As you may know, New York's old mechanical lever voting machines -- the kind that hardly changed over 80 years of use -- are being replaced, beginning with the primary elections this September, by optical-scan machines.  Your vote will be cast on a "bubble sheet" similar to the ones students use on standardized tests and fed into a machine. It's a pretty significant change -- but unless the Board of Elections (BOE) makes one more minor change to the system, an estimated 18,000 New Yorkers could have their votes tossed out. That's because of how the machines handle "overvoted" ballots -- those where the voter has selected too many candidates.  In most jurisdictions across the country where the same machines are used, overvoted ballots are automatically rejected and returned to the voter, often with instructions on how to correct the ballot so the vote will not be voided.  We could do this in New York, too, if the BOE would make a simple correction to the machines' settings, one that could be done in a day for no expense.  The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University has already filed a lawsuit on the matter, but we can also help by urging the BOE to protect New Yorkers' votes and to immediately change the machines' current settings.  I hope you will join me in writing to the BOE.  Below, I have included a sample letter you can use. Let's make sure that all New Yorkers' votes will count. Sincerely, Daniel R. Garodnick 211 East 43rd Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY  10017 (212) 818-0580 www.garodnick.com www.twitter.com/dangarodnick ***SAMPLE LETTER***   Douglas Kellner and James A. Walsh Co-Chairs New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany, NY  12207-2108   Dear Commissioners Kellner and Walsh:   I am writing because I am concerned that New Yorkers may be prompted to cast an invalid ballot by the new voting machines because of their current settings.    Specifically, I am troubled by the way the new machines handle "overvoted" ballots - ballots the machine won't read because it believes the voter has selected too many candidates.  With the old lever machines, it was impossible to cast a vote for too many candidates.  However, the new machines, which are supposed to be a step forward, not only allow overvoting, they even give voters a confusing message that encourages them to "accept" and "cast" ballots that may be invalid.   Most other states like California, Connecticut, Minnesota and Wisconsin program their voting machines to automatically return overvoted ballots so that voters can correct the mistake.  The State Board of Elections should give us the same protections that exist in these other states - and in time for the upcoming primary elections in September.  I believe this can be easily done.   Please make this simple fix so that every vote will count.   Sincerely,   [Your name]

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 2:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

These poll numbers were released earlier today by Rasmussen Reports -- "an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information."

44% Nationwide Have Unfavorable View of Franken

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters have an unfavorable opinion of former "Saturday Night Live" comedy writer Al Franken as he prepares to join the U.S. Senate as its newest Democratic member.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% have a favorable opinion of Franken, who will be sworn in next week as a senator from Minnesota. Twenty-two percent (22%) are not sure what they think of him.

It is fairly typical for individual legislators to have negative favorability ratings on a national basis.

There's clearly more intense feeling among those who don't like Franken. Twelve percent (12%) of voters have a very favorable view of the new senator, compared to 29% who have a very unfavorable opinion.

Similarly, 19% of Democrats have a very favorable view of Franken, while 51% of Republicans and 32% of voters not affiliated with either party regard him very unfavorably.

Franken fills the seat held for the last six years by Republican Norm Coleman, who unsuccessfully sought reelection and has been challenging the accuracy of the vote count in last November's election in court. But the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled this week in Franken's favor.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters nationwide are at least somewhat confident that their votes are accurately counted in elections, including 22% who are very confident. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not very confident that their ballots are correctly counted, and another seven percent (7%) are not at all confident.

Democrats and unaffiliated voters are more confident than Republicans about the accuracy of the vote count.

These finding have been consistent for several years. After the November 2006 election, for example, 66% of voters said they were confident that their ballots were properly counted and the proper candidates were declared the winners.

Two-thirds of American adults (66%) believe their vote really matters on Election Day.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters say they have been following news stories about the contested Minnesota election between Franken and Coleman at least somewhat closely, with 24% who say they have been following very closely. Fourteen percent (14%) are not following news about the Minnesota Senate battle at all.

