Federal Judge Sets NY's Congressional Primary for June 26

So is NY headed for three primaries this year: April 24 for president; June 26 for federal races and Aug. 18 for state races?

The State Democrats' want the June date but the Republicans asked for the August date. The current date is September 11.

I wonder how the taxpayer's would feel about paying for four voting processes: printing ballots, opening polls, counting votes, etc.

It is time for a different way of running elections.

Now that we have some set primary dates, we still do not have the new redistricting lines for state and federal offices. The legislators' have produced their maps and the Governor is still standing by his veto threat because he wants an independent commission to draw the new lines. So this process could also go to a judge to draw the new lines. New York will lose two congressional seats due to the 2010 census.

In Texas, the Supreme Court said a judge must use the maps created by the legislators as a starting point in creating court defined maps. In California, the State Supreme Court approved maps created by a bipartisan independent commission.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY Redistricting Update

New York still has not created the new redistricting maps required by the 2010 Census.

Governor Cuomo, whose approval is required to pass a redistricting plan has taken the unequivocal step of promising to veto any redistricting plan passed under the current, non-independent redistricting process. On February 17, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office released a statement acknowledging that “Governor Cuomo has pledged that if an agreement on permanent reform of the redistricting process is not reached, he will veto the redistricting plans passed by the Legislature if those plans have been developed under the existing process and prioritize partisan and incumbent interests over the voters’ interests.”

On July 6, 2011, Governor Cuomo reiterated his pledge, stating, “I will veto a plan that is not independent or a plan that’s partisan . . . That’s what I’ve said all along. That’s what the people of the state of New York overwhelmingly support.”

And on September 30, 2011, when asked whether he would veto the redistricting boundaries being drafted by the legislature, Governor Cuomo responded “yes,” and added that he: believe[s] the process is not independent, and I don’t see how a non-independent process can come up with an independent product. I therefore would veto a bill that was not an independent product. It would then go to the courts. Period. And that’s what I have said, and that’s what I’m sticking by.

Then this week, The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous drubbing on redistricting.

In Perry v. Peres, the Justices rejected a series of election maps redrawn by a lower court in Texas to replace a map created by the Texas legislature to account for the population growth and four new Congressional seats. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had "exceeded its mission" and it sent the maps back to the drawing board.

In its decision, the Justices said redistricting is "primarily the duty and responsibility of the State," and that when faced with drawing maps, a court should take it cues from the version done by the lawmakers, with whom authority properly lies.

The Justices wrote ""faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by Judaical order, a court should be guided by the legislative policies underlying a state plan as long as those policies do not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution."









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

US Election Results Reporting in Jeopardy

The world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the U.S.'s dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, they often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format.

The bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA., and is growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE's servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get "first look" at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations. This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won't work (if SCYTL's voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own "audit" by matching one number against the other. These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count. SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

ONE Asks: Send the GOP Presidential Candidates a Message

Send this message to all the Presidential Candidates:

As you define your foreign policy priorities, please support solutions that save millions of lives, create a safe and more stable world and uphold a proud America legacy, all for less than 1% of the federal budget.

Use the above link to add your name.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY Primary and Redistricting Update

New York still has not created the new redistricting maps required by the 2010 Census or determined a new primary date from September required by the MOVE act (“New York shall conduct its 2012 non-presidential federal primary election . . . at least 80 days before the November 6, 2012 federal general election.”).

REDISTRICTING
The results of the 2010 federal census were released to the New York Legislature and to the general public on March 24, 2011.

Governor Cuomo, whose approval is required to pass a redistricting plan has taken the unequivocal step of promising to veto any redistricting plan passed under the current, non-independent redistricting process. On February 17, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office released a statement acknowledging that “Governor Cuomo has pledged that if an agreement on permanent reform of the redistricting process is not reached, he will veto the redistricting plans passed by the Legislature if those plans have been developed under the existing process and prioritize partisan and incumbent interests over the voters’ interests.”

On July 6, 2011, Governor Cuomo reiterated his pledge, stating, “I will veto a plan that is not independent or a plan that’s partisan . . . That’s what I’ve said all along. That’s what the people of the state of New York overwhelmingly support.”

