Presidential Commission on Election Administration

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration was officially launched May 21, 2013, following President Barack Obama’s State of the Union pledge to identify non-partisan ways to shorten lines at polling places, promote the efficient conduct of elections, and provide better access to the polls for all voters.

The 10-member Commission will submit a final report to the President within six months of its first public meeting, which is expected to be held in Washington in June. Headed by Co-Chairs Bob Bauer and Ben Ginsberg, the Commissioners are experts in election administration, policy and procedures, or leaders from customer service-oriented businesses and industry.

The Commission was created by Executive Order 13639, Establishment of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. Commissioners were appointed by the President. They are:

· Robert F. Bauer, Co-Chair and member – Partner, Perkins Coie LLP

· Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Co-Chair and Member – Partner, Patton Boggs LLP

· Brian Britton, Member – Vice President, Global Park Operations and Planning at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

· Joe Echevarria, Member – Chief Executive Officer, Deloitte LLP

· Trey Grayson, Member – Director of the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University

· Larry Lomax, Member – Clark County (Nevada) Registrar

· Michele Coleman Mayes, Member – Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary for the New York Public Library

· Ann McGeehan, Member – Assistant General Counsel of the Texas County and District Retirement System

· Tammy Patrick, Member – Federal Compliance Officer for the Maricopa County (Arizona) Elections Department

· Christopher Thomas, Member – Director of Elections in the Michigan Department of State

Nathaniel Persily will serve as Senior Research Director for the Commission. He is the Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia Law School, and as of July 1, 2013, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School.

The Commission was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, with staff and support services provided by the U.S. General Services Administration. The Commission will be disbanded 30 days after it presents its final report to the President.

Voting Issues the Commission Will Consider:

1. The number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places.
2. The training, recruitment, and number of poll workers.
3. Voting accessibility for uniformed and overseas voters.
4. The efficient management of voter rolls and poll books.
5. Voting machine capacity and technology.
6. Ballot simplicity and voter education.
7. Voting accessibility for individuals with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and other special needs.
8. Management of issuing and processing provisional ballots in the polling place on Election Day.
9. The administration of absentee ballot programs.
10. The adequacy of contingency plans for natural disasters and other emergencies that may disrupt elections.
11. Other issues related to the efficient administration of elections that the Co-Chairs agree are necessary and appropriate to the Commission's work.

With around 40% of registered voters declaring themselves as not belonging to a political party, or independent voters, why are there no members of any organizations representing these voters on this panel?

These 11 issues are looking at the final part of the political process, the vote. What is missing is how do we change the two sides of ballot access, more candidates on the ballot and all eligible voters, voting.

CLICK HERE to view the commission's website.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Sarah Palin Could Become an Independent

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for Vice President responded to a Fox News Channel viewer’s Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative talker Mark Levin abandoning the Republican Party and creating something called the “Freedom Party.”

The question: "Would you & Mark Levin be willing to build a "Freedom Party" if GOP continues to ignore conservatives?"

Palin suggested she is open to the idea and said that if the GOP continues to abandon its conservative principles, other would follow suit.

“I love the name of that party — the ‘Freedom Party,’” Palin said. “And if the GOP continues to back away from the planks in our platform, from the principles that built this party of Lincoln and Reagan, then yeah, more and more of us are going to start saying, ‘You know, what’s wrong with being independent,’ kind of with that libertarian streak that much of us have. In other words, we want government to back off and not infringe upon our rights. I think there will be a lot of us who start saying ‘GOP, if you abandon us, we have nowhere else to go except to become more independent and not enlisted in a one or the other private majority parties that rule in our nation, either a Democrat or a Republican.’ Remember these are private parties, and you know, no one forces us to be enlisted in either party.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

TX and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

I spoke about Section 2 in a prior post that allows lawsuits to stop state laws that suppress the vote.

So I just read this from Ballot Access News:

On June 26, Texas Congressman Marc Veasey, who is African-American, and eight other plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against the Texas photo-ID law for voters at the polls. Veasey v Perry, 2:13-cv-193, southern district. Some of the plaintiffs are voters who lack the approved forms of ID. Others have state ID but the name on the voter’s ID and the name of the voter on the voter registration rolls don’t exactly match and the voter has not been able to resolve the problem.

The Texas law passed in 2011, but it has not yet been implemented, because Texas, as a covered state under the federal Voting Rights Act, had brought a lawsuit (which is permitted under the Voting Rights Act) to persuade a 3-judge court in Washington, D.C., that the Texas law should be pre-cleared. States covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act always had the ability to go to court if they didn’t trust the Attorney General of the United States to do a fair job of deciding whether to approve the law.

