Edwards proposes a new round of funding for New Markets Tax Credit, a program that matches $3 of investment from private companies with $1 in federal funding. In the past this program generated $26 billion for high tech jobs. Edwards also proposes doubling funding for grants for community development organizations. He also proposes a Training Works initiative to connect businesses and community colleges with local residents seeking jobs.
Edwards would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to at least $6.65 an hour.
Edwards was not in office when the North American Free Trade Agreement was passed. He said if he were in office, he would have voted against it. He says it must be amended to keep jobs in the U.S.
Edwards wants to repeal tax cuts for families with incomes above $200,000. He also has proposed a $2,500 tax credit for families with newborn babies to be used to pay for childcare. He would give a 10 percent tax credit for companies that keep jobs in the US.
Kerry proposes a State Tax Relief and Education Fund that will help states with $50 billion over two years to ease education cuts, tuition increases, and local taxes. He also wants to double the number of urban business zones that receive tax incentives. He supports private job training centers and promises to expand opportunities for minority and women owned business.
Kerry would raise the minimum wage, but did not say how much.
Kerry voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement, but says that it may need to be amended to keep jobs in the U.S.
Kerry wants to repeal tax cuts for families with incomes above $200,000. He also supports a State Tax Relief and Education Fund that will help states so they don’t have to make cuts or raise taxes. Kerry wants to protect the increases in the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty, and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income.
Kucinich would offer state and local governments $50 billion in interest free loans every year for ten years to help create jobs.
Kucinich would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $8.50 an hour.
Kucinich said he would repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement to keep jobs in the United States.
Kucinich would repeal all of President Bush's tax cuts, and offer $87 billion in tax credits for middle- and low-income families.
Sharpton proposes spending $50 billion a year for five years on highway, railway, and infrastructure as a way to create jobs.
Sharpton would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.15 an hour.
Sharpton would repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement to keep jobs in the United States.
Sharpton would repeal all tax cuts and institute new taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pay for education, health care, and social programs. He would increase child tax credits and earned income tax credits.
In May 2003, President Bush signed the Job and Growth Act, which cut capital gains and dividends taxes and gave $20 billion in state aid to create new jobs. The White House Economic report issued in February predicted that 300,000 new jobs a month will be created by the end of 2004. However, recently the administration said that those job predictions were too high.
Bush has not supported a minimum wage increase.
Bush supports the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Bush signed tax cuts over the last three years that will total over 1 trillion dollars over six years. New Yorker City’s portion is about $78 billion. He wants to continue these tax cuts into the future.
• • • • • • •
Back to Urban Issues Main Page
• • • • • • •
GOTHAM GAZETTE’S RELATED ARTICLES
• Federal Job Training and New York City
• Why the Minimum Wage Should Be Raised in New York
• Why the Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised in New York
• Bush's Tax Cuts and New York
URBAN ISSUES - ANTI-TERRORISM
Edwards proposes a $50 billion aid package to cities and states, including $10 billion specifically for homeland security efforts.
Although Edwards voted for the U.S. Patriot Act, which gives government and law enforcement officials broader use of surveillance in an effort to fight terrorism, he now says it should be amended to protect civil liberties.
Kerry proposes a federal program that would reimburse cities for costs of increased emergency and security efforts during times of high national security alert. He also advocates for a fund to hire 100,000 new firefighters across the country and give them updated communication equipment. He would make security a higher priority for the National Guard and AmeriCorps.
Although Kerry voted for the U.S. Patriot Act, which gives government and law enforcement officials broader use of surveillance in an effort to fight terrorism, he now says it should be amended to protect civil liberties.
Kucinich advocates cutting the Pentagon budget by 15 percent and spending the money on a Department of Peace that would work internationally and locally to reduce violence.
Kucinich would repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, which gives government and law enforcement officials broader use of surveillance in an effort to fight terrorism.
Sharpton would decrease military spending and focus on diplomatic efforts to win peace at home.
He would repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, which gives government and law enforcement officials broader use of surveillance in an effort to fight terrorism.
President Bush created the federal Department of Homeland Security after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The department provides some funding for state and local governments to help cover the costs of increased security. In the past two years, the Department of Homeland Security has provided New York City with $180 million to fund antiterrorism programs. President Bush promised to increase funding by 10 percent next year. Many officials in New York City say that the federal funding has not even come close to covering New York City's expenses. New York currently receives fewer homeland security dollars per person than 48 other states and American Samoa.
Bush signed the U.S. Patriot Act, which gives government and law enforcement officials broader use of surveillance in an effort to fight terrorism. He says the act is needed to fight the war on terrorism, but critics say it violates civil liberties and unfairly discriminates against immigrants.
• • • • • • •
Back to Urban Issues Main Page
• • • • • • •
GOTHAM GAZETTE’S RELATED ARTICLES
• Urban Agenda: Anti-Terrorism Funding
• Security and New York City
• Debating the Patriot Act
• Patriot Act and Banking
• Special Registration
URBAN ISSUES - CRIME
• Gun Laws
• Policing/Sentencing
• Death Penalty
• • • • • • •
Edwards opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits. He supports background checks at gun shows that are required for other gun sales.
Edwards supports the Community Oriented Policing Program that would put over 100,000 officers on the streets. He also urges the reform of probation and parole system to give more supervision to offenders released from prison. Edwards promises to end racial profiling in law enforcement.
Edwards supports the death penalty.
Kerry opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits. He supports background checks at gun shows that are required for other gun sales.
Kerry supports the Community Oriented Policing Program that would put over 100,000 police officers on the streets. He supports increased funding for drug rehabilitation programs, increased supervision for offenders after they are released from prison, and proposes a commission to review sentencing laws in order to assure that the penalties are appropriate to the crimes.
Kerry opposes the death penalty, except for terrorists.
Kucinich opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits. He supports background checks at gun shows that are required for other gun sales.
Kucinich does not support funding for the Community Oriented Policing Program. He supports vocational, job training, and job placement for inmates coming out of prison. He supports programs for drug treatment and reduced sentences for non-violent offenders. Kucinich advocates for programs for at-risk youth and imposing stricter penalties for white-collar crimes.
Kucinich opposes the death penalty.