And on September 30, 2011, when asked whether he would veto the redistricting boundaries being drafted by the legislature, Governor Cuomo responded “yes,” and added that he: believe[s] the process is not independent, and I don’t see how a non-independent process can come up with an independent product. I therefore would veto a bill that was not an independent product. It would then go to the courts. Period. And that’s what I have said, and that’s what I’m sticking by.

I saw a version of a new map and would no longer live in the 73rd Assembly District were I have served for the last four terms or eight years.

PRIMARY
The Republicans have asked the judge for an August primary.

The Democrats asked the judge to the primary to the fourth Tuesday in June, June 26, 2012. Moving the date of the primary would accordingly require moving up the
dates of a number of events which, under New York election law, are pegged to the date of the primary in what is called the Political Calendar.

For a June 26 primary election, the Political Calendar would start on March 6, 2012, which is the last day for State and County party chairs to file statements of party positions for the primary elections.

The next date on the Political Calendar would be March 20, 2012, the first day for candidates to collect signatures for their designating petitions.

Subsequent deadlines pepper the Political Calendar in the months leading up to the primary election. Advancing the primary date and Political Calendar would also advance preparatory political activities such as candidate fundraising and expenditures and citizen engagement with candidates through interviews, meetings, and forums. In the 2010 election cycle, candidates began expenditures as early as fourteen months before the primary. Similarly, citizens and political parties began holding forums and interviews with candidates five to six months in advance of the 2010 primary election.

Finally, New York laws affecting voting rights, including redistricting laws, require “preclearance” under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act gives the United States Department of Justice 60 days from an application for preclearance to reach a decision, and it often uses the entire 60-day period. Thus, in order for New York to pass a final redistricting plan in time for that plan to be precleared before the March 2012 start of the Political Calendar for a June 2012 primary election, the Legislature and Governor would likely have to pass final redistricting legislation no later than January 2012.

So with these delays, I would have to decide if I want to run in a new district, against another Independence Party member, and will have to make this decision soon.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

OWS Against Corporate Personhood

This is from the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) General Assembly meeting from 12/29/2011.

Resolution to End Corporate Personhood

Consented to by the Politics & Electoral Reform Working Group on 12/29/2011

Proposed by: the Subgroup to End Corporate Personhood of the Politics & Electoral

Reform Working Group

Type: Public Statement

Contact: endcorporatepersonhoodnyc@gmail.com

A RESOLUTION TO END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

The New York City General Assembly,

Convinced that one critical threat to authentic democratic self-governance comes from the fact that corporations have been defined as legal persons,

Declaring that persons are rightfully recognized as human beings whose essential needs include clean air, clean water, and safe and secure food,

Deeply disturbed that the granting of Constitutional protections to corporations has compromised, or resulted in the destruction of our communities, economy, democracy and natural world in many ways,

Recalling that corporations are human-made legal fictions, and that human citizens are the source of all legitimate power in any democracy,

Deeply concerned that corporations need only profit for survival, and that such profit and survival are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings,

Having observed that the great wealth of large corporations lets them misuse the legal system to overpower human beings and communities, thus denying The People’s rights,

Recalling that corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution, that The People never granted constitutional rights to corporations, but that individual judges and courts have misguidedly done so without Our consent,

Particularly disturbed that the rollback of the legal limits to corporate spending in elections creates an unequal playing field enabling corporations to influence elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions,

Having seen that large corporations own most of America’s mass media and use that media as a megaphone for their own agenda, drowning out other voices, With conviction that defining property as people is fundamentally immoral and a threat to real people, all other life forms, and the planet,

Be it resolved that the New York City General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street joins the millions of citizens, grassroots organizations and local governments across the country in calling for an Amendment to the Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and that the rights of human beings will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property.

We support a proposed New York City Council Resolution calling for such an amendment and urge the members to vote YES.

We further call on other communities, movements, and jurisdictions to join with us in this action by passing similar Resolutions.

How:
By making this resolution one of our public statements.

Why:
Corporate personhood is incompatible with democracy and individual sovereignty. We have the opportunity to declare our will to restore constitutional protections to human beings.