Texas’ lawsuit had backfired, because the 3-judge court had determined that the photo-ID law would have a racially discriminatory effect. But after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act earlier this week, the Texas Attorney General had announced the law would now be enforced. The new lawsuit is brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which covers the entire nation and which was not injured by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Thus, the predictions that the invalidation of Section 4 of the Act would lead to more litigation has already come true.

Other states where Section 2 could come into play:

1. Mississippi: The state legislature approved a voter ID scheme in 2012, but it has not received DOJ clearance. Despite the restrictions, Mississippi’s secretary of state said Tuesday they would proceed with implementing the voter ID law and that “We’re not the same old Mississippi that our fathers’ fathers were.“

2. Alabama: In 2011, the state passed a law requiring photo ID to vote, but never cleared it with the DOJ. Both the attorney general and the secretary of state said Tuesday they believed their plans could now be implemented in time for the 2014 elections.

3. Arkansas: In April, the Arkansas legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto to pass their voter ID legislation. With preclearance out of the way, the state law can now be implemented without DOJ review.

4. South Carolina: The Palmetto State passed a similar voter ID law in 2012, but DOJ at least succeeded in delaying its implementation. South Carolina’s attorney general issued a statement following the decision, lauding the Court for allowing the preclearance states to “to implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina’s.”

5. Virginia: Unlike several of the other states, Virginia’s voter ID plan was not scheduled to be implemented until July 2014 anyway. But unless Congress replaces the preclearance formula before then, Virginia will also likely be able to move forward with its plan.

6. Alaska, which just had its own voter ID law struck down, has not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling.

7. Arizona, which just had its own voter ID law struck down, has not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling.

8. Georgia, whose own voted ID law was likely ruled unconstitutional, has not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

SCOTUS Overturn of Section 4 and 2013 NYC Primary

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Section 4, preclearance, the changes made by the New York Legislature for just the 2013 Primary and Runoff will not need approval by the Justice Department.

So the following will happen:

1. The old lever machines will be used that have no way to verify the vote or do a recount.

2. The New York City Police Department, an executive agency of the Mayor, has been cut out of the reporting process. Election workers will upload the results directly to the New York City Board of Elections website, making the data available immediately. Under the old system, results would go to police precincts and then be distributed to the Associated Press. Now, the AP is no longer the gatekeeper.

"The news media and then the general public will have access in real time, as the election results come in from each poll site," said Manhattan Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh.

Do you see problems with this process?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

50th Anniversary of March on Washington

Civil Rights, labor, faith-based and community groups are mobilizing to commemorate the 50th anniversary of one of the most significant moments in U.S. history, the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. This year's march will take place Aug. 24 and be preceded and followed by a week of activities and events.

Fifty years have passed since 250,000 people peacefully filled the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and heard the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his transforming "I Have a Dream" speech. That outpouring spurred passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yet today, the dream is not realized, says the Rev. Al Sharpton, founder of the civil rights organization National Action Network, who spoke at a news conference announcing the themes and event for the anniversary march.

"This will not be just a nostalgia visit," he said. "It's a continuation of a call to action in a climate that is threatening to the achievements of the past 50 years."

"The need for political and economic rights is stronger than ever," said AFT president Randi Weingarten.

"The fight for equality and justice starts at the voting booth, at the job site, at the school site." Budding AFT leaders like the late Sandra Feldman cut their teeth on helping to organize the March on Washington, working with Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph and other heroes of that time. This summer, said Weingarten, we will mobilize members to be back in the nation's capital on Aug. 24. "We are proud to be not drum majorettes but soldiers tocontinue the work of Martin Luther King."

Other speakers at the news conference showed the broad and deep commitment behind this year's commemoration. They included Ben Jealous of the NAACP; Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Melanie Campbell of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Charles Steele Jr., of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Allendra Letsome of the National Organization for Women.

"We still need to mobilize for justice, freedom and equality," said Martin Luther King III. "The issues now are immigration, 60 million Americans living in poverty, no jobs and violence. The fact that we can't pass legislation to check gun violence tells you where we are today."

Clayola Brown, president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, cited AFT's place alongside Randolph in mustering resources and support for the last march and its goals. "Like then, today the job situation is deplorable," she noted. "Today we have 30-year-old people who have never had a full-time job in their lives."

Sharpton reiterated the goals and plans of the 50th anniversary commemoration: to march from the Lincoln Memorial to the King Memorial; to link the goals of the traditional civil rights and labor organization to a new generation of leaders; and to take a renewed message of civil and human rights to Capitol Hill. This will mark the start of a yearlong campaign, said Sharpton, to take on issues such as poverty, jobs, racial and class inequality, gender and immigration discrimination in the same spirit of nonviolent social action.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

The Hunger Site

The Hunger Site launched in June of 1999. It was the brainchild of a private citizen from Indiana, with the purpose of helping to alleviate world hunger. Creative use of the internet meant that a simple daily click of the button would give funding, paid for by the site's sponsors, to the United Nations World Food Programme.