Sharpton opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits. He supports background checks at gun shows that are required for other gun sales.
Sharpton does not support funding for the Community Oriented Policing Program. He supports vocational and job training for inmates coming out of prison. He supports programs for drug treatment and reduced sentences for non-violent offenders. He supports programs for at-risk youth and imposing stricter penalties for white-collar crimes. He promises to end racial profiling by police officers.
Sharpton opposes the death penalty.
Bush opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits. He supports background checks at gun shows that are required for other gun sales.
Bush cut funding for the Community Oriented Policing Program, which some critics say hurt local police departments. Bush created a Project Safe Neighborhoods program aims to increase communication between federal and local authorities by establishing a specific contact person within the district U.S. attorney’s office who will ensure that local areas receive information and resources.
Bush supports the death penalty.
• • • • • • •
Back to Urban Issues Main Page
• • • • • • •
GOTHAM GAZETTE’S RELATED ARTICLES
• Federal Government and Crime
• Suing for Gun Control
• Death Penalty and Parole Reform
• Repeat Offenders
Edwards supports reform of current immigration policy to create “a clear road map to legalization and citizenship for undocumented immigrants who work hard and follow the law.” He supports increased security on the U.S./Mexico border to protect against illegal immigration. He supports an earned legalization program to help working immigrants gain citizenship more quickly.
Kerry supports reform of current immigration policy. He supports efforts to restore benefits to legal immigrants and legislation for undocumented young people have grown up and graduated from high school in the U.S. He believes the naturalization process for legal permanent residents serving in the Armed Forces should be expedited. Kerry supports a proposal that will allow undocumented immigrants to legalize their status if they have been in the United States for a certain amount of time, have been working, and can pass a background check. He also calls for increased funding for border enforcement to ensure that only legal immigrants can enter the country.
Kucinich promises to legalize the status of tax-paying undocumented workers in the U.S. He supports a partnership with Mexico to control the flow of immigrants into the country.
Sharpton would relax restrictions barring legal immigrants from taking part in programs like public housing and food stamps.
In January 2004, Bush outlined a new policy that would give a temporary 3-year work visas to immigrants who are willing to take a job that no American wants. The proposal would require employers to sponsor a worker and the visa would have to be renewed. Bush's policy comes after several years of more stringent immigration regulations, including requiring visitors from certain countries to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Many immigrant advocates in New York criticized Bush's new plan, saying it would give too much power to employers and could potentially deport people after they have already worked for years.
• • • • • • •
Back to Urban Issues Main Page
• • • • • • •
GOTHAM GAZETTE’S RELATED ARTICLES
• Urban Agenda: Immigration
• Bush's Temporary Worker Program
• Citizenship and Voting
• Immigrant Soldiers
• Special Registration
New York City Council Stated Meeting Report
Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.
STATED MEETING - February 4, 2004
Quote of the Day:
"Today, we will end lead poisoning as we know it." - Councilmember Bill Perkins, author of a new lead paint law passed over the veto of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Meeting Summary:
On February 4, the New York City Council overrode two vetoes by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, enacting a new lead paint law and requiring the city's Department of Health to create electronic death certificates.
The new lead paint law (Intro 101-A) will require landlords to clean up lead dust, not just lead paint. It also requires inspections of all apartments in a building where high lead levels in children have been found. The lead paint legislation has faced much controversy and opposition in the past few years. (Read articles with arguments for and against Intro 101-A.)
The Bloomberg administration opposed the bill arguing that the number of childhood lead poisoning cases have decreased in recent years and that the proposed bill could create a wave of lawsuits against the city. Opponents also raised concerns that the new law may make it more difficult to build and renovate housing in the city.
"This bill has unintended consequences," said Republican James Oddo, who voted against the bill. "We should have acted with the precision of a scalpel, not with a chainsaw."
The Department of Health has indicated that it may not comply with the law, and some expect it will return to the council for futher revisions. Even Councilmember Margarita Lopez, who has been a supporter of the lead paint bill from the beginning, acknowledged that the council may have to amend it to ensure that it does not slow the construction of affordable housing.
The council overrode the mayor's veto by a vote of 44 to 5 (with 1 abstention). Republicans James Oddo, Dennis Gallagher, Andrew Lanza and Democrats Madeline Provenzano and Helen Sears voted "no." Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr. abstained.
The second veto override (Intro 198-A) requires the Department of Health to create an electronic registry so that funeral directors and families can obtain official death certificates online. Currently people must apply for documents in person, and the process can take up to six months or more. Some 60,000 people die in New York City every year.
The mayor opposes the bill because it would require the city to implement the online registry in a specific timeframe; 60 percent of the system must be in place in two years and 75 percent must be completed in the next four years.
Some council members - who pointed out that IBM gave the city a $5 million grant to create such an online database that was never completed - said the time requirements were necessary to get results.
"I think it is unfortunate that the technology mayor is upset that there are deadlines for implementing [this]," said Councilmember Gail Brewer who authored the bill.
The council was unanimous in its veto override of the electronic death registry bill.
The City Council also joined with over 200 other municipalities in passing a resolution (Res. 60) criticizing the federal USA PATRIOT Act. (Read an article about the PATRIOT Act and opposition to it.) The text of the measure calls for the "repeal of those sections of the [act] and related federal actions that unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties as recognized in the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments."
The resolution has no legal power, but represents the official view of the New York City Council. It passed by a vote of 36 to 13. (Lew Fidler abstained from the vote.)
Some council members said that the council should not spend its time considering such legislation outside of its powers. "My constituents elected me to the City Council, not to Washington," said Councilmember Tony Avella.
The following council members voted "no" to the resolution:
Joseph Addabbo
Tony Avella
Simcha Felder
Dennis Gallagher
Vincent Gentile
James Gennaro
Allan Jennings
Andrew Lanza
Michael Nelson
James Oddo
Dominic Recchia
Helen Sears
Peter Vallone, Jr.
The next stated meeting is scheduled for February 26, 2004
For an archive of past meetings and council votes, visit Gotham Gazette's Searchlight.
A red pit bull was brought to the city's animal shelter in the Bronx recently with two broken legs. A shelter official contacted Jane Hoffman from the Mayor’s Alliance for New York City Animals, who called a private veterinarian. The vet agreed to examine the animal for free, and do the orthopedic surgery at a reduced rate, which was paid for by a charity set up for this purpose called the Picasso Fund.