In early December of last year, as the legal challenges to the election results were just heating up, 67% of Minnesota voters expected Coleman to beat Franken. Just 16% thought Franken would win.

But by mid-May after Coleman suffered repeated losses in the courts, a majority of Minnesota voters (54%) said the GOP incumbent should concede the race and let Franken be seated in the Senate, while 41% disagreed. At that time, 44% of voters in the state had a favorable opinion of both Coleman and Franken, while 55% regarded the two men unfavorably.

# # #

To view the original report, please use this link: He's No Stuart Smalley!

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 5:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

The media is carping about all of the voter challenging, litigation, intimidation efforts, lawyering at the polls, etc, that are going on in the current election as if they were some new innovation.

The media are historically challenged as usual.

These Election Day shenanigans are a return to traditional American electioneering: politics as contact sport. For instance, take a look at this 1879 New York Times article:

 

This kind of activity is good for democracy. It keeps the opposing teams in shape. I would rather see a good argument or challenge at a poll site than some vapid bake sale. Democracy rises out of human struggle and demands continuous strife to remain vital.

As I said in my book: "The Republicans are only my enemies on Election Day!" This fundamental tenet even transcends civil war. After four years of unimaginable bloodshed Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, Grant introduced Lee to his staff. Grant's aide-de-camp, Lt. Col. Ely Parker, was a Seneca Chief from upstate. Grant introduced Lee to Parker. Lee hesitated for a second, looked at Parker, then shook his hand and said: "I am glad to see one real American here." Parker replied, "We are all Americans."

This is the fundamental American Idea, which is instinctive and unexplainable, yet contagious to lovers of democracy worldwide. It's easy for us as New Yorkers to look back at the September 11, 2001 attacks and be reminded of people in the world that have been indoctrinated to hate us. Fewer remember June 20, 1990, when Nelson Mandela, giving a speech at Yankee Stadium soon after his release from 27 years of imprisonment, donned a Yankee cap and jacket and proclaimed: "I am a Yankee."

In the long run, the Mandelas of the world will be the undoing of the bin-Ladens.

At the end of the day, regardless of the poll results, we are all Americans. So, in this year where we all seem to have rediscovered politics, we should not let the moment pass. Regardless of the result, don't gloat, cry or hold a grudge. Get up, get down to business and try to do something for your country, state, city, neighborhood or block every day.

Happy Election Day, remember to vote early and often, then toss back a pint!

George Washington Plunkitt, J.S.C. (Ret.)

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 2:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (9)

Yesterday, Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, Council Members David Yassky and Letitia James joined forces to call on parents, students and staff at schools set up as polling places on Election Day to organize bake sales.

Here's the text of a press release which is being circulated by Council Member James's office:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 30, 2008

COUNCIL MEMBER LETITIA JAMES, BOROUGH PRESIDENT MARTY MARKOWITZ, ASSEMBLYMAN JOSEPH LENTOL, OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS, PARENTS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND MANY MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY GATHER TODAY TO SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL BAKE SALE FUNDRAISERS AT POLL SITES NEXT TUESDAY

(Brooklyn, NY) -  On Tuesday, November 4th, an election of historic proportions will take place in our country.  Record turnouts are anticipated.  Public Schools used as Poll Sites have the opportunity to take advantage of Election Day foot traffic by organizing bake sales; these PTA fundraisers will also be of historic proportions.

New York City Public Schools want to remind the community about the impact of contributions to Bake Sale Fundraisers on General Election Day, and how important these donations are to the success of our children's futures.  Some goals of Public Schools, which funding is needed for are: more field trips; books for libraries; science labs; and arts programs.  We encourage voters and bake sale participants to act generously on Nov. 4th, because their contributions are an investment in all of our futures. 

Today's press conference on the Plaza Steps of Brooklyn Borough Hall is being held to help our local schools promote their Election Day Bake Sales.  Let's all do our part to take advantage of this historic election year by voting and buying baked goods; let's make sure our children benefit in every way through this process.

