http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/OPINION/603060311/1005
Monday March 6, 2006
ALBANY ANGLE
New
York's new motto: 'Dead last and defiant'
JAY GALLAGHER
Albany Angle
ALBANY - For a state government trying to shed a
"dysfunctional" label, a federal lawsuit last week pointing out that
New York is dead last in updating its election system represents a significant
setback.
The U.S. Justice Department filed suit against the state, to
try to get it to comply with the four-year-old Help America Vote Act, which is
supposed to streamline voting procedures. Congress passed the measure in 2002,
in the wake of the 2000 presidential-election debacle in Florida.
The most important provisions of the law would provide new
voting machines, more accessible to the handicapped, and set up a statewide
voter-registration list to fight fraud while making sure everyone who is
eligible gets to vote.
While the process hasn't gone smoothly in all states, many
had new machines and lists ready for 2004 elections. Some have been slower,
finding that machines ordered haven't worked properly.
Where does New York rank?
"The worst," said Dan Seligson of Electionline, a
national non-profit group that monitors elections. "New York state is now
farther away from complying with HAVA than any other state."
New Yorkers have heard "the worst" applied to
their state government before. In 2004, the Brennan Center for Justice, a think
tank affiliated with New York University, called the New York Legislature the
nation's "most dysfunctional."
That study found that New York lawmakers virtually never
seriously debated bills on the floor or even considered them in committee and
also almost never rejected a bill. It was also the only Legislature in the
country that allowed lawmakers to vote without being in their seats. Then there
was the matter of not passing a budget by the start of the fiscal year for 20
years in a row - by far the longest streak in the country.
That report sparked enough of an outcry so that last year
lawmakers now actually have to be present to vote in most instances. Some
issues, including the budget, are debated in public instead of behind closed
doors and the budget was passed on time. (Almost everyone gave them a mulligan
for actually finishing about a week later when the last $1 billion in spending
was decided on.) But if those actions were a step away from dysfunction,
certainly the sorry history of the HAVA deliberations is a leap the other way.
What happened?
First, Republican Gov. George E. Pataki put the No. 2
official at the state Board of Elections, Republican Peter Kosinski, in charge
of the process, bypassing the top official, Democrat Thomas Wilkey. That action
set the partisan tone for the issue right from the beginning.
Then it was the Legislature's turn. The partisan split was
evident early on. Republicans were most eager to make sure that people who
weren't registered to vote didn't cast a ballot. Democrats, on the other hand,
wanted to assure than no one who was registered was turned away from the polls.
The marginal voters, mostly poor and largely minority, are overwhelmingly
Democratic.
Last year lawmakers finally agreed on a wide array of proper
IDs, with enough safeguards so that so that the chance of fraud was reduced.
Then when it came time to look at which machines to buy,
high-powered lobbyists entered the fray. The fight was between the lobbyists
who wanted the state to buy the more expensive ATM-like machines and
good-government groups who thought the simpler optical-scan machines were the
way to go.
The Legislature never did resolve that issue - it decided
instead to pass the buck to the counties that now will have to pick their own
machines.
But first the state elections board has to make sure that
machines the counties are allowed to buy actually work. They're still working
on that.
So New York might actually benefit from being so slow and
get it right the first time. But based on the history of this voting-machine
debacle so far, don't bet on it.
Gallagher is the Albany bureau chief for Gannett.
© 2005 Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.