See Process Descriptions for more detail on each of these initiatives….
N.Y. State enacts significant voting reforms in 2019
In January 2019, the N.Y. State legislature passed, and Gov. Cuomo signed, significant legislation making it easier to citizens to vote.
As Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said, “Government should be about breaking down barriers. We need more voices in our democracy, not fewer. Easing access to voting and having New Yorkers exercise their Constitutional right to have their voices heard shouldn’t be partisan or controversial. Other states have taken the lead on issues like early voting, same-day registration, pre-registration, and no-excuse absentee voting. It is time for New York State to catch up, so we can once again lead the way forward.”
The new legislative package includes the following reforms.
- Early voting: Enacting early voting will make voting more convenient for voters with professional or family obligations that make it difficult to physically get to the polls, as well as reduce waiting times and ease logistical burdens for poll workers. The new law provides Early Voting of 10 days, which includes two weekends. Prior to this law, N.Y. was one of only 12 states that did not permit early voting.
- Synchronizing federal and state elections: New York State currently holds separate primary elections for state and federal elections. With the addition of a presidential primary every four years and a general election, this means that in some cases New York is holding four different elections in a year. This can be confusing to voters, wastes administrative resources, and significantly restricts voter turnout. The separate primaries for federal and state offices were a major cause of the extremely low voter turnout in N.Y. State. This bill will unify the federal and state primaries and ensure that voters only go to the polls once to choose their nominees. This change should significantly increase voter turnout.
- Pre-registration for minors: New Yorkers are not permitted to register to vote unless they will be 18 years of age by the end of the year, and by the date of the election in which they intend to vote. This bill will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote, meaning that a voter will automatically be registered on his or her 18th birthday. This should make it much easier for people to register.
- Universal transfer of registration: When New Yorkers move to a different county, their voter registration does not move with them. This requires the voter to re-register with his or her new local board of elections as if he or she were registering for this first time. This bill will ensure that when a voter moves elsewhere in the state, his or her voter registration will seamlessly go with them.
- Closing the LLC Loophole:Individuals and corporations have strict limits to their political spending, but large donors have avoided these limits by donating through LLCs. This new law places the same limit on LLCs as on corporations ($5,000). It also requires the disclosure of direct and indirect membership interests in the LLC making a contribution, and for the contribution to be attributed to that individual.
In addition to these significant improvements, the State Legislature also passed two resolutions for constitutional amendments.
- No-excuse absentee voting by mail: The New York State Constitution currently restricts absentee ballots to individuals who provide a qualifying reason, such as absence from the county on Election Day or an illness or disability. This unnecessarily prevents New Yorkers from being able to vote by mail for reasons other than those currently listed in the constitution, or simply for convenience. This constitutional amendment will make absentee ballots available to any eligible voter, no matter their reason for wanting one, which will help make voting as accessible as possible.
- Same-day registration: The New York State Constitution prohibits voters from registering to vote less than 10 days before an election and still being able to vote in that election. In today’s world with today’s technology, there is no policy or administrative reason to prevent voters from registering to vote on the day of an election. This constitutional amendment will eliminate this outdated but formidable barrier to the ballot box.
Other issues under consideration for 2020 include:
- Making Election Day a holidayso people do not have to take off from work to vote.
- Automatic registrationso people can register to vote when they get a driver’s license or interact with the state in some other official manner.
- Online registrationso New Yorkers can apply to the Board of Elections in the same way they apply to the DMV.
- Ban corporate contributionsto restore power to the people and reduce the power of special interests and dark money.
Reform Elections Now believes the State Legislature and Governor Cuomo have taken important steps to improve democracy in N.Y. State.
What is Election Turnout so Low in N.Y. compared to California?
California and New York are both solid blue states. They both have major urban areas. They are both affluent. Yet in districts with competitive Congressional primaries in 2018, New York had an average voter turnout of 27,401, while similar districts in California had an average turnoutof 200,962. Since Congressional districts have the same number of people, this means the turnout in California was 7.3x the turnout in New York.