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz said:  "America is hungry for a new President - and when schools have bake sales on Election Day, we voters have a great opportunity not only to choose our future leadership, but support education and school activities as well.  As you may know, three of my favorite things are voting, education and baked goods--and if Brooklyn schools, parents and kids get together and organize bake sales for education, we'll all be saying with a smile, Election Day in Brooklyn--How Sweet It Is!"

Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, 50th District said:  "In the best of economic times I believe that our schools can never have enough money when it comes to educating our children.  So in these tough fiscal times, I think this is a marvelous opportunity for schools to earn a little extra that might mean a few more textbooks, a field trip, or anything else that needs a little extra support.  We are expecting unprecedented voter turn out in this year's election; if every voter buys a brownie, it could really make difference."

Council Member David Yassky, 33rd District said:  "These bake sales send a message to New Yorkers as they go to the polls--civic responsibility doesn't end with voting.  We're all a part of this city, and each of us has a role to play in making it better.  If it's a down year for the City budget, then I suggest we all come together to ease the burden for our children, and our schools."

Council Member Letitia James, 35th District said:  "Communities are rarely given such an easy and delicious way to support their local schools.  When you go to your local school Poll Site this upcoming Tuesday, please remember to go hungry and bring money!  The more you spend at your school's bake sale, the more you contribute to growing libraries, going on field trips, promoting the arts, along with other special programs.  And, we all know a well rounded adult, is the result of a well rounded education."

# # #

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 1:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (2)

In Matter of Barron v. Board of Elections in the City of New York, Inez D. Barron sued the New York City Board of Elections (BOE) for hindering her New York State Assembly candidacy.

On April 8, 2008, Assembly member Diane Gordon was forced to resign after she was convicted of bribery and misconduct in public office. BOE issued a vacancy notice, and Barron -- believing there would be a special election (in addition to primary and general elections for the slot) -- circulated petitions. When she learned that a special election wasn't going to be held, Barron filed suit against the BOE and violations of New York State's Election Law were alleged.

While the Kings County Supreme Court aligned with Barron and directed the BOE to conduct an election to fill the unexpire term, it also found Barron had secured an "unfair advantage over other possible candidates ... in that she had started circulating designating petitions ... at a time when other possible candidates may not have been aware that a primary election and a general election would be held." In effect, the signatures she compiled prior to July 2, 2008 were invalidated.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, believed penalizing the candidate for her foresight, and disenfranchising voters who signed her petitions, would be unjust and inequitable and elected to reverse that part of the decision which adversely impacted the signatures she had secured from registered voters.

Late last week, our state's highest court decided the timing of Gordon's resignation was such that the law required the seat to remain vacant through December 31, 2008 -- the unexpired balance of Gordon's term.

Barron's efforts were not for naught. If she wins tomorrow's primary, and the election in November, her term will start January 1, 2009 (rather than immediately).

To download a copy of the Court of Appeals's decision, please use this link:  Matter of Barron v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Barron v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (1)

In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld an Indiana statute whose stated purpose is to prevent voter fraud.

This particular law requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at polling places. Only voters residing in nursing homes, along with those voting by absentee ballot, were exempt from the requirement.

If a voter lacks an ID, or if the validity of that document is questioned, a “provisional ballot” may be cast. But in order for that provisional vote to be counted, the voter must, within ten days of the election, file an affidavit of indigency, or procure a valid ID.*

The process has been viewed by some as a thinly veiled attempt to suppress Democrats. Critics note that those who lack the required credentials tend to be Democrats. While those exempt from the law -- like absentee voters and nursing-home residents -- tend to vote Republican.

The Democrat Party, along with other concerned groups, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, challenging the law’s constitutionality. When that effort failed, the plaintiffs appealed to the CA7.

The plaintiffs argued that the law imposed a burden on the right to vote, a right “latently” protected by the U.S. Constitution.

