Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

State

State

Decision Opens New York to Widespread Online Voter Registration


schneiderman rally

AG Schneiderman (photo via AG's office on flickr)


The office of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued an opinion on Tuesday concluding that online voter registration is permitted by state law.

The opinion comes as a response to a request sent from Suffolk County to the Attorney General’s office in February for advice on whether implementing online registration, including the use of electronically handwritten signatures, would be allowed under state election law.

Schneiderman’s go-ahead to Suffolk means the county is free to expand online registration. “Thanks to this opinion from Attorney General Schneiderman,” said Suffolk County Executive Steven Bellone, “we can explore avenues to make voter registration more modern and help increase participation in our democracy.”

Currently, 31 states and Washington, D.C. offer online registration. New York is one of those states, however, voters can only register online through the Department of Motor Vehicles and must have a driver’s license, learner’s permit, or a non-driver ID card to register that way. The opinion from Schneiderman’s office allows counties to offer widespread online registration.

Additionally, the DMV’s voter registration system is not entirely paperless, as paper forms are still exchanged between the DMV and the State Board of Elections, meaning the administrative process is still paper-based, which runs the risk of losing forms or data entry errors from processing hand-written applications.

“We ought to modernize the election laws so that both registering initially and maintaining and updating the registration can be done online and automatically,” Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsors several voting reform bills, told Gotham Gazette during an interview earlier this month. “Both to give voters more control over the process and to minimize the extent to which there are errors in the rolls resulting from clerical errors from paper applications.”

The conclusion from Schneiderman’s office won’t do much to eliminate clerical errors from paper applications, however, as the opinion stipulates that, while voters may electronically sign their registration form, the registration form must still be “mailed to the board of elections by the applicant or a third-party.”

Still, Schneiderman hailed the opinion as one that opens the door to electronic signatures and expanded online voter registration drives. “At a time in New York where our citizens experience too many barriers to participation, I am gratified that this opinion invites a new era of truly online voter registration, an incredibly exciting step that will help make the state election process more accessible and simpler for all,” Schneiderman said in a statement announcing the opinion.

The announcement was applauded by Citizens Union, a government reform group. Its executive director, Dick Dadey, said in a statement that accompanied the attorney general’s notice, “We are thrilled that Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has issued an advisory opinion stating what Citizens Union has long held – that current state law permits the use of an electronic handwritten signature for the purposes of registering to vote.”

According to Dadey, “The consequence of this opinion will hopefully increase ease of access to casting a vote and encourage many New Yorkers not only to register, which has been an outdated and cumbersome process for many, but also exercise their civic duty to vote. After many years of being able to pay their income taxes online, New Yorkers will be pleased to know that they now can register to vote online.”

Assemblymember Kavanagh and state Senate Deputy Minority Leader Michael Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, have pushed for years for the passage of the Voter Empowerment Act, which would expand online registration, among other reforms, yet the political will to reform New York’s outdated registration system has not been present in Albany.

The Voter Empowerment Act would expand online registration and require the state Board of Elections to make certain registration information available to voters online so they may update their information over the internet, which could improve the accuracy of New York voter rolls by reducing the number of outdated or duplicate registration records. It would also save the state and counties money by reducing costs involved with processing voter registration and maintaining an accurate list with the current error prone, paper-based registration system.

Kavanagh is hopeful that with the renewed focus on New York City’s dysfunctional Board of Elections and Governor Andrew Cuomo’s inclusion of proposals for early voting and automatic voter registration in his State of the State address, progress on the long list of voting reform bills in Albany may happen this year.

“I do think that what has happened leading up to the presidential [election] may be a spur for many real changes,” Kavanagh said, “A lot of people heard these concerns - legislators, the administration, the Board, and the press - so I do hope that this will be the start of some changes.”

The opinion from Schneiderman’s office comes one week after his his office's voter complaint hotline received a record number of complaints due to numerous errors made by the city Board of Elections during and leading up to the presidential primaries.

According to Schneiderman, his office ”received more than one thousand complaints" on election day, meaning about six and a half times more complaints were received that day alone than during the 2012 general election (150 complaints total in 2012).

Persistent problems with the BOE has led both City Comptroller Scott Stringer and Schneiderman to open investigations into an agency that Stringer has called “consistently disorganized, chaotic, and ineffective.”

Mayor de Blasio has also offered the BOE an additional $20 million in “incentive funding,” which the BOE may only accept on the condition that the agency signs a binding agreement to work with an outside consultant and elections experts to “identify and rectify systemic challenges within the organization.”