Since its launch, The Hunger Site has established itself as a leader in online activism, helping to feed the world's hungry and food insecure. On average, over 220,000 individuals from around the world visit the site each day to click the yellow "Click Here to Give - it's FREE button". Since its inception, visitors at The Hunger Site and shoppers at The Hunger Site store have given more than 856 million cups of food.

The staple food funded by clicks at The Hunger Site is paid for by site sponsors and distributed to those in need by Mercy Corps, Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest), and Millennium Promise. 100% of sponsor advertising fees go to their charitable partners. Funds are split between these organizations and go to the aid of hungry people in over 74 countries, including those in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and North America.

More than a decade and half-a-billion clicks later, The Hunger Site remains a leader in online activism and a dynamic force in the fight to end world hunger

"Clicking the button on The Hunger Site is a way to trade a few seconds of your time to help complete strangers. Because thousands of people click daily, we are able to improve the lives of millions over time." -- €”Tim Kunin, co-owner and CEO of The Hunger Site

Eventually the site became too large for one man to manage, and in 2000 The Hunger Site was sold to GreaterGood.com, which today operates as the GreaterGood family of websites.

Since then, hundreds of millions of people from around the world have clicked and shopped to make a difference. In addition to 100 percent of sponsor advertising fees, a portion of every sale in the suite of GreaterGood stores goes to charity.

The Hunger Site continues its ambitious goal to harness the power of the Internet for good, uniting people around the world to form an online community devoted to the eradication of hunger.

I have been a "CLICKER" since 1999.

CLICK HERE to become a "CLICKER".










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

President's Commission on Election Administration

On a Tuesday, June 25th National Conference call with 150 independents, Jackie Salit, President of IndependentVoting.org, launched a new campaign to pressure President Obama's newly formed Commission on Election Administration.

Here's what she had to say after the call:



Independents across the country are sending a loud message to the President's Commission that any examination into defects in the election process must look at independents' experience, and the way we are inhibited from participating in the process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter to the President's Commission on Election Administration

Presidential Commission on Election Administration
GSA, 1776 G Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Commissioners,

We, the undersigned, are independent voters from all 50 states. We are deeply concerned that America’s political process is in a crisis and that serious attention must be paid to it.

We are glad that President Obama has formed a commission to look at some of the defects in the electoral process, though we feel the narrow mandate of the Commission falls short of the public debate we need to have. One example of these shortcomings is that there are specific defects that affect independent voters which the Commission does not seem prepared to address. With 40% of Americans now identifying as independent, this should be a Commission priority.

Independents are not accorded the same courtesies and privileges as members of political parties, such as receiving mailed ballots at home or having the right to serve as poll workers on Election Day. During primary season, where some states permit us to vote, we come face to face with poll workers who do not understand their own rules and frequently misinform us about our voting rights. We have no representation on the Federal Elections Commission or Boards of Elections, and are often required to register to vote as “unenrolled” or “undeclared” voters, not as the independents that we are. In many states, we are barred from primary voting altogether, even though we – as taxpayers – finance those closed party primaries.

As you go about your work to identify and recommend improvements to the voting experience, we urge you to recognize that the American people want a more non-partisan form of politics at every level. Please use the power the President has given you to be open and responsive to this need!

Sincerely,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLICK HERE to sign the letter to the Commission today!










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Now that the Supreme Court has suspended Section 4 (preclearance) of the Voting Rights Act until Congress creates a new plan, we need to understand the options of Section 2.

Section 2 of the Act, is a nationwide prohibition against voting practices and procedures, including redistricting plans and at-large election systems, poll worker hiring, and voter registration procedures, that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. It prohibits not only election-related practices and procedures that are intended to be racially discriminatory, but also those that are shown to have a racially discriminatory impact. The Attorney General, as well as affected private citizens, may bring lawsuits under Section 2 to obtain court-ordered remedies for violations of Section 2.

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that the section, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, was a restatement of the protections afforded by the 15th amendment. Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Under that standard, a plaintiff had to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.

In 1982, Congress added protections for voters who required assistance in voting. At the same time, it examined the history of litigation under Section 2 since 1965 and concluded that Section 2 should be amended to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued a report to accompany the 1982 legislation. In that report, it suggested several factors for courts to consider when determining if, within the totality of the circumstances in a jurisdiction, the operation of the electoral device being challenged results in a violation of Section 2.