On behalf of the appellate panel, Judge Richard Posner -- a Reagan appointee -- acknowledged that some people would not procure an ID in order to vote. And while the plaintiffs introduced evidence showing that it would be more expensive to organize voter-registration drives, for some unexplained reason, the suit's participants failed to indicate whether they could not, or would not, vote as a result of the new law. Thus, it appeared to the court that the plaintiffs’ objections were primarily premised on the law’s imposition of an additional expense on political campaigns.

The appellate court balanced that outcome against the statute’s expected benefit of preventing voter fraud. While the plaintiffs asserted that the benefit would be minimal, since there has neither been a reported incident nor a conviction premised upon voter fraud, the CA7 still found such an argument unavailing. Posner speculated that "busy poll workers" had been less than zealous enforcers of the law, while the media, along with state and local authorities, have "a choice of [other] scandals to investigate."

Finally, the CA7 rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the law was underinclusive for failing to regulate absentee voters since it would have been meaningless to require absentee voters to mail in a photo-ID, as poll workers would have  been unable to match the picture to the voter’s face.

Similar disputes have arisen throughout the country, with outcomes usually siding along party lines. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will rise above this partisan debate and resolve the controversy fairly and squarely. (Yeah, right.)

To view a copy of the CA7's decision, please use this link: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

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

*Prior to the law’s passage, at their local polling places, Indiana voters were only required to provide their signatures, which were then compared to those on file.

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

According to the latest numbers released by Rassmussen Reports and other pollsters, John Edwards is currently the most electable presidential candidate.

Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani. 

When it comes to the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards's average margin of victory is virtually identical to Obama's and significantly higher than Clinton's.

Here's how the numbers currently stack up:

Edwards is also outperforming the other Democrats in key battleground states:

So, don't write off Mr. Edwards just yet!

Onward!

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

You don't have to be a savvy politician to know that, if you're vying for an elected position, you've got to abide by a pretty fundamental political tenet:

Thou shalt live in the geographic area where thoust running for a slot.

If you're looking to be the next Kings County Surrogate, for example, you'd think it be nice if the candidate called Brooklyn home.

And how about actually living in New York State?

Apparently, of the two remaining Democratic candidates vying to be the next Kings County Surrogate, Shawndya Simpson reportedly lives in the State of New Jersey.

A copy of a deed, which is making the rounds via the Internet and which was forwarded to me by a reader, supposedly shows that Ms. Simpson purchased a condominium up in Edgartown, Massachusetts, back in March 2007.

What's particularly interesting about that document is that a Brooklyn address was originally typed into the form, crossed-out, and then replaced with a New Jersey address.

Isn't home where the heart is?

To download a copy of the deed, please use this link: Massachusetts deed

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

UPDATE:

On August 17, 2007, the Queens County Supreme Court denied a request made by Diana A. Johnson, in a special proceeding bought pursuant to the State's Election Law, to have Shawndya Simpson knocked off the ballot. 

Justice O'Donoghue concluded that there was insufficient evidence supporting Johnson's contention that Simpson was not a Kings County resident. On August 22, 2007, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed that outcome on appeal.

To download a copy of the AD2's decision, please use this link: Matter of Johnson v. Simpson

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied on August 29, 2007: Matter of Diana A. Johnson v Shawndya L. Simpson

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 3:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (2)

On July 13, 2007, New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA) filed its amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in the matter of New York State Board of Elections v. Margarita Lopez Torres.

As some of you will recall, in 2006, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found our current convention-based method of nominating candidates for election to the New York State Supreme Court violative of the United States Constitution.

In effect,  since challenger candidates were denied meaningful participation in the process, the federal court concluded that political leaders were engaged in "de facto appointments," rather than "de jure elections."

Although the current system is certainly flawed, critics of the process (and those seeking to change how New York State Supreme Court Justices are selected) are not free of questionable motives.

NYCLA claims to seek a "transparent and democratic selection process." Yet, its goal (as noted in its brief) is to secure a merit-based appointment system which would leave the selection of judges to court officials, bar leaders, and politicians (like the Governor and Mayor), rather than in the hands of the electorate where the decision rightfully belongs.