***
by Meg O'Connor, Gotham Gazette
     

Read more by this writer.

Note: Gotham Gazette is an independent publication of Citizens Union Foundation, sister organization of Citizens Union.

Despite Concerns, BOE Commissioners Call De Blasio Referral Valid


de blasio testifying

De Blasio (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


Mayor Bill de Blasio and his allies are under investigation for using a common fundraising tactic employed in legislative races across the state. Risa Sugarman, the state Board of Elections enforcement counsel hand-picked by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, kick-started the investigation with a criminal referral to Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance. Now, as controversy swirls around the mayor, the degree to which he and his team exploited state election law could be what the case hinges on, experts say.

Sugarman’s memo, which was leaked to the New York Daily News and the New York Post, alleges that de Blasio’s allies funnelled millions of dollars through county party committees to specific Democratic candidates in a 2014 bid to flip control of the state Senate. Sugarman’s referral raises questions about de Blasio’s team’s practices, but also about why their use of the campaign finance system in such a way is under scrutiny when the practice appears routine.

“There is nothing novel about the 2014 Democratic Party campaign to elect Democratic candidates to the state Senate, other than your attempt to selectively criminalize it,” Laurence Laufer, an attorney for de Blasio and others targeted by the investigation, wrote in response to Sugarman. Laufer’s letter was made public over the weekend as de Blasio and his allies sought to respond to the news of the leaked memo and ongoing investigation.

Laufer continued, claiming: “Beyond the legal and regulatory issues implicated by your office’s memorandum being improperly leaked to the press, your memorandum reflects either a shocking lack of understanding or a complete disregard of the most fundamental aspects of the state’s election laws.”

While making this claim, however, neither Laufer nor de Blasio has explained how the mayor’s attempt to flip the Senate was legal. Laufer did not return a request for comment and when answering a series of questions from reporters on Monday at an unrelated news conference, de Blasio did not go into a detailed justification. Instead, the mayor said that others have done similarly while asserting “unequivocally” that he and his associates did not break any laws.

A look at the fundraising practices of candidates from both sides of the aisle involved in tight elections across the state generally reveals large donations from party campaign committees. State election law limits donations to candidates to $10,300, but the cap to state and county political committees is $103,000. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg used his fortune to bolster the Senate Republican Majority by large donations to their party accounts, which made their way to individual candidates. Assembly Democrats routinely use the tactic and Senate Democrats and Republicans have done the same during recent special elections. Donors are usually aware that their large donations to party accounts will be quickly sent out to candidates in tight races.

The question for many becomes: What is different about this case?

Blair Horner, executive director of the New York Public Interest Research Group, said he believes the case, as raised by Sugarman, rests on the ability to show coordination by de Blasio’s allies. He is not sure whether that will meet a legal test.

“The New York State campaign finance laws are such a disgrace already, but then they’ve created the ability to use the party committee to circumvent campaign limits. My understanding is the more explicit you are in how the money is to be spent the closer you get to trouble,” Horner said. “It's going from implicit, where everyone knows this is how things work, to being explicit and writing instructions on checks. But in the end it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether they think it is criminal.

Sugarman’s memo details that some checks being sent to county committees were labeled “per mayor” and alleges de Blasio’s allies effectively took over party committees, ensuring the large donations they solicited would go into a party account and then quickly out to a candidate.

“Based on the evidence that these transfers were pre-arranged, reasonable cause exists to believe that all the contributions were made to the county committees simply as straw donors. Therefore, they should be considered contributions to the candidates and subjected to the candidate’s contribution limits,” reads the memo.

Sugarman cites election law that states “willfully” collecting and coordinating donations “for the purpose of evading contribution limits” is a Class E Felony.

“It is my understanding that what makes this different was that donations were specifically earmarked for certain campaigns. That there was explicit coordination,” Richard Briffault, professor of law at Columbia, told Gotham Gazette. “How do you prove it? You have to get the right testimony to make the case.”

On Monday, de Blasio told reporters that all of his fundraising activities are vetted by lawyers and he is confident he violated no laws. "It's outrageous and, again, I don't know what's motivating it,” de Blasio said of Sugarman’s accusations, which had to be approved by BOE commissioners. “I think Mr. Laufer's letter raised a number of good questions about what might be motivating it, but the facts that he lays out about the consistency in our state law and the fact that my predecessor and so many other people live by those exact same standards, I think it speaks for itself."