These factors include:

1• The history of official voting-related discrimination in the state or political subdivision.
2• The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized.
3• The extent to which the state of political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority-vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting.
4• The exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes.
5• The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process.
6• The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns.
7• The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

The Judiciary Committee also noted that the court could consider additional factors, such as whether there is a lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of minority group members or where the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of the challenged standard, practice, or procedure is tenuous. However, the Judiciary Committee report describes this list of factors as neither exclusive nor comprehensive. Moreover, a plaintiff need not prove any particular number or a majority of these factors in order to succeed in a vote dilution claim.

In its first review of a case brought under the 1982 amendment, the Supreme Court explained that the "essence of a Section 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives."

The statute continues to prohibit state and local officials from adopting or maintaining voting laws or procedures that purposefully discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

Now that the preclearance division has no work, they should be put on Section 2 cases so they can be fast tracked.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

My Option for the Supreme Court Voting Rights Case

Today, the Supreme Court keep the Voting Rights Act but required a new coverage formula. In a 5-4 ruling that split the court along ideological lines, the court freed some or all of 15 states from the requirement that all changes to voting laws, procedures and even polling place locations get advance approval from the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges.

The formula for coverage under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

As enacted in 1965, the first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a "test or device" restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The Act's definition of a "test or device" included such requirements as the applicant being able to pass a literacy test, establish that he or she had good moral character, or have another registered voter vouch for his or her qualifications.

The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. This resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina) were covered. In fully covered states, the state itself and all political subdivisions of the state are subject to the special provisions. In "partially covered" states, the special provisions applied only to the identified counties. Voting changes adopted by or to be implemented in covered political subdivisions, including changes applicable to the state as a whole, are subject to review under Section 5.

In 1970, Congress recognized the continuing need for the special provisions of the Act, which were due to expire that year, and renewed them for another five years. It added a second prong to the coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the relevant date for the maintenance of a test or device and the levels of voter registration and electoral participation. This addition to the formula resulted in the partial coverage of ten states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming. Half of these states (Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming) filed successful "bailout" lawsuits.

In 1975, the Act's special provisions were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups," which were defined as persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." As before, Congress expanded the coverage formula, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing any election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age. This third prong of the coverage formula had the effect of covering Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

In 1982, the coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to it. In 2006, the coverage formula was again extended for 25 years. Section 4, along with those other sections that are dependent upon it, such as Section 5 and 8, will expire in 2031.

The best way to handle this is during the census. Every ten years during the census all states are put on preclearance. Under the law, a jurisdiction can get out from under Sections 4/5 if it can show a ten-year record of non-discrimination.

They then file their bailout 10 year record. After the Justice Department review, the preclearance map will change. This will then affect each state when they file their redistricting maps.

With all the current laws making it harder for some to vote, I would like to see voters use the part of Section 4 that allows them to partition for the Justice Department to examine a bailout county or state and see if they have failed a bailout, and if proven, put them back on preclearance.

From Ballot Access News:

"Since it is not likely that Congress will re-write section four, the practical impact of today’s decision will be to increase the number of lawsuits. Section two of the act has not been limited in any way. It gives the U.S. Justice Department authority to sue any state or other jurisdiction that has an election law or practice that results in racial discrimination in voting. The number of such lawsuits will probably increase, because the new laws and practices that lead to such lawsuits will increase without the pre-clearance law in effect."










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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

New York City 2013 You Decide!

I think I found one of the best guides to New York City's 2013 Elections.

DecideNYC.com is New Yorkers' guide to the 2013 City elections and New York City politics in general. There is a great deal of information available for anyone interested in New York City politics and the upcoming elections, whether you have not been following along at all, you are running for office yourself, or you are somewhere in between.

Visit DecideNYC.com to see who is running for what in 2013, investigate the candidates, races, and issues of this incredibly important election cycle, and prepare to decide who you will choose to represent you in city government for the next four years. There is overviews of all the races, profiles of all the candidates, breakdowns of key issues, lists of endorsements and political clubs, resources for teachers and students, and more.

New York City voters, want and need clear, organized, and accessible information; and that if provide it, you will use it, regularly and wisely, to decide who you trust with your VOTE IN THE 2013 NYC ELECTIONS.



Their mission is to help you engage in the careful consideration of those seeking to represent you in office; to provoke conversation here and elsewhere about races, candidates, and issues; to aid you in making thoughtful decisions on who to elect to represent you and lead this city; and to contribute to a significant increase in voter turnout in both the September primaries and the November general election in New York City, 2013.

It is going to be an intense year in New York City, and one that will drastically transform the makeup of the City government. I am excited about the election cycle upon us and look forward to keeping you informed through this blog.

CLICK HERE to visit DecideNYC.com.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

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