While NYCLA characterizes the current system as "neither democratic, nor transparent," we fail to see how a merit-based system would lift the cloud of cronyism and backroom deal-making which is now said to be so pervasive.

As we have previously observed, any methodology which denies voters a direct say in the selection of judges merely effects a transfer of power from one group of "insiders" to another; a result which will further erode public confidence in the judiciary and will continue to run afoul of core democratic principles.

For a copy of NYCLA's amicus curiae brief, please use this link: New York State Board of Elections v. Torres

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

For our other blog posts on this topic, please use this link: Lopez-Torres

For those of you who are real "junkies," here are some of the other briefs filed in this case:

Respondents' Brief

Amicus Brief of Washington Legal Foundation

Amicus Brief filed by Law Professors

Amicus Brief filed by Charles J. Hynes (Brooklyn D.A.)

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 3:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

Until Thursday of last week, Leo Beitner was a candidate for Kings County Surrogate.

Apparently, Beitner's momentum (and fundraising efforts here in New York County) posed a threat to Brooklyn politicos who strong-armed the guy into withdrawing from the race.

Earlier today, I received an e-mail from Michael Miller, a noted Trusts & Estates attorney, who had hosted an extremely successful fundraiser for Mr. Beitner on July 11, 2007.

The disappointment with the former candidate's decision is palpable. And, we wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in Miller's note. 

It's disheartening and disillusioning that dirty, backroom politicking still governs the borough.

By allowing "the machine" to select the next Surrogate, you've let us all down, Leo!

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

Here's the text of Mr. Miller's note:

Dear Lucas:

I write to provide some insight into the circumstances surrounding Leo Beitner's withdrawal from the King's County Surrogate's Court race.

I received a call from Leo Beitner on Thursday evening, July 19, 2007. Leo then informed me that, although he had collected four times the number of signatures required to be on the ballot, the support which he expected from members of the Orthodox Jewish community and other constituencies did not coalesce and that he believed he could only be a "spoiler" in the race. 

To say that I was incredulous is an understatement.  

When asked what had happened since the time of the fundraiser on July 11, 2007, Leo really didn't have an answer for me, other than to state that he no longer believed that he could win the primary.  I informed him that it was hard for me to understand how, just a few days earlier, he and his campaign manager had expressed such passionate optimism to his supporters at the fundraiser, but he repeated that he no longer believed he could win the primary. He did state that it was his belief that political pressures exerted by the Brooklyn Democratic machine had persuaded the leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community to refrain from supporting him, and without that support, he no longer believed he could win. 

When asked what had changed between July 11 and July 19, he again had no answer. The ugly reality, however, is that "the machine" won.

As far as the refunding of campaign contributions is concerned, the former candidate told me that once his campaign has completed its financial record-keeping, and paid its outstanding expenses, his contributors would be receiving pro-rata refunds. Under the circumstances, it is my hope that the campaign will refund, in full, every contribution received. Obviously, however, that outcome is solely in Leo's control.

I welcome your phone call or email, but should you have any questions regarding Leo's decision to withdraw, about a refund of your contribution, or anything else concerning the campaign, you may contact Leo directly at ***@aol.com or (718) ***-****.

While these developments were disheartening, I appreciated your most generous support of this effort. 

Very truly yours,

Michael Miller

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 6:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (2)

We were quite unimpressed and displeased with the December 2006 report issued by “The Judicial Selection Task Force of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.”  In that thirty-three page document, entitled "Recommendations on the Selection of Judges and the Improvement of the Judicial Selection System in New York State," the City Bar repeatedly opines that the electorate is “uninformed,” judges can be “bought” (or “influenced” by campaign contributors), and, that our political leaders wield a bit too much control over the selection of judicial candidates (and the election of judges). As a result, the City Bar suggests that a “commission-based appointment system” be implemented.