Occupy Los Angeles came to consensus on a similar resolution on November 27, 2011 (2 days before they were evicted) and another on December 5, 2011 in support of a Los Angeles City Council resolution to end corporate personhood which passed unanimously on Dec 6, 2011.

On January 4, 2012, the New York City Council is set to vote on a similar resolution calling on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the 2010 Supreme Court ruling of “Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission.”

Making this public statement days before the City Council votes, and before large-scale national actions marking the 2-year anniversary of “Citizens United” on January 20 and 21, positions OWS as a key voice in the dialogue and creates a powerful and resonant context that can rally more people to the movement.

We propose this resolution as one of many strategies for self-empowerment, not as part of a political party or as an endorsement of the current political system, but as one of many parallel efforts at curbing corporate dominion.

On January 4, 2012, the New York City Council did vote for a resolution calling on Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the 2010 Supreme Court ruling of “Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission”.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Three Campaign-Finance Lawsuits

With the fights to reverse Citizens United v. FEC, here are attempts to expand it.

Three key campaign-finance challenges, one already at the U.S. Supreme Court, seek to push through doors left open by the justices' controversial Citizens United decision.

Advocates and opponents of campaign-finance regulations are watching, in particular, U.S. v. Danielczyk, now being briefed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The government is appealing a district court ruling that struck down the federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

The two other challenges tackle federal prohibitions against foreign campaign contributions and contributions by individuals with federal contracts. "These lawsuits are all at least theoretically outgrowths from Citizens United," said Tara Malloy of the Campaign Legal Center. The plaintiffs in the three cases are using, to different degrees, language in Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion that campaign-finance regulations cannot discriminate based on the identity of the speaker, Malloy said. "This is not necessarily even the holding but it is this type of reasoning that is being leveraged," she added.

The three federal cases, while significant in their own right, are only a small part of a national landscape littered with campaign-finance challenges post-Citizens United. Attacks on state laws banning direct corporate contributions are underway in Iowa, Minnesota, Montana and Texas, and there are dozens of challenges to state disclosure laws, many mounted by the lawyer who brought the Citizens United case to the Supreme Court — James Bopp Jr. of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom of Terre Haute, Ind.

"Danielczyk is the challenge most obviously focused on federal restrictions, but if any of these cases were to go to the Supreme Court, the basic principle would very much be at issue," said Malloy, whose organization has filed an amicus brief supporting the government. "There are multiple avenues anti-reform litigators are pursuing to get to the Supreme Court."

The Danielczyk appeal in the 4th Circuit is considered by campaign-finance reformers and their opponents to be the most significant challenge to regulating big money in federal elections. This constitutional challenge to the ban on direct corporate contributions stems from a criminal indictment charging William P. Danielczyk Jr. and Eugene Biagi with offenses arising from a scheme to make unlawful campaign contributions, including at least $25,000 from corporate treasury funds.

Both defendants argued that the federal ban on corporate treasury contributions violated the First Amendment and they relied on the Citizens United decision. The district judge agreed. "[F]or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," wrote the district judge. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within [the federal campaign-finance law's] limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."

Five days later, the district court asked for briefing on whether it should reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in FEC v. Beaumont. In Beaumont, the justices upheld the ban as applied to nonprofit advocacy corporations. But the district court subsequently decided that the Beaumont decision was not controlling and had been undermined by Citizens United.

Federal law has prohibited corporations from contributing to candidates for federal office since 1907. The contribution ban is now contained in Section 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. It applies to unions as well. Although they cannot use general treasury funds for contributions, they can form political action committees which, in turn, can make contributions up to a certain limit from those segregated funds.

In Danielczyk, the government argues that Beaumont controls the decision. In that case, the government tells the appellate court, "the Supreme Court rejected a claim that nonprofit advocacy corporations are exempt under the First Amendment from Section 441b(a)'s blanket prohibition. The Court's rationale for rejecting that claim was that the same government interests that justify a general ban — the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption, and the avoidance of circumvention of individual contribution limits — also apply to a nonprofit advocacy corporation."

That rationale, according to the government, cannot be reconciled with the district court's conclusion that nonprofit advocacy corporations are validly barred from making contributions, but for-profit corporations are not.

