Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

Open Government

A Plea For Same-Day Voter Registration


It's after Labor Day. You're just back (mentally or physically) from the long summer break. Political posters are lining the streets. Candidates and supporters are pushing leaflets right, left, and center at your subway stop. Now you remember ... there's an election coming. You're ready to pay attention, choose your candidates. The primary is on September 11. But wait. If you are not already registered to vote, and registered in a political party, you've missed your chance to cast a ballot in this heavily contested primary.

By state law, the voter registration books closed on August 17. This was 25 days before the primary and before many potential voters even began to pay attention to the election. You can still register to vote in the November general election; that deadline is October 12. But this provides little comfort when most of the races will be decided in the primary.

Voter registration seems relatively simple - and certainly over the past 10 or 15 years it has become much easier. You fill out a short form, mail it to the Board of Elections, and you're registered. But this extra step is likely to be one step too many for those who are less well-off, less educated, and are members of a racial or ethnic minority. Indeed, despite massive voter registration efforts for the 2000 election, 35 percent of the country's eligible citizens remained unregistered.

In the summer months preceding a primary, who is paying serious attention to the election? Who is paying the kind of attention that makes someone think, "Do I need to register to vote? What's the deadline? Where do I get the forms?"

Why should potential voters have to jump through this extra hoop? Voting is not a test of a citizen's ability to negotiate a bureaucracy. Over the years, several academic studies have shown that registration is a substantial barrier to casting a ballot and a major cause for low voter turnout in the United States. Indeed, a study by Columbia University Professor Robert S. Erikson, tellingly titled "Why Do People Vote? Because They Are Registered," demonstrated that once registered, even new voters go to the polls at very high rates.

Six states have made registration as simple as it can be. Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow voters to register at the polls when they arrive to cast their ballot. North Dakota abandoned registration entirely in 1951. Five of these states have the highest voter turnout in the country.

The principal argument against scrapping advance registration requirements is the threat of increased fraud. This argument does not hold up to close scrutiny. First, there is no evidence that the states with same-day registration have had a problem with voter fraud. Indeed, Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have had same-day registration for more than 25 years. Second, there are remedies to protect against this risk. Some of the recommended anti-fraud measures include: requiring same-day registrants to sign an oath or affidavit, requiring adequate proof of identity and residence, requiring election day registrants to vote by paper, affidavit ballots, subject to challenge, and promptly verifying election-day registrants with a non-forwardable post card sent to their address. Centralized, computerized state registration records would also significantly protect the process against increased fraud.

Different jurisdictions have used different combinations of these anti-fraud measures depending on the needs of their state and their political culture. New York should identify which of these measures would work best in our political culture without making it more difficult for certain citizens, particularly members of a racial or ethnic minority, to vote. These tools and their successful use in other states make clear that if same-day registration does have an increased risk of fraud, which has not been shown, we have effective means to deal with it. The fear of fraud should not stifle this democratic reform.

Some opponents of same-day registration also argue that same-day registration for party primaries could trigger party-raiding that undermines the party's ability to control its selection of candidates. There is, of course, an easy solution to that complaint: if it is shown to be a problem, the state could simply prohibit those voters already registered from switching parties in the several weeks preceding the primary. Under this regime, registered voters' rights to choose and change their parties are as protected as they are now, and the parties retain some control over their choice of candidates, but a significant barrier for new voters is removed.

Recognizing that advance registration is an unnecessary restriction on the franchise and that problems with potential fraud can be solved, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and a handful of other politicians have recently called for the state to adopt same-day registration procedures, but Albany hasn't budged. Indeed, New York, and many other states, have long resisted any move toward same-day voter registration and most efforts to make registration easier. After the National Voter Registration Act (also known as the Motor Voter Act) was enacted in 1993, forcing states to ease voter registration requirements, New York was sued by the U.S. Justice Department for failing to comply with its requirements. And, almost every election year, including 2000, it is discovered that the state Department of Motor Vehicles has failed to properly process registrations submitted with driver's license applications, leaving potential voters without a ballot.

This kind of behavior is part and parcel of the last century's sad tradition of voter registration laws, which always had more to do with turning the electoral process into a game than opening democracy. But the spirit of Jim Crow in the South and the anti-immigrant laws of the North and West should be left with the past. We are in a new century, and there is no real justification for our advance registration laws. In short, the time has come for same-day registration.

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.

Software -- "Piracy" (Stealing) versus "Open Source" (Freebies)


What's hot this summer? If you have been riding the subway, you may have seen a big ad that starts "YIKES!" It is about software.

The advertising campaign by a watchdog group for the software industry called the Business Software Alliance, is trying to get New York businesses to stop "piracy" -- illegal software use.

Illegal software use, commonly called piracy, is similar to stealing or making illegal copies of a book, CD, artwork or video. For example, a company might be using Windows and Microsoft Office software on 500 computers but they may only own a license to use it on 300 of them.