If it had been brought in just a year ago, chances are good that the dog -- badly injured, homeless, and thus deemed un-adoptable -- would have been killed.
Last year about 35,000 cats and dogs were reportedly killed at the five shelters run by New York City’s Center for Animal Care and Control. At least a third of them were healthy and not dangerous. They were killed – euthanized, in the parlance of the field -- because there just wasn’t room for them. This is the way it has been for decades. Every day, as many as 200 animals -- lost, homeless, unwanted, sick or injured – are taken to these shelters. By the end of every week, about two-thirds of them have been put to death.
But now there is a new vision for the future of New York’s cats and dogs. It is expressed in something approaching a slogan – No kill in NYC by 2008.
There are many reasons why animal shelters got into the business of killing the animals they had rescued from the streets.
That philosophy began to change nationally in 1989 when a Californian named Ed Duvin wrote an article condemning euthanasia for healthy adoptable animals in shelters as "massive slaughter” and “an abject failure.” The article stirred heated debate and resulted in more and more humane organizations, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the ASPCA) in New York, distancing themselves from the killing, by leaving it to municipal-run shelters. But this didn’t stop the deaths; it only changed who administered them.
The concept of “no kill” began in 1990 at the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which teamed up with the local animal control agency to create programs that encouraged adoption, instituted spay/neutering, reunited pets with owners, and vastly improved the shelters themselves. In 1989, only 38 percent of the animals in the shelters in San Francisco were saved from killing. In 2003, the save rate had increased to 78 percent.
“No kill” does not mean that there will no longer be animals put to death at animal shelters. Rather, the goal is not to euthanize any healthy "adoptable" animals. About 20 percent of the animals may be too sick or too dangerous to save, according to the National Council on Pet Overpopulation , and they will continue to be euthanized.
Even the more modest goal of saving healthy adoptable animals will take up to five years to achieve in New York City.
That “no kill” is now even the official goal in New York is largely due to three people, the city’s new generation of leadership in animal care.
Jane Hoffman: Strategic Alliance
The first is Jane Hoffman, a lawyer who helped found the Animal Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the first such bar association committee in the nation (eight cities and ten states have since followed suit). At the end of 2001, the committee sent a memo to Mayor-elect Michael Bloomberg, outlining opportunities to improve New York City’s policies towards animals. The mayor invited Hoffman to City Hall, a meeting that led to the formation of the Mayor’s Alliance for New York City Animals, with Hoffman as its president. "I think what appealed to them" said Hoffman, "is that a lot of people were screaming about this situation, but not offering options. We did."
There are now 50 organizations in the Mayor’s Alliance. Their mission is to increase the adoption of shelter animals and increase spay/neutering of cats and dogs, both of which will ultimately help to achieve the third goal: decrease the killing of animals at shelters. These efforts would be paid for by securing a grant from Maddie's Fund, a foundation that supports collaborative no-kill efforts within communities.
Ed Boks: Emphasizing The "Care" In Animal Care and Control
Hoffman lured Ed Boks to head the Center for Animal Care and Control, which is a non-profit agency created in 1995 under contract with the city to operate the city's animal shelters (taking over from the ASPCA). Boks had gained a reputation in animal control in Maricopa County, Arizona (which includes Phoenix and several other cities), where he had promised that he would not leave until he had made it the first no-kill metropolitan area in the country. But the opportunity to do the same in New York was too strong a siren call. “If we do it in New York, we will rob every other community in the United States of their excuses.”
Boks likes to repeat a saying by Gandhi – “the way you can judge a community is by how they treat their animals. Right now,” Boks says, “how we treat our animals is a cause of tremendous shame. Our shelters are abhorrent." A former pastor, Boks would like to emphasize the “care” in Animal Care and Control. Since the city cut its funding for the agency from $8.9 million to $7.2 million last year, Boks has teamed up with well-known animal advocates such as Mary Tyler Moore to raise additional funds. Boks also hopes to be able to roll out programs that worked in Maricopa County -- he has already initiated one, for feral cats (the “wild” offspring of domestic pets) -- if he can find the funding. "Our job won’t be done until we can develop a safety net for all animals.”
Edwin Sayres: Ten Percent Fewer Deaths A Year
The third new leader passionately committed to “no kill” is Edwin Sayres, the new president of the ASPCA, a national organization founded in 1866 that is headquartered here in the city. Sayres, who has spent three decades working for animal welfare organizations, hopes to lend his expertise as well as the resources of his organization to help New York City reduce its animal euthanasia rate by ten percent a year.
"With Ed Boks here," said Sayres, "and with what Jane Hoffman is creating with the Mayor’s Alliance, and what I bring to the table…it feels like the planets are all in their right alignment. There is strong competency and good spirit, so we have placed more priority on our role in New York."
The ASPCA has increased its spending in the city to $15.5 million (up from $12.5 million last year), and says these resources will be aimed at increasing adoptions, and providing animal behavior training sessions to owners; a large number of pets are surrendered to city shelters because of their behavior problems, many of which could have been corrected. The society will also provide additional hours and more staffing for their mobile unit (ASPCA CARES), which offers on-the-spot spay/neutering in various neighborhoods; last year, the mobile unit performed 7,000 surgeries. ASPCA CARES is free for those on public assistance and for rescue groups, and $25 for anyone else.
Less than 10 percent of the estimated 56,000 animals brought to city shelters last year were adopted. (The fate of the rest: Some were reunited with their owners, and others were transferred to animal rescue groups or private shelters that hold onto them indefinitely if they need to, but it is estimated that at least 60 percent were euthanized). To save more lives, the animal care activists are devising new ways to get these pets to people.
Last year, the Mayor’s Alliance offered five adoption events at city parks, complete with festive tents, banners, nice display cages, and orange mesh vests for the animals printed with the words “Adopt Me.” Three hundred shelter animals were adopted in this way. ( Dates for the 2004 park adoption events are already lined up: Central Park (May 23); Clove Lake Park (Sept. 25); Prospect Park (June 20, Oct. 24).)