As the report notes:

The Task Force firmly believes that the only effective means of ensuring the uniform selection of highly qualified candidates for judicial office is to provide that those candidates will be selected by an appointing authority from among a limited number of candidates rated as “most qualified” by truly independent judicial screening commissions.  Only by doing so can all candidates compete on a level playing field, regardless of wealth or political connections.  Only then can selections be reliably made from the most qualified candidates.  And only then can we take politics out of the selection of officials whose function in our democracy is to make decisions that are, as Alexander Hamilton put it, free of the “disposition to consult popularity: so that we may truly “justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted by the Constitution and the laws.”

According to the City Bar, judicial appointments should be subject to a screening committee or “commission” comprised of some 15-21 members.  We are expected to believe that these individuals would not be motivated by financial or political self-interest (or other agenda), yet each appointee would be selected by some political entity or being. “The Chief Judge, the Governor, the presiding Justices of each Appellate Division … and the highest ranking members of each party in the Senate and in the Assembly,” would each designate an individual to serve on this commission.

Using the commission's preapproved pool of candidates, the Governor would select appointees to the Supreme Court (outside of New York City), the Court of Claims and the Appellate Divisions. The Mayor of the City of New York would appoint local Supreme Court, Family Court, Surrogate's Court, Civil Court and New York City Criminal Court judges.

How's that for transparency and ending the concentration of power in the hands of a few?

We believe it is contrary to fundamental democratic principles to deny “the people” a direct voice in selecting those who should serve as judges or seek other political office.   Nor do we believe it is appropriate to relegate the screening process to an elite group.

We refuse to accept the report’s premise that voters are incapable of discerning “intellectual capacity, integrity, fairness, independence, experience, [and] temperament,” nor subscribe to the stated belief that the electorate is “poorly informed about the qualifications of judicial candidates for office and are not well suited to evaluate the significance of those qualifications (or the lack of them).”  If we were to accept the Task Force’s position that citizens are incapable of identifying “qualified” candidates for a particular office, then all candidates for any position would arguably need to be subject to some “commission’s” imprimatur or scrutiny.  (After all, can the average voter truly appreciate the range of attributes and life-experiences required to be an effective Mayor, Governor, or President?)

The voters’ ability to make an informed choice should not be replaced or shrouded by  “clubby” secrecy of any kind, and, if ignorance or disinterest prevails, then corrective measures must be implemented on a systemic basis to energize the electorate, foster voter participation, and address any existing “disconnects" or dysfunction. 

We do not believe the rights of concerned citizens to participate actively in the democratic process should be foreclosed, particularly in the manner now being advocated by the City Bar.

To download a copy of the Task Force's report, please click on the following link:  http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/Blog~Judicial%20Selection%20Task%20Force%20Report-Dec.%202006.pdf

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (2)

Back in 2002, in response to all the hoopla that surrounded voting irregularities throughout our country, the Help America Vote Act* (HAVA) was passed by Congress to provide states with federal funds to replace existing punch-card and lever voting systems. This funding came with a catch. The systems needed to be in place "in time for the first election for Federal office held after January 1, 2006."

Interestingly, New York State's Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (ERMA) requires every county in the state to choose between two new voting systems prior to September 1, 2007. The options are:

1) Paper ballots: Marked by hand, the ballots are then processed by an optical scanner that records the vote. (The ballots are then preserved in the event of a challenge or audit.); or

2) "Direct Recording Electronic" (DRE) voting machines: Computers with touchscreens or pushbuttons which will print a "voter-verifiable paper trail," which lists the choices made and allows the voter to verify the selections made prior to finalizing the vote.

Attentive readers will have noted that--state legislation notwithstanding--HAVA required these systems to be in place by September 12, 2006 (the first federal election after January 1, 2006). And, those who voted at the primary a few months ago (and/or who reported to their local polling places today) likely observed that the old lever systems were still in place.