The two criminal defendants are represented on appeal by veteran Supreme Court advocate Jeffrey Lamken of Washington's MoloLamken. Lamken's brief is due in early January.

Already at the Supreme Court, Bluman v. FEC challenges the constitutionality of another section of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures in local, state and federal elections. A knowing and willful violation of the ban is punishable by a civil penalty not exceeding the greater of $10,000 or 200 percent of any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation. It is also punishable criminally by up to five years' imprisonment. Benjamin Bluman and Dr. Asenath Steiman contend the prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to foreign nationals who lawfully live and work in the United States.

UPDATE
The Supreme Court on January 9, 2012 issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections.

The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.

Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

NY Campaign Finance Reform

During his State of the State presentation on Wednesday, Governor Cuomo called for a system of public finance for campaigns.

"I'm going to be sending you a bill on campaign finance reform that puts public financing, matched contributions, lower limits and increased enforcement at the Board of Elections," Cuomo said toward the end of his speech. "Let's have elections that New Yorkers can be proud of also. Let's have campaign finance reform and let's do it this year."

Good-government advocates have long said New York's limits are out of whack: An individual may donate $60,800 to a gubernatorial candidate and a unlimited amount to a party's "housekeeping" committee.

In his 2010 campaign platform, Cuomo included a pledge to move toward public financing, where small donations are matched with a common pool of taxpayer dollars. But his declaration Wednesday surprised many with its prominence and strength.

"We've never seen this kind of up-front support from a governor before," said Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause.

Cuomo has been a prodigious fundraiser, raking in $34.8 million for his successful 2010 run — four times that of his Republican opponent, Carl Paladino, according to an analysis by the New York Public Interest Research Group. He has continued raising at a brisk clip, holding a birthday party last month where guests paid as much as $2,500 a ticket.

Until now, Cuomo's reform rhetoric has focused in other areas; while Assembly Democrats favor public financing, Senate Republicans have historically opposed it.

He did broker a bill requiring legislators to disclose more of their outside income and creating a new commission to serve as the Capitol's ethics watchdog.

But with all this talk of public financing, many states and the federal government is talking about removing, and in some cases already removed, that little check box on state tax forms.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Update

People from coast to coast, and more than 40 national and statewide organizations including Greenpeace, 350.org, People For the American Way, Move to Amend, California Church IMPACT, and others, will take action demanding a constitutional amendment to end corporate dominance over elections and restore our democracy to We the People.

Resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn have been passed in New York City, Oakland, California and Duluth, Minnesota.

The California State Legislature introduced a similar resolution that, if passed, would call for an amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Supreme Court of Montana issued a stinging opinion upholding a state ban on corporate contributions and criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

E-voting gets closer in 2012

Voters in many states will have an easier time casting their ballots in 2012, as elections officials are now allowing some people to vote via email or iPad devices. They're also using technology to help count ballots faster and keep track of ballot boxes.

These new voting technologies will save time and money and perhaps allow more people to take part in the elections process. But some experts worry that security flaws still haven't been fixed and that federal elections are still decades away from going fully online.

Despite the concerns, some states are embracing e-voting as a way to counter low voter turnout.

Oregon, for example, allowed disabled people to vote with iPads during a special election in November 2011 and will continue allowing that in 2012.

Oregon is also one of 11 states that currently or will soon let residents register to vote online as long as they have a valid state driver's license or ID card, according to Politico. All other states require voter registration in person or by mail.

West Virginia officials ran a pilot program in 2010 that allowed military and overseas voters to return their ballots online, said Jim Glance, spokesman for the West Virginia Secretary of State's Office. The program won't continue in 2012, however, because legislators failed to renew it.

In Long Beach, Calif., city officials are putting radio frequency identification (RFID) chips on ballot boxes to track their movements after polls close. The chips are used by big-box retailers to track inventory through their supply chain.

Other states are installing new high-speed scanners to help count paper ballots more quickly.

While some states and localities are taking baby steps to embrace new voting technology, it's not likely that online voting will come to the masses anytime soon, experts say.

Then we have Americans Elect 2012, where any registered voter can become an online delegate, determine the platform , and pick a third party ticket where the President and Vice-President must be from a different party or be an independent.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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