Another strategy is to compete with pet stores. Animal Haven, a member of the Mayor's Alliance, partnered with Biscuits & Bath, a dog day care center, to create a small storefront adoption center on Second Avenue for shelter animals. The window looks just like a pet-store window, except there is a sign that says “Adopt Me.” Animal Haven offers lifetime support services, including training for the new owners on care for the animals. "It is an educational opportunity," explained Marcello Forte of Animal Haven. "We want the adoptions to stick." Last year, they were able to place 500 shelter animals this way.
They also operate an adoption van that set up at several heavily trafficked areas. "We're going to the public and bringing the animals," said Forte. "Pets to the people."
Then there is the Pet-Ark, an ATM-like kiosk that helps people locate pets for adoption from within the shelter system. Funded by Mary Tyler Moore and her husband, Dr. Robert Levin, Pet-Arks are now up and running in nine locations and on the Web. The hope is that Pet-Arks will soon be in banks, post offices and even Starbucks.
Available pets can also be reviewed online through Animal Care and Control
"Adopting from a shelter, the animal is good to go," said Hoffman. "They're spayed/neutered… they have all their shots, and you get some details on the animal. You get a great healthy animal at a portion of the cost. And 20 percent of animals in shelters are purebreds. Buying from a shelter makes you part of the solution."
Sometimes adoption efforts are hindered by "no pet" clauses in tenant leases. If a landlord has a no-pet clause in the lease, but the tenant "openly and notoriously" has the animal for 90 days or more without interference, the landlord waives the right to enforce the law for the life of the pet. If a tenant brings home a new dog after this one dies, however, the 90-day period begins anew.
A bill introduced last year by City Council Member Melinda Katz would extend that post-90-day grace period through the life of the tenant, rather than the life of the pet. The legislation would also ensure that seniors, 62 and older, would not be denied housing or be subject to eviction on the basis of having pets. A hearing in December brought many supporters to testify, while a representative from a council of low-income coops spoke against it. Katz will reintroduce the bill this year.
Adoption is the first priority because of the high euthanasia rates, but the long-term solution to this problem is widespread low-cost spay/neutering, or "turning off the faucet." The low cost is important. The price to spay or neuter a dog at a vet's office can range from $85 to $500 and, for cats, the price fluctuates between $125 and $250. The Mayor’s Alliance is hoping for a grant that would provide six million dollars for spaying and neutering animals in low-income families.
Over half the membership of The Veterinary Medical Association of New York City (VMA/NYC) agreed to offer their services to spay/neuter up to six animals a year for no more than $20 for anyone on public assistance, with the remainder of their fee being paid from the grant.
Jay Kuhlman, a veterinarian for 34 years (and the doctor who treated the pit bull with two broken legs), sees low cost spay/neutering as essential to avoiding the high rates of euthanasia. Veterinarians could be helping more, he thinks, by posting signs and talking to their customers. “We the people have done this. And we can decrease it.”
Bryan Kortis, a documentary filmmaker, was on his way home to his two cats on Manhattan's Upper West Side in 1999 when he happened upon what he thought was a single kitten in an empty lot, and he stopped to see if he could help; maybe he could handle one more addition to his home. It turned out not to be one kitten, but several. Indeed, there were 30 cats there, most of them under a year old. This he couldn’t handle. Kortis tried calling all over the city to get someone to take care of the cats, only to find that there was no humane organization in existence that dealt with street cats. He realized that if wanted someone to help these cats, he was going to have to do it. In that instant, Neighborhood Cats came into existence.
Kortis learned about trap-neuter-return (TNR) -- a humane feral cat colony management program -- from the Alley Cat Allies. The program involves trapping feral cats, preferably the whole colony at once, and bringing them to a vet for spay/neutering. Kittens are rescued and brought to shelters, hopefully for adoption, and adult cats are returned to where they were found, but monitored and fed from this point forward by volunteer guardians.
"There are tens of thousands of feral cats in New York City, " said Kortis. "Maybe hundreds of thousands. Half of the kittens coming into city shelters are street cats. Three to four thousand animals a month are being euthanized and most of them are cats. If we can’t stop the flow of these kittens going into shelters, we’re not going to be able to stop the euthanasia rates."
Neighborhood Cats initially concentrated on the Upper West Side, with remarkable results: in four years, he says, the number of stray cats from the neighborhood going into shelters dropped by 73 percent. Now, they operate throughout the city, have completed some high-profile operations at Riker’s Island and Fresh Kills, and conduct workshops and courses.
The goal of Neighborhood Cats is that euthanasia becomes "what it was meant to be," said Kortis, "the mercy killing of beings that are mortally ill and suffering, and nothing else."
"The best shelter is a caring community," said Boks, who is promoting responsible pet ownership, which includes not just spaying and neutering, but also getting a license for your dog. Dogs with licenses who wind up in a shelter “go home,” said Boks. Those who are not wearing tags “don’t go home. It is the single most prevalent reason for animals dying in shelters."
Hoffman also recommends microchip identification for pets, a tiny implantable chip that is injected into the skin; shelters and veterinarians now all have scanners to read these IDs . "If the license falls off, they still have the microchip.”
They are also encouraging New Yorkers to “foster” a litter for 30 days, or to volunteer at an animal shelter. There are programs with schools to teach children to care, and even programs with banks: Negotiations are currently in progress with JP Morgan Chase to encourage employees to adopt pets from shelters by covering the fees.
Jane Hoffman is optimistic that no kill is a reachable goal. Adoptions, she points out, nearly doubled last year from the year before. "Our hope is that at some point we can save them all," she said.
"It’s up to the community," said Ed Boks.
In Alladeen, a multimedia production touring the U.S., artists from New York, London, and India peer into our “global soul”—at least that part of it revealed by the fact that workers in the “call centers” of Bangalore adopt flat accents and Western names in order to market products to Americans. But while global commerce may be borderless, international artistic collaborations such as Alladeen are becoming increasingly difficult and rare.
Artists who want to work in the U.S. must apply for nonimmigrant visas and prove they possess “exceptional ability” or cultural uniqueness. Since 9/11, greater scrutiny of visa applications has meant delays, extra expenses, and cancellations for foreign guest artists and their American hosts. The U.S. Visa and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (U.S.VISIT) program that went into effect last month requires digital fingerprinting, photographing, and a short interview for travelers from certain countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and South America, adding more layers to the process. And, because what used to be called the Immigration and Naturalization Service is now the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and under control of the Department of Homeland Security, visa applications can be denied for any reason, without appeal.