In a letter written to Congressman Charles B. Rangel (dated October 18, 2006), the New York City Board of Elections advised that if a special waiver is not secured by year's end, the state will lose its allocation of federal funds. As John Ravitz, Executive Director of the NYC Board of Elections, noted in his correspondence:

Obviously, losing this money would cause a severe fiscal impact for the City of New York as well as counties throughout the State, as we all begin the process of purchasing new voting systems by the end of December.

Record your vote here.

For a copy of the Board's letter to Congressman Rangel, please click on the following link:
Ravitz letter (dated October 18, 2006)

--------------
* Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 USCS sections 15301-15306.

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:26 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

Voter turnout in New York State has recently fallen to disturbing levels, particularly during non-presidential election cycles. Since 1998, New York's rank among the 50 states has plunged from 37th to 46th. If this trend continues, voter turnout in New York could fall below 30%.

The goal of a new organization called "SHOW UP New York" is to increase voter turnout among young people and minorities, and to build a permanent base of politically involved New Yorkers.

Finkelstein Newman LLP has teamed up with SHOW UP in an effort to reverse voter apathy, and effect change. The response to our decision to get involved and be of assistance has been overwhelmingly positive. In addition to a large number of e-mails and phone calls, we've received letters from an array of civic leaders expressing encouragement and support.

We were particularly honored to have heard from Congressman Charles B. Rangel. In a letter dated July 5, 2006, Congressman Rangel expressed his gratitude for our firm's efforts to assist SHOW UP in disseminating its message to the general public. In his letter, the Congressman expressed concern for New Yorkers' decreasing interest to participate in the democratic process. He wrote:

The level of apathy among our citizenry is attributable to many factors. In implementing an organization such as SHOW UP New York, you champion a cause that bas been an on going fight in our country. Young people and people of color can only learn the value of their vote only if they are shown what their vote can do. I commend your efforts in trying to address this threat to our democracy.

Onward!

For a copy of Congressman Rangel's letter, please click on the following link:
July 5, 2006 letter

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

Anthropologist Margaret Meade observed that, "a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world."

With your help, we can take a major step toward effecting change and reversing the troubling trend of voter apathy that pervades our great country and state.

Tomorrow evening, Leecia Eve--former counsel to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and a former candidate for Lieutenant Governor--will be announcing the formation of a new organization, SHOW UP New York, created to mobilize young people and people of color to become more involved in the democratic process.

But, in order to succeed, we need your help. To learn more about this critical endeavor, and how you can be of assistance, join the members of our Host Committee:

Hon. Charles Buchwald, Hon. Louise Dankberg, Hon. Eric Gioia, Hon. Carlos Manzano, Hon. Trudy L. Mason, Hon. Jim McManus, Hon. Adam Silvera, Hon. Steve Smollens, Hon. Frank Wilkinson

Adam Leitman Bailey, V.G. Bucu, Sylvia Di Pietro, Meredith Fine, Dirk McCall, Michael Miller

Daniel Finkelstein, Jonathan H. Newman, Robert Finkelstein, Lucas A. Ferrara, Robert C. Epstein, Melissa Ephron-Mandel, Suzanne R. Albin, Konstantinos Baltzis, Barry Gottlieb, Rebecca Hanlon, Matthias Li, Brian Zwaig

for a cocktail reception on:

Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.

ALBELLA RISTORANTE
10 Reade Street
(Between Broadway & Centre Street)
1 block north of City Hall
Manhattan

Please RSVP to Ms. Chase Gordon at chase@leeciaeve.com or (718) 857-2006.

Contributions are welcomed, but not required.

To visit the SHOW UP New York website, please click on the following link: www.showupny.com

We hope you will attend and will contribute to the effort.

Fax this completed form to Ms. Chase Gordon at (718) 504-4329 or mail to the address below.

YES, I would like to attend the reception! I have enclosed a check in the amount of:

_____ $100 _____ $250 (Suggested) _____ $500 $_____ Other

Please make your personal, partnership, or PAC check payable to SHOW UP New York and mail it to:

SHOW UP New York
315 Flatbush Avenue, Suite 406
Brooklyn, New York 11217

Exp. (mo)______ (yr)_______

Signature______________________________________________

Unfortunately, I cannot attend but I have included a contribution for $_____________________.

