Blog
NY Reform
New York is no Nebraska
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
Last week, I spoke at a gathering of state legislators from around the country about post-election audits.
Before
I spoke, I had lunch with a bunch of legislators and staff from various
Statehouses (including, from what I remember, Connecticut, Nebraska,
and Louisiana). Nebraska Senator Bill Avery
told a story about how one of his legislature's committees had recently
voted on a bill he'd introduced. Just before the vote, the Committee
chair had said "I hate this stupid bill, " and it was promptly defeated
by a 9-1 vote (with Senator Avery being the one "yes" vote).
"Wait," I said, "your Committee chair held a vote on a bill that he hated?"
Yes, of course, it was required, the Senator replied.
"And did you have a hearing on the bill beforehand?"
Again, of course -- it was required.
The others at the table looked at me as if I was a fool. I had to explain I was from New York --
where hearings and votes are basically held at the discretion of a
Committee Chair (and her chamber's leader). Of course, I already knew
New York did things differently.
But it was nonetheless striking to see so many from statehouses in
other parts of the country assume that votes and hearings on bills
would happen in any state legislative body, as a matter of course.
Barnyard Animals and Redistricting Reform
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
Back in high school, my father coached my AAU basketball team- a
hodgepodge of players who were just good enough to get invited to
tournaments, where we would then get manhandled by teams with actual
talent. We had very little size, but we played solid, scrappy defense.
Unfortunately, we didn't get a lot of rebounds. This incensed my dad,
whose primary coaching tool was screaming "BOX!" (as in "box out") as
loudly as possible, whenever a shot would go up.
One day, after
a particularly disappointing game, he told us the story of some
barnyard animals who avoided all of the tasks necessary to prepare a
meal for themselves, yet they still wanted to partake in the feast. The
protagonist, Henny Penny, would ask them all "Who will pick the grain?"
or "Who will knead the dough?", and animals like Lucy Goosey and Turkey
Lurkey would summarily reply, "Not I!" Henny Penny was left to do all
of the work, but, predictably, the other animals were more than happy
to dig in once it was time to eat. The goal of the story was to point
out our team's reluctance to do the grunt work that needed to be done
(i.e, rebounding), even though all of us wanted to reap the rewards of
victory.
Enter Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton. Her guest column
on redistricting in the Ithaca Journal illustrates how Henny Penny and
Turkey Lurkey are sometimes the same creature. The beginning of her
piece is in the Henny Penny mold, presenting some important
considerations and questions for redistricting reform, including
compliance with Voting Rights Act, respecting communities of interest,
etc.
But these considerations begin to sound more like excuses
that undermine reform as the article goes on. For instance, Lifton
wonders aloud whether we could find non-partisans "who would be willing
to take on the complex task" of redrawing the boundaries for New York's
Congressional and state legislative districts, even though 2.3 million
New Yorkers are not registered to any
political party. And she struggles to understand how an independent
commission might be structured (as if one must be adopted out of whole
cloth) ignoring the fact that such commissions already exist elsewhere. In short, it's as if she's premptively saying "Not I!", a la Turkey Lurkey.
In fairness, I have no trouble with being cautious on redistricting
reform; we should be wary of recreating the current structure that
keeps the power to draw district lines, in essence, with the
legislature. Similarly, we must ensure that minority communities get a
fair shake. However, those who are facilitating the discussion should,
at the very least, present redistricting reform as an issue with
obstacles and substantial
benefits, not simply highlighting the negatives. Had Henny Penny
pitched the work as back-breaking labor to produce a meal that was
"pedestrian" or "lacking inspiration", the story wouldn't make any
sense. Who's going to give up a day of frolicking on the farm for that?
The Brennan Center salutes any and all who support meaningful and
effective redistricting reform, including Assemblywoman Lipton. But we
hope said supporters are converting more of our state's Turkey Lurkeys
into Henny Pennys, and not the other way around.
Hooray for…Albany?
The lights in Hollywood shine a little bit brighter on Oscar night, but who knew how much light they would cast on New York? Notwithstanding NY native Martin Scorcese’s victories for Best Picture and Best Director, several parallels can be drawn between the Academy Awards and New York’s political process. The state legislature, like the Academy, has voting practices viewed by outsiders as mysterious, if not secretive. Reform efforts have been ushered stage-right like an Oscar winner who’s thanked a few too many people in a rambling speech. And the incumbency advantage of elected officials combined with their control of redistricting ensures that, like the awards show, that though the outfits change in the legislature, the people wearing them rarely do.Eileen Markey’s article in City Limits alludes to another parallel. The majority of our state's prisoners come from downstate (New York City), but virtually all the state's prisons are upstate. More importantly, those prisoners are counted as "residents" of upstate towns in the decennial census, but they are unable to vote. Thus, for the purposes of reapportionment and redistricting in NY, prisoners are like seat fillers at the Oscars: they give districts the appearance of being full, but they have absolutely no clout.
This practice has meaningful economic and political consequences. The resources diverted to districts upstate do little to aid prisoners, while the actual residents get a disproportionately large slice of the pie. In turn, less money is directed to downstate districts that already lack resources and support returning prisoners upon their release. Politically, this method has favored Republicans, who are heavily concentrated upstate. By allocating prisoners up north, redistricters respecting one-person/one-vote doctrine must create more districts upstate; these puffed-up districts have tended to elect GOP candidates.
There are simple ways to change New York’s method of counting prisoners. Some states simply do not count prisoners when redistricting. Others, including Sen. Eric Schneiderman have proposed creating a database with the last known addresses of prisoners, and counting them there. Either proposal would bring more fairness to the system and help end the current practice in NY which heaps insult onto injury: not only are prisoners being used for partisan gain, but their home districts suffer as well. Or, put another way, not only are they little more than nominees with no chance at a statue, they're left without the coveted swag too.
What We Have in Common with Bill Murray
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
We're feeling a little bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. In the movie, weatherman Phil Connors is sent to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania to cover the ceremonial emergence of the groundhog who shares his first name. To his horror, Phil discovers that each day after that dawns not anew but as that same Groundhog Day.
For us, the nightmare is waking up every day and reading about the same
people doing the same thing: New York politicians, with their nearly
100% reelection rates and few viable challengers, legally raising
astronomical amounts of campaign cash that, after the election, they
can use for things clearly unrelated to campaigning.
Next week
we’ll get a fresh reminder of this constant fundraising; a law passed
in 1995 is set to cause contribution limits, already sky-high, to escalate even further. Every four years (this is the third iteration), the limits are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index, which has risen almost 12% since the last adjustment in 2002.
The resulting change
in the New York contribution limit for individuals giving to
gubernatorial candidates, shaking out to around $4,000, will actually
be larger than the entire allowable contribution in 21 states.
In the words of Phil/Bill: “There is no way this winter is ever
going to end as long as that groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't
see any way out of it. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.”
We
echo the sentiment and vow to keep pushing for more reasonable
contribution limits and other critical campaign finance reform.
0 comments | Permalink