But delays in visa processing started before 9/11. As reported in a November 2002 column, the institution of “premium processing” in June 2001 complicated a system that was already loaded down with confusion and delay. Under premium processing, applicants who pay a $1,000 fee are guaranteed an initial response within 15 days. While speeding the process for some, this has diverted staff resources and lengthened processing time for most. On average, applications now take six months or more, while they used to take three. (Nonprofits may request expedited processing, without the fee, if they can prove that delays will cause them financial losses; in the case of illness or other emergency; or if the event will further the “cultural and social interests” of the U.S. In practice, however, expedited requests are rarely approved.)
Even though few can afford to, many arts groups now pay for premium processing for fear of incurring greater expenses down the road. Last summer, a U.S. tour of the Peking Opera had to be canceled after the Chinese artists failed to win visas (it was feared they would try to stay). The producers lost more than $500,000 in upfront costs, in addition to forfeiting ticket sales.
According to Sandra Gibson, president of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, there’s been a drop in the number of applications approved for guest artists. “We’re seeing more issues arising on the consulate and embassy side,” Gibson says. “Visa applications get through the initial approval process, then there might be a request for more evidence. Some artists are finding it more difficult to get interviews at the consulates, or have to travel to embassies to do them, which of course means added expense.” In many countries, new security regulations are taxing the resources of consulates and embassies, which have long been understaffed. (The 9/11 commission found that, in 2001, a single U.S. consular official in Saudi Arabia had to perform about 200 interviews a day.)
Visa problems have been particularly acute in the world music scene. Artists from countries like Mali and Cuba are often ill equipped to pay extra costs or navigate the convoluted processes of visa application; at the same time, their biggest fan base may be Americans and their countrymen living here. Bill Bragin, director of Joe’s Pub at the Public Theater, recently produced GlobalFEST, an evening of showcase performances that involved 16 musicians from several countries. The event was designed to support world musicians -- for whom touring has become “fraught with tension,” Bragin says -- and to build a network of presenters in this country. In theory, sharing the administrative burden and expense of sponsoring foreign artists could make world music more commercially viable.
The Association of Performing Arts Presenters and the American Symphony Orchestra League have created a Web site to aid the performing arts community. The site, funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, offers guidance from immigration lawyers and tax attorneys for navigating the ever-changing rules for sponsoring foreign guest artists: “U.S. immigration law is complex and confusing,” the visa application process is “prone to errors, inconsistencies, and delays,” and even a typo can get you disqualified.
Arts advocates are also lobbying Congress for some relief. Artists are a small constituency—each year about 30,000 apply to work here—but their problems mirror those of others involved in international relations. “It’s the same argument for artists and businessmen,” says Gibson, who in addition to heading the Association of Performing Arts chairs the American Arts Alliance.
Arts advocates have won the support of Senators. Hatch (R-UT), Kennedy (D-MA), and Chambliss (R-GA), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction over immigration. The three senators sent a letter to the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services last March urging changes to the visa process for foreign artists. The agency has been studying the issue and Wiliam Yates, its new director for operations, has promised to respond shortly. The senators are requesting administrative changes to streamline the visa process: allowing artists to file applications a year before the proposed date of enrollment, which many say is a more realistic time frame for production schedules; mandating a maximum of 30 days for processing; updating the I-129 application form and instructions to reflect current regulations (they are now outdated and misleading); and implementing uniform policies, procedures, and training at immigration service centers.
Last month, the Arts Alliance launched a campaign asking the major presidential candidates to sign a pledge “to promote global cultural diplomacy and exchange” and “stimulate the circulation of arts and ideas.” Implicit in this is the assumption that cultural exchanges are good not just for the arts, but for international relations. “At a time when we’re securing our borders, we have to have room to exchange ideas and traditions,” says Gibson. “We’re hearing that many parts of the world don’t understand our culture.”
There are now three times as many surveillance cameras on the streets of New York as there were six years ago - an estimated 7,200, often disguised as street lamps.
This is according to the New York Civil Liberty Union's NYC Surveillance Camera Project, which has been researching the location of the cameras since 1998. The Surveillance Camera Players have created maps of the publicly-installed cameras in the city.
The increase in these cameras is partially the result of heightened fears about terrorism after 9/11, and they do make some people feel more secure, according to the New York City Police Department -- since 1997, crime has fallen near 15 housing developments that are monitored.
But they also point at least indirectly to the Bush administration's security policies. Those policies have their most direct _expression in the USA Patriot Act, approved by Congress in October 2002 and, more recently, in more obscure law called the US Visa and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology -- US-VISIT for short -- which went into effect this month.
Experts argue that both laws are eroding privacy and civil liberties in the name of securing the country against terrorism. And technology plays a key role in the enforcement of both of them, in particular, digital images and video as well as databases of personal information.
USA PATRIOT ACT
The USA Patriot Actexpands the government's access to personal records of citizens' activities held by third parties. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "at a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers."
There are several privacy and civil liberty concerns, as enumerated by the Brookings Institution:
• Current privacy laws are not well-suited to the problems of quickly changing technology
• Inaccurate information in databases may lead to false identifications
• Useless and time-consuming searches are being done
• Security guidelines are not in place.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has created an Electronic Privacy Threat Index to counter the Homeland Security Advisory System index.
This is where all those surveillance cameras in New York start to worry civil libertarians.
In midtown alone, there were a total of 284 surveillance cameras documented last May, up from 190 documented the previous January. The vast majority of these cameras, 258, are owned by the private sector, followed by nine owned by foreign embassies, seven by the New York Police Department or Department of Transportation, and only six by the federal government.
However, as a result of the Patriot Act, all the tapes from all the cameras could become available for government viewing.
If that seems unthreatening, think on this: the Patriot Act also allows for government access to information contained in the subject line of e-mails and the addresses of Web sites visited.