Sugarman’s position was created in a 2014 deal between Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state Legislature that saw the end of the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. The idea behind it is to give more teeth to enforcing election law.

Since starting at the BOE in September, 2014, just around the time de Blasio’s efforts to flip the Senate kicked into high gear, Sugarman has repeatedly butted heads with BOE commissioners who have expressed concerns that she has neglected routine enforcement - including reminders and fines for candidates that neglect their filings - and has refused to explain to them the standards by which she pursues investigations. Sugarman did not return a request for comment.

“I agree with Laufer’s memo and his concerns about selective prosecution,” Douglas Kellner, one of two Democratic BOE commissioners, told Gotham Gazette. “All four commissioners have been complaining Sugarman has not explained standards by which she refers criminal complaints or why she has abandoned the civil process of fining people who violate disclosure.”

Gregory Peterson, one of two Republican BOE commissioners, echoed Kellner’s concerns. “Every time we ask what her standards are she tells us it is her business,” Peterson told Gotham Gazette. “Selective enforcement is a slippery slope where you have to wonder whose agenda are you riding on? This case may have been selective enforcement, but I think she was right on.”

Despite their concerns about Sugarman’s approach, both Kellner and Peterson indicated they believe her take on de Blasio’s efforts to switch the Senate may be correct and warrant further examination.

“Without commenting on any particular case I can say there is nothing wrong with giving to a party committee. There is nothing wrong with transferring from a party committee to a candidate,” Kellner told Gotham Gazette. “But you can’t have an agreement to do all of the above.”

Peterson said similarly. “You can’t do indirectly what you can’t do directly,” said Peterson. When asked what makes the de Blasio case different from any of the many other instances of donors using party accounts to boost candidates, Peterson responded: “I think this one timing wise...it was done one, two, three, boom! A lot of times a union donates to a party account and it sits there for a while. In the mayor’s case you have a note saying ‘per the mayor’ and the money goes in and it goes out just as quickly.”

It will be up to investigators at DA Vance’s office to decide whether the tactics of de Blasio and his allies amounts to a prosecutable offense. Vance, a Democrat like de Blasio, works closely with the mayor’s administration. On Monday, as de Blasio repeatedly questioned Sugarman’s motivation, he said defiantly, “we welcome a full airing of the facts. I want all the facts out there because I’m quite convinced the facts will show that everything was done legally and appropriately.”

Regardless of whether the case comes to court a number of observers believe Sugarman’s memo could lead to more scrutiny of the use of party accounts in general.

“She may be inadvertently opening an attack on all committees and be setting a precedent,” said Horner. “How do you stop at just one?”

Still, Horner admits there is another possibility: “This may come down to the way people in Albany operate implicitly rather than explicitly. It may be possible for one to see the way things are done in Albany and out of ignorance act explicitly. Maybe you’re just not supposed to say the magic words.”

***
by David King, Albany editor, Gotham Gazette
     

Read more by this writer.

Will for Water Contamination Hearings Nearly Vanishes


cuomo hoosick

Cuomo tours a water filtration area in Hoosick Falls (photo: Governor's Office)


A number of state legislators once eager to hold hearings into drinking water contamination by a cancer-causing chemical in the small town of Hoosick Falls now seem loathe to even discuss the matter. The change in tune by some seeking to hold the Cuomo administration accountable and ensure a public discussion of the issue appears to have accompanied the passage of the new state budget.

The Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, announced in February that hearings would be held into the matter in April. Assemblymember Richard Gottfried of Manhattan, chair of the health committee, and Assemblymember Steve Englebright of Long Island, environment committee chair, were set to oversee them.

Several lawmakers stressed the importance of using the hearings to discuss the state’s decaying water infrastructure and dealing with and preventing the kind of contamination found in Hoosick Falls, a village in Rensselaer County not far from the Vermont border. Others were interested in examining why it took the state a year to warn residents about the safety of their water after being contacted by concerned residents and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The topic of drinking water protection and infrastructure was put forward by some Assembly Democrats and their allies as one of the issues that needed more funding and could be provided for by the millionaire’s tax being proposed by Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie.

With the budget resolved at the end of March and April nearing an end, hearings have not been scheduled and lawmakers who were supposed to be involved don’t want to discuss them. The offices of Gottfried and Englebright failed to return inquiries into the status of the hearings. Neither did the offices of Senate health committee Chair Sen. Kamp Hannon of Long Island nor Sen. Kathy Marchione, who represents Hoosick Falls.