2018 PRIMARY CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
NEW YORK CALIFORNIA
District Votes District Votes
2 12,771 1 190,371
5 13,548 2 198,684
9 30,551 4 211,571
14 29,778 12 206,382
16 30,078 30 128,471
21 19,618 33 163,001
23 23,501 45 167,957
24 23,855 48 174,024
25 35,509 52 167,236
Average 27,401 Average 200,962
There are a few major differences between New York and California:
New York has closed primaries, so only party members can vote. This means independents cannot participate.10 of the 27 districts had no primaries, depriving even members of each party of a choice.
More significantly, in N.Y. there have been two days for primaries: one for state races and one for national races. By dividing the primaries into two days, voters have been confused and discouraged from voting. Fortunately, the N.Y. State Legislature and Governor Cuomo have remedied this issue by passing a law in which the primaries will be on the same day. This should help increase turnout in the future.
California has non-partisan primaries, so anyone from any party can run and anyone from any party can vote. This has led to much higher turnouts in primaries and competitive general elections.
Which state do you think has the better democracy? The state where 27,401 people turn out to vote in the primary or the state in which 200,962 people turn out to vote?
At Reform Elections Now, we support non-partisan primaries, such as those in California. We oppose closed primaries, such as those in New York.
However, we believe that numbers often speak louder than words. What these numbers show is simple: New Yorkers are turned off by their electoral system, while Californians are turned on.
We believe the N.Y. State Legislature and Governor Cuomo have taken some positive steps in increase voter participation. However, we still believe that the closed primaries are a detriment to our Democracy, and that non-partisan primaries, such as those used in California are a good alternative.
Here is an Op-Ed Piece Written for the N.Y. Times by Chuck Schumer, a Democratic Senator from N.Y. and the Senate Minority Leader
End Partisan Primaries, Save America
By Charles E. Schumer
- July 21, 2014
WASHINGTON — POLARIZATION and partisanship are a plague on American politics.
Political scientists have found that the two parties have each grown more ideologically homogeneous since the 1970s. The Senate hasn’t been so polarized since Reconstruction; the House has not been so divided since around 1900. As measured by laws passed, the current Congress is on track to be among the least productive in our republic’s history.
How did this happen? One of the main causes has not gotten enough attention: the party primary system.
The reasons behind the shocking primary defeat last month of Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, who was then leader of the Republican majority in the House, are still being debated, but there is no doubt that his defeat highlighted the pernicious effects of the predominant “winner-take-all” party primary system. Even in one of the country’s most Republican districts, Mr. Cantor was not conservative enough for the fairly small proportion of highly energized, ideologically driven voters who turned out for the primary. The partisan primary system, which favors more ideologically pure candidates, has contributed to the election of more extreme officeholders and increased political polarization. It has become a menace to governing.
From 10,000 feet, the structure of our electorate looks to be healthy, with perhaps a third of the potential voters who are left-leaning Democrats, a third who are right-leaning Republicans and a third who are independents in the middle.
But primaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don’t typically vote in primaries. Instead, it is the “third of the third” most to the right or most to the left who come out to vote — the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum. Making things worse, in most states, laws prohibit independents — who are not registered with either party and who make up a growing proportion of the electorate — from voting in primaries at all.
The phenomenon of primaries’ pulling people to the extremes seems more prevalent in the Republican Party, where centrists and moderates are increasingly rare, as a result of a combination of factors since the 1970s — the shift of Southern states toward Republican control, the mobilization of evangelical voters around social issues, anti-tax movements in California and elsewhere, and the rise of conservative talk radio and other news media. But the dynamic could easily expand to include the Democrats, who have at times been pulled too far to the left, for example on issues like crime and welfare’s excesses in the 1980s.
Two additional factors exacerbate the problem of party primaries. The first are the deep-pocketed interests that often lie at the extremes. The loosening of campaign finance restrictions by the Supreme Court has unleashed a flood of “independent” political spending by these special interests.
The second is the redistricting process. Technology has allowed parties that dominate their state legislatures to draw districts that will almost never elect a candidate of the opposing party. Each party maneuvers, once a decade, to manipulate the boundaries to its advantage. One of the reasons the Senate is, for all its flaws, still more moderate than the House is that there is no redistricting, since senators are elected statewide.