The anti-piracy campaign that is in New York subways is also targeting four other cities, including Atlanta and Oklahoma City (though it is not clear that the businesses in New York and Oklahoma City are somehow the worst offenders). For a month, the software industry was offering an amnesty, which they called a truce, that would allow anyone to request license for copies of software they were using illegally, without fear of incurring any of the fines. Normally, companies or individuals prosecuted for using illegal software can face fines up to $250,000 or five years in prison.

The severe penalties have not been very effective as a deterrent. Worldwide, 37 percent of software was being used illegally in 2000 according to the Sixth Annual BSA Global Software Piracy Study. While North America has the lowest piracy rate in the world at 24 percent, in other regions such as Eastern Europe the rate reaches almost 90 percent.

Illegal software use results in a loss of $11.75 billion for the global economy and a loss of $2.6 billion in the United States.

The effect in New York has been calculated down to the very dollar. In 1999, software piracy cost the state of New York $541 million in retail sales. We also lost $101,438,483 in sales tax and $351,511,820 in wages and salary. New York workers are also affected because less money for wages and salary means 5,592 fewer jobs. Despite their large populations, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have the lowest levels of piracy at less than 20 percent. However, since demand for software is high in these states, the actual dollar losses are more substantial than in other areas of the nation.

What is odd about all the panic over software piracy is that there is a competing trend in the high-tech world, and that is what is called "open source" -- what somebody unsophisticated might call "freebies." It is software that can be used without a license; it is free to anyone who wants it.

"Open source" software is very secure and less vulnerable to viruses and bugs because the computer code is public knowledge. This means that programmers are constantly working to improve the software's security and reliability.

Copyright laws do not restrict the use and distribution of "open source" software. The original author is given credit for writing the software. but it is open to programmers to make improvements on it. This leads to more creative solutions and new technological breakthroughs. Popular "open source" software includes Linux (an alternative operating system to Microsoft Windows), Apache (Web server), Perl (for "live content" on the Internet), BIND (the provider of Internet domain names) and sendmail (email transport software).

On the other hand, the economic impact of "open source" software is extremely difficult to gauge. This is because it is downloaded for free from the Internet and redistributed by the creators and users. Since its use is growing rapidly it is possible that free software could be responsible for increased business efficiency and productivity. Thus, it may contribute to the recent growth of the technology sector. For example, according to the Open Source Initiative, Linux has an estimate of up to 27 million users and the Apache Web server is used for 50 percent of all servers.

The New York subway anti-piracy campaign targets employees of companies that may be using illegal software and encourages them to call a hotline to report violations. The flashy billboards with prominent Microsoft branding posed questions such as "How happy are your employees?" and "What would you do with an extra $150,000?" to MTA riders. This campaign suggests that employees working in businesses that use illegal software may not be as satisfied as their peers using licensed software and that the price of using illegal software may be cost businesses $150,000 each time they get caught.

Certainly, the goal of the Business Software Alliance is to crack down on the use of illegal software. But, New Yorkers might be better off if we start to use "open source" software and reduce our dependence on monopolistic software companies. Maybe the Open Source Initiative will consider running their own subway advertising campaign encouraging riders to write their own software programs?

Now, THAT would scare Microsoft and other software companies even more than the fact that millions of copies of their software are being used illegally.

In Other News:
Last month, New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and Attorney General Elliot Spitzer voiced opposition to Microsoft's plan to bundle their Internet shopping, instant-messaging and music services into their new operating system Windows XP. The new system is scheduled to begin shipping on October 25. New York-based companies such as AOL-Time Warner and Eastman Kodak Co. have complained that Windows XP favors Microsoft products over those of competing companies. On July 24, Senator Schumer sent a letter to the Department of Justice attempting to block the launch of Windows XP. These complaints come at a time when public policy towards Microsoft has shifted due the unfavorable ruling that the company's Windows operating system is a monopoly. Despite these recent efforts, analysts don't believe that the new product launch will be delayed.

Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.

What Is Wrong With The Board Of Elections?


The chaos surrounding Florida's presidential election counts and recounts may have cost New Yorkers the president of their choice. But for New York City there is a thin silver lining around this national cloud. The presidential election debacle triggered a scrutiny of the city's election machinery that has forced the city's creaking Board of Elections to take steps -- albeit baby steps -- to run a better election this year. And, if we're lucky, very lucky, this new scrutiny from the press, the politicians, and our perennial watchdog groups will prompt real change in the way elections are run in the city -- starting with scrapping the Tammany-era patronage system that operates our election system.

We have been given a Mayor's task force, a Governor's task force, and, yes, even an ex-Presidents' task force on election reform. They aren't all worrying about New York City's elections, but they are studying election processes, making recommendations, issuing reports. The mayor's belatedly-appointed task force is charged with serving as a kind of intermediary between the Board of Elections and the rest of city and state government in the hope that this fall's elections are not so chaotic that New York gets a "black eye like Florida," as the task force's chairman, former Senate Minority Leader Manfred Ohrenstein, has said. The mayor's task force has been raising important issues that the Board of Elections seemed content to let sit. But even the task force members themselves wonder what can be accomplished by a task force appointed by the mayor only four months before the September 11 primary. Meanwhile, the city's civic groups have been hammering at the issues surrounding the forthcoming election since the new year. The Citywide Coalition for Voter Participation, led by the New York Public Interest Research Group and Common Cause, pressed the City Council and the mayor's office to give the Board of Elections enough money to run this year's election properly -- even while recognizing that the board suffers from serious management problems that should be the focus of long-term reform. Citizens Union has stepped in with a kind of citizen self-help program by recruiting at least 300 voters to serve as new poll workers throughout the City. In addition, the New York Public Interest Research Group and Citizens Union have been closely monitoring the Board of Elections since January, sending observers to every Board meeting.

