the amendment to be passed a second time by both houses no later than January 30, 2013, at which point it will be placed on the ballot statewide for approval by the voters. The constitutional amendment will reform the redistricting process permanently beginning in the next cycle in 2020-22 as follows:

· The Independent Redistricting Commission. The constitutional amendment requires the appointment of an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines, consisting of ten members: two appointees by each of the four legislative leaders and two appointees selected by at least five of those eight members. Neither of the latter two members shall have been enrolled members of either of the two major political parties in New York State in the last five years and at least one appointee made by either the assembly or senate minority leader must approve those two members. Accordingly, the commission’s composition will ensure unprecedented and substantial roles in drawing the district lines for both the minority party conferences and for citizens who are not major party members. The amendment further requires that the commission reflects “the diversity of the residents of this state with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, language, and geographic residence” and that the appointing authorities shall consult with organizations devoted to protecting the voting rights of minority and other voters concerning their appointments. The commission members must be registered voters in New York State, but shall not have been in the last three years (a) members of the state legislature or congress or a statewide official or the spouse of any of these elected officials, (b) a state officer or employee or legislative employee; (c) a registered lobbyist; or (d) a political party chairman. Together, these requirements will ensure that the commission’s members are both independent, representative of the State’s diverse communities, and sensitive to the critical importance to voters of fair and proper district lines.

· Commission Voting Rules to Ensure Independence and Curb Partisan Gerrymandering. To approve a districting plan, the independent redistricting commission requires the vote of at least seven of its ten members in support of the plan. If the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of two different political parties, then the seven or more members who approve a plan must include at least one member appointed by the speaker of the assembly and one member appointed by the temporary president of the senate. If the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of the same political party, then the seven or more members who approve a plan must include one member appointed by each of the four legislative leaders. This voting rule ensures that at least three members of the commission who were not appointed by the majority conferences in either house must approve a plan before it is sent to the legislature for a vote, a key barrier to partisan gerrymandering in the development of district maps.

· Commission Must Hold Extensive Public Hearings & Release Draft Plans with All Relevant Data Using Best Available Technology. To ensure greater transparency and public involvement, the amendment requires that the commission must hold numerous public hearings in specified cities and counties throughout the state and, prior to its first hearing, must make publicly available using the best available technology not only its draft plans but also all relevant data to facilitate public review and analysis of those plans, and the development of alternative plans. These provisions will create greater public transparency in the redistricting process and ensure that the commission’s final districting plans reflect fully input from communities and individuals across the state.

· Iowa-Style Process for Legislature’s Approval of Commission Plans Designed to Minimize Partisan Gerrymandering. After the commission’s public hearings, the Legislature shall receive and approve or disapprove the commission’s plans without amendment. If the commission’s first plan is rejected, the commission must submit an amended plan, which must be voted upon by the legislature again without amendments. If the commission’s second plan is also rejected upon such vote, each house may then amend that plan prior to approval except that such amendments must comply with the substantive principles set forth above and, pursuant to the statute being approved separately in conjunction with this resolution, cannot affect more than two percent of the population of any district in the commission’s plan. This structure will provide strict restrictions on the legislature’s changes to the commission’s plans.

· Legislature’s Voting Rules Designed to Protect Minority Conferences and Limit Gerrymandering. Special voting rules will govern each house’s vote upon the independent redistricting commission’s plans in order to protect the minority conferences in each house and ensure the integrity of the commission’s plans by requiring approval by more than a majority of members under certain circumstances. If the Speaker of the Assembly and the Temporary President of the Senate are members of two different political parties, approval of a commission’s redistricting plan shall require a vote in support of such approval by at least a majority of the members of each house. But if the Speaker and the Temporary President of the Senate are members of the same political party, then approval of a commission’s redistricting plan shall require a vote in support of such approval by at least two-thirds of the members of each house. This rule will prevent in future decades the kind of one-party gerrymandering to suppress the minority party in a state that has plagued other states, like Texas, in the past.

· Substantive Criteria to Prohibit Partisan Gerrymandering and to Protect Minority Voting Rights and Communities of Interest. The commission’s redistricting plans must be drawn according to principles that provide unprecedented restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, and new protections for the voting rights of racial and language minorities, and for existing communities of interest. In particular, the commission must consider whether district lines would result in the denial or abridgment of racial or language minority voting rights, no districts shall be drawn to have the purpose of, or result in, such denial or abridgement, and districts shall be drawn so that racial or language minority groups do not have less opportunity to participate in the political process than other members of the electorate and to elect representatives of their choice; districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties; for the first time in the constitution, communities of interest must be considered in drawing district lines; districts shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants and any deviation in a district must be explained specifically by the commission; and districts shall be contiguous and as compact in form as practicable.

Together, these principles will provide for the first time strong and explicit restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, and protections in the constitution for minority communities beyond those contained in the federal Voting Rights Act which is facing increasing legal attacks in the courts.

· Judicial Review Provisions To Enforce Compliance With Independent Redistricting Process & Adherence to Substantive Principles. If the courts are called upon to review the district lines, this amendment requires that the court find such lines to be invalid in whole or in part if they are not in compliance with the procedural or substantive provisions of this article. Together with the other protections noted above, this provision will help to ensure that the district lines that are ultimately adopted reflect the independence, concern for minority voting rights, and attention to equal representation that the commission must provide.

Statute: The Senate and the Assembly each agreed to introduce a statute to be approved by both houses that mirrors the constitutional amendment in all respects except for two additional elements. As set forth in greater detail in the statute’s effective date provisions, the statute is intended to ensure that, if the constitutional amendment is not passed for the second time in 2013 notwithstanding the public commitments by the two houses to do so, the statute will become effective and the redistricting process will be reformed by statute just as it would have been by constitutional amendment. These provisions further provide that if either house fails to pass the constitutional amendment a second time before January 30, 2013, then that house shall lose its appointments to the independent redistricting commission established by the statute and the governor will instead appoint those members. This provides a significant incentive for the legislature to honor their statutory commitment to pass the constitutional amendment a second time.

In addition, the statute further includes a restriction on any amendments made by the legislature to a districting plan submitted by the commission such that no amendment may affect more than two percent of the population of any district in such plan. This will ensure that the legislature’s amendments may tweak, but cannot fundamentally alter the commission’s district lines. It also provides more specific deadlines for each step of the redistricting process that are most appropriately placed in a statute rather than in the constitution. Critically, these additional provisions will be effective if the voters approve the constitutional amendment or if the statute instead becomes effective.

______________________________________________


Now will those in the legislature who do not want this go to court with issues about minority concerns, the calculations used to create the 63rd senate district, and voting rights act violations.

Can you guess what behind the door deals the Governor cut to approve this?









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Americans Elect Possible Candidate Ticket

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

According to a source within Americans Elect, Jon Huntsman will seek the Americans Elect presidential nomination, and Evan Bayh is willing to be his running mate. Huntsman was Governor of Utah 2004-2008. Bayh was Indiana Governor 1988-1996, and U.S. Senator 1998-2010. Huntsman and Bayh have not told Americans Elect leaders that they will seek the nomination.

Because Huntsman is a Republican and Bayh is a Democrat, the proposed ticket is deemed “balanced” by the Americans Elect bylaws. If Huntsman wins the on-line Americans Elect presidential primary, and Bayh becomes his running mate, the Americans Elect board would have no ability to contradict the results of the on-line primary. Of course, Huntsman and Bayh are the type of candidates whom the founders of Americans Elect would wish to see nominated in any event.


As a delegate to AE, I would vote for this ticket. But I wonder if the Board has already decided who they will support.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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