Primary election rules are not immutably ingrained in our politics. Before the McGovern-Fraser Commission — formed after the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, which was marred by conflict over the Vietnam War — primaries were not even a major component of electoral politics in most states. Both parties adopted many of the commission’s recommendations, which were intended to weaken the power of party bosses. But today, with the decline of party-machine power, the polarization that divides the parties seems a far greater threat than establishment “bosses.”
We need a national movement to adopt the “top-two” primary (also known as an open primary), in which all voters, regardless of party registration, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a runoff. This would prevent a hard-right or hard-left candidate from gaining office with the support of just a sliver of the voters of the vastly diminished primary electorate; to finish in the top two, candidates from either party would have to reach out to the broad middle.
California, which probably mirrors the diversity of America more than any other state, was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system. The move has had a moderating influence on both parties and a salutary effect on the political system and its ability to govern. Louisiana has used a similar system since the 1970s, and Washington State since 2008. Voters in Colorado and Oregon will consider proposals later this year.
If it works in these states, it can work in others. In late June, Senator Thad Cochran, a conservative Mississippi Republican, won a runoff primary over an even more conservative challenger, Chris McDaniel, with the support of Democrats, many of them African-American, who crossed over to vote for him.
While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism. It would remove the incentive that pushes our politicians to kowtow to the factions of their party that are most driven by fear and anger. For those of us who are in despair over partisanship and polarization in Congress, reform of the primary system is a start.
VOTERS PROVE LIKE RANKED CHOICE VOTING—BECAUSE THEY SHOW UP AND VOTE
New York is considering putting Ranked Choice Voting for mayor on the ballot. We thought it would be useful to look at turnout in N.Y. as compared to turnout in cities that use Ranked Choice voting.
Based on available data, we find that turnout per population, in cities that use ranked choice voting is twice as high as turnout in the last election in N.Y. There can be no more powerful endorsement of this system than the fact that citizens show up in record numbers and exercise their right to vote.
In the last N.Y. mayoral election, there were 1,092,746 votes. This may seem like a lot of votes, but N.Y. City has a population of 8.623 million. This means that 12.7% of all citizens voted.
In San Francisco, Minneapolis, Oakland, Santa Fe, Portland Maine, and Berkeley Ca., the average voter turnout was 27.8%, more than twice as high as that in N.Y. City.
Compare the results in N.Y. with those of cities that use Ranked Choice Voting.
City Percent Voting
New York 12.7%
San Francisco 21.3%
Santa Fe 24.6%
Portland, Ma. 26.8%
Berkeley, Ca. 48.2%
Average for RCV Cities 27.8%
Why is turnout for Ranked Choice Voting So High?
There are a number of reasons.
• More candidates to choose from.
• Candidates representing broad constituencies
• Less negative campaigning.
• More cooperation and bi partisanship in governing.
Cities with Ranked Choice Voting have over twice the turnout of N.Y.C. Shouldn’t N.Y.C have an election system that its voters will like?
If you want Ranked Choice Voting in New York City, cast your vote in the upcoming election and send your opinion to your representatives.
New York City: The opportunity to choose Ranked Choice Voting in New York City’s municipal elections will appear on the NYC ballot this Fall held on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019.
This is a positive move for election reform and should be promoted and encouraged in order for it to be passed in the coming election. If it passes, it will substantially expand the total number of voters in the United States that have the opportunity to participate in RCV. This would move the city towards more candidates who are focused on a broad array of the constituents rather than just a particular narrow-interest sector. Typical results are: 1) less negative campaigning, 2) no ‘spoiler’ candidates who displace the common favorite, 3) greater voter turnout, 4) ultimate voter satisfaction with the election process, and 5) no run-off elections.
The 2019 City Charter Revision Commission, after a series of public meetings and input from related experts, chose five major areas for change. Listed first is Elections (Ranked Choice Voting), followed by changes in the Civilian Complaint Review Board (explanation of deviations from disciplinary recommendations), Governance (Public Advocate budget input), Budget (a rainy-day’ fund, and Land Use (more time for application reviews).
In voting on the proposed ballot items, the Commission had the opportunity to apply RCV to all municipal elections but voted to use RCV only in Primary and Special Elections. An amendment to apply RCV to general elections as well was voted down in the Commission by 8 to 6. The offices subject to RCV include: Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council Members. Voters will be permitted to rank in order of preference up to five candidates in the primaries or special elections.