US-VISIT
New York may be one of an international city, but thanks to the new US-VISIT policy, foreigners (US visa holders and immigrants) arriving at John F. Kennedy airport this year are being treated as threats. They must undergo an extra 15 seconds of fingerprinting and digital photographing. The law, which will cost $7 billion over 12 years, will track about 24 million people at 115 airports and 14 seaports. The prints and photos are compared with lists of criminals and terrorists.
According to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, US-VISIT is "part of a comprehensive program to ensure that our borders remain open to visitors but closed to terrorists." However, the law has already drawn intense criticism from a number of Washington think-tanks including the libertarian Cato Institute and liberal Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Charles V. Peña, director of defense policy at the Cato Institute, offers a number of reasons why US-VISIT does not make sense. First is the exemption the law provides to visitors from 28 countries, including Great Britain, France and Germany. Assuming that US or European Union passport holders pose less of a threat of terrorism is a mistake. In addition, the program is at fault because it collects too much data (and stores it in a government database) even though only a tiny percentage of it might be useful in catching terrorists.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed comments about US-VISIT urging the Department of Homeland Security to abide by existing Privacy Act requirements, reduce its proposal to retain Data for 100 years, and consider international privacy standards.
More Data, Not Brains
The Republican-led initiatives designed to secure the country against terrorism following 9/11 seem to share a critical flaw. To get more data is not necessarily to get better data. As the images of New Yorkers are captured on camera and stored in databases, there is no guarantee that we are living in a safer city.
Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.
New York and the Feds: Mayor LaGuardia and FDR; Bush at Ground Zero; Daily News Headline During 1975 NYC Fiscal Crisis; Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union. |
For information on the federal government's impact on New York City, visit our new section Focus On The Feds. |
The president never once uttered the words "urban" or "city" or "New York," though he did say "Bulgaria" and "Bali." And while he talked about "September 11th" several times and referred to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, he never mentioned the place where these attacks occurred.
It was not until several days later, in an untelevised address at a conference of mayors from across the country, that he specifically acknowledged the economic struggles and issues facing many cities.
"It's not easy being a mayor," Bush toldthe gathering of mayors. "Probably a lot harder than being president. After all, I don't fill potholes or empty the trash."
Of course, his opponents have not been spending a lot of time on the real problems of cities either, at least judging by their campaigns so far. In an effort to appeal to the broadest national audience possible and the early primaries in Iowa (where agriculture is the largest industry) and in New Hampshire (where the largest city has only 107,000 people), the Democratic presidential candidates have focused little on urban issues.
When the candidates came to New York City last fall, they debated how free trade affected workers in the Midwest and oil drilling in Alaska, but did not even mention issues like housing, mass transit, and immigration.
It was not always this way. A generation ago, there was an assumption that the federal government should play a significant role in the life of American cities like New York - even if federal officials were wary of cities.
Today, there is no real urban policy agenda in Washington.
"There is no leader in the executive branch [for urban issues] and there are no committees in Congress that make it a priority," said David Rapp, editor of Congressional Quarterly, a publication with 100 reporters covering Congress. "We don't even have a reporter assigned to cover urban affairs."
The history of New York and the federal government is complex and difficult.
On one hand, the city has played a significant part in the political life of America. And to politicians, it has been an important place to gather votes and to raise funds.
The first president George Washington was sworn in at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Right Makes Might speech at Cooper Union, which solidified his Republican nomination. In the 1930's, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, working closely with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was able to funnel millions of federal dollars into the city for public housing and social service programs. More recently, former President Bill Clinton selected Harlem as a site for his office.
And much of today's New York City was built with federal money. Between the 1920s and 1960s, Robert Moses built high-rise buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, playgrounds, and parkways with money from Washington.
At the same time, there is a history of deep anti-urban sentiment in America.
“The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government,” Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, “as sores do to the strength of the human body.”
As urban planner John Accordino has pointed out (in pdf format), “Jefferson’s sentiments and those of his contemporaries were translated into the fundamental law of the land," in which cities were made mere subdivisions of the states in which they were located. The states retained "ultimate financial and legal authority" over the cities, which were seen as incapable of governing themselves.
Cities continue to be seen as places of poverty, corruption, crime, and immorality. And immigrants, who traditionally first settle in urban areas, have often been viewed with suspicion. Even President Roosevelt, who was the first president to pay real attention to cities with his New Deal campaign, thought urban areas had become too large to maintain.
"Today many people are beginning to realize that there is an inherent weakness in cities which become too large for their times, and inherent strength in a wider geographic distribution of population," Roosevelt said in a speech in 1937.
In the 1960s, first as an outgrowth of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program to eradicate poverty and then in response to rioting in neglected urban neighborhoods across the country, the nation and its political leaders seemed determined to address the problems of America's cities, and New York City's Mayor John Lindsay could become a national figure and a presidential candidate by championing an urban agenda.
But by 1975, when President Gerald Ford refused to come to New York City's aid during the fiscal crisis and the Daily News printed the now famous headline "Ford to City: Drop Dead," it wasn't only Ford whose views could be summed up this way.
Part of the shift away from a national agenda for cities is a matter of demographics. With the birth of the suburbs after World War II, and the federal financing of the interstate highway system, the cities lost population to outlying areas.
In 1960, the U.S. population was evenly divided among central cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Today, more than half of all Americans live in the suburbs and less than a third live in urban areas. And 40 years ago, New York City accounted for about 4.3 percent of the national population; today it claims only 2.7 percent.
Part of it is political. Nationally, the Republicans and Democrats both claim 45 percent of the population as loyal voters. So the battle for the White House comes down to the 10 percent of Americans known as "swing voters." Pollsters believe that most swing voters live in the suburbs.
In New York City, where Democrats outnumber Republicans four to one, some say that Democrats take the city for granted.
"Hence the decline of the urban agenda," New York Senator Charles Schumer told the New York Times. "That doesn't just hurt urban areas, it hurts America."
The move away from a national urban agenda reflects a change in policy that, some claim, actually benefits the city. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has maintained that the federal initiatives did more harm than good and burdened cities like New York with high taxes and regulations. In a 1995 speech, he argued that it was time to end the days when cities went to Washington "hat in hand."
"The old agenda was based on looking to others to solve our problems - look to Albany, look to Washington, someone will come along and bail us out," said Giuliani. "The new urban agenda should declare that we can solve our own problems, without direction from state or federal authorities."