In order to comply with NYS Election Laws, please complete all mandatory fields designated with an asterisk.

*Name: _______________________________________________________

*Home Phone___________________________

*Home Address:______________________________________________________________

*City:___________________ *State: ___________ *Zip Code___________

E-Mail:_______________________________________________

Occupation______________________________

Employer___________________________________________

Office Phone ____________________________

Employer Address________________________________________________________________

City:___________________ State______________ Zip Code____________

(* Required Fields)

Individuals may contribute $150,000 per calendar year (subject to NYS Election Law aggregate limits). Corporations may contribute up to $5,000 per calendar year (subject to NYS Election Law aggregate limits). No other type of contributor (PACs, unincorporated unions, trade organizations, other political committees, or other such entities) has an aggregate calendar year limit on its contributions. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.

All you have to do is: Show Up!

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

Leecia Eve--former counsel to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and a former candidate for Lieutenant Governor--will be announcing the formation of a new organization, SHOW UP New York, created to mobilize young people and people of color to become more involved in the political process and vote.

But making a difference starts with your help. To learn more about this critical endeavor, and how you can be of assistance, join our Host Committee (in formation):

Hon. Charles Buchwald, Hon. Louise Dankberg, Hon. Eric Gioia, Hon. Carlos Manzano, Hon. Trudy L. Mason, Hon. Jim McManus, Hon. Adam Silvera, Hon. Steve Smollens, Hon. Frank Wilkinson

Adam Leitman Bailey, V.G. Bucu, Sylvia Di Pietro, Meredith Fine, Dirk McCall, Michael Miller

Daniel Finkelstein, Jonathan H. Newman, Robert Finkelstein, Lucas A. Ferrara, Robert C. Epstein, Melissa Ephron-Mandel, Suzanne R. Albin, Konstantinos Baltzis, Barry Gottlieb, Rebecca Hanlon, Matthias Li, Brian Zwaig

for a VIP cocktail reception on:

Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.

ALBELLA RISTORANTE
10 Reade Street
(Between Broadway & Centre Street)
1 block north of City Hall
Manhattan

Please RSVP to E. Chase Gordon at chase@leeciaeve.com or (718) 857-2006.

Contributions are welcomed, but not required.

To visit the SHOW UP website, please click on the following link: www.showupny.com

We hope you will attend and will contribute to the effort.

Fax this completed form to E. Chase Gordon at (718) 504-4329 or mail to the address below.

YES, I would like to attend the reception! I have enclosed a check in the amount of:

_____ $100 _____ $250 (Suggested) _____ $500 $_____ Other

Please make your personal, partnership, or PAC check payable to SHOW UP New York and mail it to:

SHOW UP New York
315 Flatbush Avenue, Suite 406
Brooklyn, New York 11217

Exp. (mo)______ (yr)_______

Signature______________________________________________

Unfortunately, I cannot attend but I have included a contribution for $_____________________.

In order to comply with NYS Election Laws, please complete all mandatory fields designated with an asterisk.

*Name: _______________________________________________________

*Home Phone___________________________

*Home Address:______________________________________________________________

*City:___________________ *State: ___________ *Zip Code___________

E-Mail:_______________________________________________

Occupation______________________________

Employer___________________________________________

Office Phone ____________________________

Employer Address________________________________________________________________

City:___________________ State______________ Zip Code____________

(* Required Fields)

Individuals may contribute $150,000 per calendar year (subject to NYS Election Law aggregate limits). Corporations may contribute up to $5,000 per calendar year (subject to NYS Election Law aggregate limits). No other type of contributor (PACs, unincorporated unions, trade organizations, other political committees, or other such entities) has an aggregate calendar year limit on its contributions. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.

All you have to do is: Show Up!

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 4:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)