How It Works: if no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the least number of first-choice votes would be eliminated, and the voters who chose that candidate would have their votes transferred to their second-choice candidate. If there were no majority, this process would repeat until two candidates remained, and the candidate with the most votes at that point would win the election.
This can be a positive step forward for election reform and we believe a contribution to getting our government working again. Support it.
Missouri: This required a defensive effort, which was successful, to head off an initiative that has been passed by the Missouri House two out of required three times, to revert to Closed Primaries! MO – 2019-07-30
Massachusetts: MA has an active group, Voter Choice MA, which is active in getting ranked choice voting for primaries and state offices through the state legislature or on the 2020 ballot as an initiative.
Maine: Maine is attempting by legislation to implement Ranked Choice Voting for presidential primaries. MO – 2019-06-22
Florida: The Democratic Party in Miami/Dade County is implementing Open Primaries to non-affiliated voters for its Primary, and is working to implement for the state Primary. MO – 2019-06-22
Florida: “All Voters Vote” is organizing a ballot initiative, to get some form of Open Primaries on the ballot in 2020 for implementation in 2022. MO – 2019-06-22
Florida: A good summary of Electoral Reform efforts in Florida can be found at http://www.floridaelectoralreform.org/electoral_reform/solution.html – MO 2019-06-22
A Big Victory In North Carolina Against Gerrymandering
Sep. 5, 2019
Political districts in North Carolina have been highly gerrymandered. In the 2018 elections, Republican candidates won a bare majority of the votes, but won 10 of the 13 seats. As one Republican lawmaker stated, his party members had settled on this map because “I do not believe it is possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats.” This was pure partisanship in its least democratic form.
Democrats and their allies sued and the case advanced to the Supreme Court. In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, ruled that drawing legislative districts were the responsibility of the state and that it would not interfere with the powers of the states. While no one seemed to contest that gerrymandering was unfair, the court stated that it was the responsibility of the states.
At the time of this ruling, Democrats sharply criticized the court, some even suggested increasing the numbers of justices in order to get results more to their liking. Republicans, on the other hand, praised the decision, primarily because the districts in North Carolina were sharply gerrymandered in their favor.
We have argued that gerrymandering is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Instead, it is a have-and-have-not issue. The party in power will always try to draw districts in a manner that benefits its partisans and disadvantages its opposition. We have also argued that State Supreme Court decisions in Pennsylvania, among others, and grass roots movements in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and Utah were having a significant impact on limiting gerrymandering and creating a system whereby districts were drawn by independent commissions instead of by politicians.
On September 2, 2019, the movement against gerrymandering had one of its biggest victories. The Supreme Court in North Carolina ruled that legislative boundaries for the State Senate and House were unfairly gerrymandered. In 2018, the Democrats received more votes than the Republicans, but because of gerrymandering, the Republicans held 54% of the House seats and 58% of the Senate seats. Theoretically, if the Democrats received more votes, they should have obtained more seats; but the Republican-controlled legislature placed the Democrats into a small number of districts so it could maintain its control.
In its decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court stated,
“The object of all elections is to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the people. (The) …. inescapable conclusion (was that the maps) do not permit voters to freely choose their respresentative, but rather representatives are choosing voters based on partisan sorting.”
With this week’s State Supreme Court decision, all of the districts will have to be redrawn before the next election. While this decision does not impact the U.S. Congressional seats (the case on which the Supreme Court refused to rule), it is very likely that these districts will be redrawn before the 2022 election and after the 2020 census.
In state after state, we are seeing judges and voters rebel against the partisan gerrymandering of their politicians. While the Supreme Court has refused to touch gerrymandering, local court decisions and local grass roots movements are having a huge impact in purple (North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio) and red (Missouri, Utah) states.
Of all of the issues that we follow at Reform Elections Now, we believe the fastest progress is being made in the effort to overturn gerrymandering and create fair elections for all citizens.
New York City: The City Council is moving forward to implement Ranked Choice Voting to avoid multiple runoff elections. MO – 2019-06-22