Today, there remains disagreement about what the federal government can and should do for New York.
In his recent budget presentation (in pdf format) Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that New York City taxpayers send $11 billion more to Washington D.C. each year than they get back in services.
"When they talk about taxing and spending [in Washington]," the mayor said, "we get the taxes and they get the spending."
Last week, in an effort to draw attention to needs of cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors released an urban agenda for the presidential campaign. The report (in pdf format) focused on five critical issues:
President George W. Bush, who has not released a specific urban agenda yet, addressed the report and said he would increase homeland security funding by 10 percent in the next budget. He also outlined steps to create jobs, stimulate housing ownership, and serve the poor through faith-based initatives.
Four of the Democratic presidential candidates - Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and John Kerry - have released their specific ideas for helping cities. All four plans include an economic stimulus plan that would create jobs in urban areas and call for an increase in the minimum wage.
In addition, Wesley Clark's plan calls for an expansion of funding for housing vouchers, public transit, and cleaning up the urban environment.
Howard Dean focuses on a permanent trust fund to rehabilitate housing for people of low and moderate income, and a crackdown on predatory lenders (institutions that issue exploitatively high-interest loans to low-income people).
John Edwards aims to improve urban schools, expand after-school programs, increase housing subsidies, and reform probation regulations.
John Kerry wants to work to increase manufacturing jobs, provide job training for young people, and expand loans for small businesses and high tech companies.
Of course, New York is not just any city.
New York's economy is more diverse than most cities with Wall Street, tourism, manufacturing, the arts, and the media industry all generating jobs. The city's population has continued to grow in recent years. And New York has seen its crime rate drop to record lows; the Federal Bureau of Investigations recently declared New York "the safest large city in America."
At the same time, New York still has great poverty, the highest housing costs in the nation, the most riders of mass transportation in the country, and an overburdened school system.
"New York's agenda is similar to that of other cities except more so," said John Mollenkopf, professor at the Center for Urban Research at the City University of New York. "What is unique about New York is that it combines both large social burdens and great wealth."
If New York's needs do not always grab the attention of national officials, its wealth surely should.
In the last two national elections, New Yorkers gave $153 million in donations to federal candidates and national parties, nearly twice as much as the residents of any other city.
"When federal officials from outside New York come here to fundraise and tap resources of our great city," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg, "we should know where they stand on the issues that matter to us."
• Economy
• Education
• Mass Transit
• Health Care
• Housing
• Immigration
• Poverty
• Terrorism
While the national economy has rebounded in the last few years, New York City's has been slower to recover. In part, this is because New York City's economy and tax base is largely dependent on Wall Street; every $1 billion in Wall Street profits translates to $77 million in tax revenue for the city, according the mayor's office. The city has also struggled to recover from the economic impact of September 11.
Just how Washington can best help New York City's economy is a point of debate.
Some argue that federal tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the national and the city's economy. The Manhattan Institute estimated that President George W. Bush's federal tax cuts have kept $1 billion in the city that otherwise would have gone to Washington.
Others argue tax cuts have not helped and formulas of how government money is dispersed must be changed to recognize New York's unique needs - to create jobs, housing, and aid low-income New Yorkers. (For more, read Bush Tax Cuts and New York)
"The Republican belief is that the federal government should not be in the business of providing services to American citizens," said Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel. "They believe… those people that are less fortunate should have to rely on local and state governments."
New York City has the largest public school system in the country with over 1 million students and more than 1,100 schools.
While Mayor Michael Bloomberg is in the midst of his overhaul of New York City public school system, the current federal education policy No Child Left Behind presents unique challenges for city schools, students, and parents.
No Child Left Behind, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002, requires standards for academic achievement. Those schools that do not perform are placed on a "schools in need of improvement" list and students are entitled to transfer to a better school. If a school appears on the list for two years, low-income students are entitled to free tutoring services.
There are 347 schools on the list in New York City. (For more on how the program affects New York, read Gotham Gazette's article)
When it comes to money for New York City schools, the federal government only currently provides about 10 percent of education funding; the rest comes from state and city, both of which are struggling to close budget deficits.
In his 2004 preliminary budget, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that the city needs $400 million more from the federal government to fund the program. (For more, read Are New York's Children Left Behind?)
There are two major government health care programs: Medicare and Medicaid.
Medicare affects people over 65 years old regardless of income and is funded by the federal government. Medicaid offers medical coverage for low-income people and is funded by federal, state, and local governments. In New York City, approximately 350,000 people are eligible for both programs.
In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the most sweeping changes to Medicare since the creation of program in 1965. Health experts are still divided on what these changes will mean for New York City in the long term. (For more, read New Medicare Law: Will It Hurt or Help?)
Unlike most states, New York requires local governments to pay a major portion of the Medicaid bill. New York City's costs have risen dramatically in recent years, nearly 32 percent from 1999 to 2002. By 2004, Medicaid spending is expected to cost the city over $4 billion a year, or about 13 percent of the total budget.
In his most recent budget, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he would ask Washington to increase its Medicaid funding by 3 percent, an initiative that would save the city $240 million.
Affordable housing is one of the most critical issues facing New York City.
The New York City Housing Authority operates 345 public housing developments for nearly 400,000 New Yorkers and administers 87,000 "section 8" rental vouchers for low-income families.
However, in order to qualify for federal housing subsidies, New Yorkers must meet more and more requirements. Beginning January 2004, a new regulation requires 8 hours of community service for approximately 60,000 people who live in public housing. If they do not abide by the regulations, they can be evicted. (For more read Community Service Required for Housing)
At the same time in recent years, federal subsidies for low-income housing have decreased. Between 1999 and 2003, the federal subsidy for the housing authority decreased by $58 million or 6 percent, according to a report by the Independent Budget Office.
Most of the new housing initiatives offered by President George W. Bush and the Democratic presidential candidates focus on increasing homeownership. Such programs do not have as great an impact in New York City, where the cost of buying a home is high and most people rent their apartments.
New York City is the city of immigrants. Close to three million immigrants live in New York, an estimated 40 percent of the city's population.