A number of legislators and advocates are concerned the hearings were traded away in a budget deal, a concession won by the Cuomo administration. The Hoosick incident has proven embarrassing for Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his team - the administration was slow to respond and has sought to downplay criticism of how it handled the matter. The Cuomo administration did not respond when Gotham Gazette asked if the governor supports hearings.

Assemblymember Steve McLaughlin, a Republican who represents Hoosick Falls and surrounding areas, originally pressed for hearings and said he is concerned the hearings and, in turn, his constituents were used during budget negotiations. “I told them in February: ‘Don’t use my constituents as leverage,’ and it looks like that is exactly what happened.” McLaughlin said he wouldn’t be surprised to see federal hearings on the matter before the state takes action because Congressional Rep. Chris Gibson represents the area. Gibson’s office did not return an inquiry into whether he would support federal hearings. (Gibson has indicated he exploring a run for Governor in 2018.)

Concerns were raised in 2014 about the possibility of contaminated drinking water leading to increased cancer rates in Hoosick, a town of about 4,000. Emails obtained by The Times Union and Politico New York show that the state Department of Health resisted pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency to warn residents about the safety of their water for nearly a year. It wasn’t until December 2015 that the EPA issued a warning to residents notifying them that their drinking water was testing well above acceptable levels of a chemical known as PFOA. The state declared it a disaster area and has since begun installing filters on local wells. Residents, meanwhile, are still scared that they face an increased risk of cancer.

Cuomo has lashed out at the EPA, criticizing the agency for not establishing the amount of PFOA safe to consume over the long-term. "Just pick it, you have the scientists, EPA," Cuomo said on March 14 during his first visit to Hoosick Falls since the water crisis began. "We want a national standard because this shouldn't be a question for anyone.

Cuomo came under considerable criticism for failing to visit the town for months after declaring its water unsafe to drink. Then, his Sunday morning visit was only announced to the press a few hours ahead and local officials were left in the dark.

“If this happened in Westchester there wouldn’t have been any hesitation to hold hearings,” said McLaughlin, who said he plans to press the Assembly to reschedule hearings immediately. “This is just shameful. I may just hold hearings myself. I don’t know who would show, but it can’t be ignored.” McLaughlin said he hasn’t been told directly the hearings are not happening. Heastie’s office did not respond when Gotham Gazette asked if the speaker still supports holding hearings. In February, Heastie’s spokesperson told Politico New York that the Assembly was planning April hearings.

McLaughlin’s counterpart in the Senate, Marchione, is considerably less troubled by a lack of hearings. She told Susan Arbetter on the Capitol Pressroom radio program in February, “We will discuss that [hearings] because whether the state didn’t move quick enough or whether they thought they moved fast enough, sometimes you have to hear from the other perspective why they moved slowly, when did they actually know?”

Marchione told Politico New York last week that she doesn’t want hearings until the Department of Health completes blood testing of Hoosick Falls residents. Her message echoes that of Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, who said in February he thought hearings should wait until after the problem is fixed. Fixing the problem is more important than figuring out who to blame,” Flanagan told Politico New York.

Flanagan’s office did not return request for comment on whether the majority leader still supports hearings.

McLaughlin said he is dubious of assertions that hearings should not be held while the problem is being solved. “The people of Hoosick Falls deserve clean water, but they also deserve the truth,” McLaughlin said.

Advocates say New York could lead on what has become a national focus by setting new drinking water standards, and holding hearings to examine the events in Hoosick Falls to determine how to best prevent and respond to contamination in other areas of the state.

“There is no doubt government needs to be held accountable,” said Liz Moran of Environmental Advocates of New York. Senator Marchione publicly called for hearings and now she says we don't need them. This is very high stakes for her constituents and they will hold her accountable.”

In a March op-ed in The Times Union, Moran’s group wrote that ”Public hearings can also address the root causes behind such contamination: America's broken chemical policy of calling things safe until someone gets sick, and the lack of strong regulations and enough cops on the beat to keep people safe.”

While Moran said she is disappointed by the lack of hearings, she noted that the state budget does include some items that deal with the overall issue of ensuring clean, reliable, and safe drinking water across the state.

“Water safety is definitely something that is in the spotlight because of Flint [Michigan]. It is much more on the minds of New Yorkers,” Moran told Gotham Gazette, with an additional nod to Hoosick Falls. “There are lines in the budget to provide funding to detect water quality and a grant program to help repair aging water infrastructure. More can always be done but it's a positive step.”

***
by David King, Albany editor, Gotham Gazette
     

Read more by this writer.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years