Prodded by all this scrutiny and even its own fear of a Florida redux, the Board of Elections has lumbered toward some improvements. It is in the process of hiring its first Chinese speaking staff members and is said to be making extra efforts to ensure that ballots are properly translated to avoid a repeat of last year's humiliation when some Chinese ballots listed the Democratic candidates as Republicans and vice versa. The board is also promising to improve its recruitment and training of poll workers, who are mostly patronage hires and are considered by many to be the weakest link in the city's election process. The board is pushing the legislature and the mayor to increase the poll workers' pay, recognizing that $130 for a relentless 16-hour day is a major barrier to recruitment.

There is little question that these improvements should mitigate the chaos at the polls on primary day and result in a better election. But the board's last minute scramble to prepare for the primary reveals the chronic management flaws that hobble every election. For instance, the board, working with the mayor's task force, began only six weeks before the primary to try to figure out how to count the 100,000 paper ballots expected to be cast in the Democratic primary in time for the runoff two weeks later. Because the races this year are historically crowded and competitive, these ballots -- absentee, affidavit, and emergency ballots -- could decide whether there is a runoff and who is in it. How many days after September 11 will two or three candidates -- and the voters -- be waiting to find out who is in the runoff?

Word seeped out recently that the board was considering asking the legislature to postpone the primary runoff because the Board was worried it couldn't count the paper ballots fast enough to identify the winners in time. The board's executive director disputes this report and swears he is doing everything he can to ensure that the paper ballots will be counted promptly. Civic groups and others are pressing the mayor to give the board the $800,000 it has requested to hire enough workers to count the votes quickly.

The money should be allocated -- the city's voters should not be punished further because the board has been sloppy. But why wasn't the board prepared better for this? When everyone has known for months that this year's elections are unusually crowded and competitive, why did the board wait until July to declare this emergency? Indeed, just last year, it took 45 days for the board to count the paper ballots in the Goodman-Krueger state senate race, and a recent report from the State Board of Elections laid the blame for this chaos at the feet of the city Board. And, in 1997, a series of mishaps -- called a "pattern of ineptitude" by a federal judge -- left city voters wondering for 10 crucial days whether there would be a runoff between Ruth Messinger and Al Sharpton. With this history, why wasn't the b board fretting about the paper ballot count in January?

Every election it seems there is some snafu that in a close election could seriously undermine the integrity of the results and in other elections simply wears down voters' confidence. Along with the Goodman-Krueger fiasco, last year's elections were shot through with serious problems. Many voters faced broken machines, seemingly interminable lines, poll workers whose poor training made it harder to vote, inadequate translations, jammed phone lines, and names that had disappeared from the voter registration rolls. In 1988, voters in the city's minority neighborhoods turned out in record numbers to cast votes for Jesse Jackson in the presidential primary. They met with widespread disenfranchisement in the form of broken machines and disappearing registrations.

We are often quick to blame the city's 40-year-old voting machines. Yes, they need to be replaced in time, but they are not the problem. A recent MIT/CalTech study of the presidential elections determined that the old lever machines can be one of the most reliable methods of voting. But not in New York City. According to this study, New York City -- particularly Brooklyn and the Bronx -- had "residual" vote rates that exceeded Florida's and rivaled counties with the infamous punch card ballot. (Residual votes are made up of uncounted, unmarked, and spoiled ballots; the MIT/CalTech team considered this the best measure of a voting system.) New York City's undervote was three times that of the rest of New York State. What's wrong here? We have machines that should be among the most accurate, but for some reason our city's votes are getting thrown away.

The real problem rests with the board and the patronage system that runs it. By law, the board is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. By law, most of its workforce is also bipartisan. What this means is that the board is a patronage system to its core. Everyone -- from administrative assistants to machine technicians to translators -- is hired through contacts with local party bosses. A recent administrative position was listed as "Staten Island Democrat" -- in other words it was to be filled by the Staten Island Democrats. While the bipartisan composition of the board is written into the state's constitution, there is nothing to stop the City Council, which selects the board members, from demanding that the board cease operating as a patronage machine.

This election will be over in November. If there is no disaster, the city's problems with its election systems will likely slip from view until election season rolls around again. But New York City's voters will continue to be disenfranchised as our votes are lost through bad management. The scrutiny that began for this election season must continue until real change is made. The only true way to reform New York City's election process is to scrap the patronage system that runs the board today ‰ÛÓ as it has for decades ‰ÛÓ and substitute an accountable, nonpartisan agency. Will any of our elected officials take this on?

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.



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