In January 2004, President George W. Bush outlined a new immigration policy that would give temporary work visas to legal or illegal immigrants, who are willing to take a job that no American wants. The proposal would require employers to sponsor a worker and a visa would only last three years. Many immigrant advocates in New York criticized the plan, saying it would give too much power to employers and could potentially deport people after they have already worked for years.
Bush's policy comes after several years of more stringent immigration regulations, including requiring visitors from certain countries to register with the Immigration and Naturalizations Service and the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which gives government and law enforcement officials broader use of surveillance in an effort to fight terrorism.
"I know there's some talk in your communities about the Patriot Act," President Bush told a group of mayors last week. "We are in a new war, a different kind of war. We need to be able to share information across jurisdictional boundaries at the federal level."
Democratic presidential candidates say that they would work to reform the Patriot Act and do more to protect civil liberties.
New York City is home to the nation's largest mass transit system in the country. Metropolitan Transportation Authority subways, buses, and railroads carry 2.4 billion passengers a year - or one in every three mass transit users in the nation.
In December 2003, the federal government came through for the city on the issue of transportation in lower Manhattan.
Department of Transportation Secretary announced $2.85 billion in grants to build a new PATH terminal, connect 12 subway lines in a new Fulton Street subway station, and replace the South Ferry subway terminal.
And some New Yorkers are still hoping for more. Last fall, Congress announced the Transportation Equity Act, which calls for $375 billion over six years to transportation efforts. The plan would bring an estimated $8.5 billion for public transit and $11 billion for highway funding in New York. City officials estimate that the package could generate 70,000 jobs for New Yorkers
However, some members of Congress would reportedly like to funnel more money to highway projects in the South and Midwest.
In 1996, the federal government passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, commonly known as welfare reform. The legislation overhauled the nation's public assistance programs.
In 2003, President George W. Bush proposed an extension of the act with added requirements. Under the President's plan recipients would be required to work 40 hours per week, the average funding for a family on public assistance would be increased, and state and local governments would consolidate food stamps, housing, and education programs.
While welfare rolls have decreased drastically in recent years, there are signs that the poor are not finding jobs or the help they need.
Homelessness in New York City is at a record high. The number of single mothers who are unemployed has risen and hourly pay has actually decreased since 2000, according to a report by the Community Service Society.
The city must also do more, advocates say, to create job-training centers. (For more, read Is Congress About To Shake Up Job Training?)
At the same time, an estimated 800,000 New York City residents who are entitled to food stamps are not receiving them. Advocates say that New York City's food stamp offices are not complying with federal law or even with their own policies. This costs the city nearly a billion dollars in lost federal aid. (For more, read Food Stamps Not Reaching Everybody Who Deserves Them)
In the past decade, New York City has endured two terrorist attacks and many believe remains a primary target in the future. While the national terror alert level has fluctuated, New York City has remained on a high level of alert since September 11, 2001.
In March 2003, the New York Police Department launched a new anti-terrorism initiative called Operation Atlas to increase security at the city's tunnels, ports, subways, and landmarks. The plan costs an estimated $5 million a week.
In the past two years, the federal Department of Homeland Security has provided the city with $180 million to fund antiterrorism programs, a result of complaints from New York lawmakers that urban areas were most vulnerable. Still they say the federal funding has not even come close to covering New York City's expenses.
New York currently receives fewer homeland security dollars per person than 48 other states and American Samoa.
"Who would believe that New York City - still the terrorists' number one target - has spent a billion dollars out of its own pocket for security, but gets only a fraction from the federal government?" said Representative Carolyn Maloney. "But that is the sad truth."
###
New York Urban League
New York Urban Republican Platform
US Conference of Mayors
FairshareNYC.com
Republican Candidates
George W. Bush
• www.georgewbush.com
Democratic Candidates
Wesley Clark
• www.clark04.com
• urban agenda
Howard Dean
• www.deanforamerica.com
• urban agenda
John Edwards
• www.johnedwards2004.com
• urban agenda
Richard Gephardt
• www.dickgephardt2004.com
John Kerry
• www.johnkerry.com
• urban agenda
Dennis Kucinich
• www.kucinich.us
Joe Lieberman
• www.joe2004.com
Carol Moseley Braun
• www.carolforpresident.com
Al Sharpton
• www.sharpton2004.org
When the Help America Vote Act was passed by Congress in late 2002, it was widely praised as a long-overdue upgrade of voting technology, and a much-needed balm to the wound that was the 2000 Presidential recount. The legislation, which was passed by huge super majorities in both houses of Congress, included close to $4 billion in federal funds to state and local governments, and a tight four-year timetable in which to come into full compliance.
The law stipulates that within those four years, voter rolls must be computerized, and centralized; in many states, lists of registered voters are kept by counties or localities, but there is no comprehensive statewide list. The law also says that those lists must be linked to the state agency that issues driver's licenses, to ensure accuracy and prevent fraud.
In addition, it requires that any voter who shows up at a polling place be given a chance to vote that day, even if his or her name doesn't appear on the voter registration list.
And many of the existing voting machines would need to be systematically replaced. The new law requires voters to be given the chance to correct any mistakes before casting their final choices. This is an important provision, not only because some of the machines really do break down constantly, and have been known to drop votes completely, but because it goes to the confidence of voters in the system. We are accustomed to electronic data, and we have come to expect that any time we make a selection, it won't be final until we press enter, or select, or say, "That's my final answer." And now the law confirms this, and requires states to protect voters from casting the wrong vote due to a simple mistake.
Think of it. No more hanging chads, no more butterfly ballots. And no more of those sluggish, temperamental voting machines that look like they belong in the Museum of American History.
During this four-year timetable in which all these reforms must be implemented, all states are required to go through the process of holding hearings by a specially appointed task force to decide how to implement this legislation and spend the federal funds. This is the stage that most states are completing right now. In New York State, the task force held a hearing this summer in New York City. Although the New York State task force did issue a report, they were criticized for failing to provide specific recommendations.
The Century Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, had previously commissioned a study that raised doubts as to whether the Help America Vote Act would in fact provide the kinds of real reforms that were promised at its passage. At the hearing this summer, Tova Andrea Wang, a Century Foundation Senior Program Officer and Democracy Fellow, testified to her view of the legislation and its implications. "Implemented well, the law could mean an expansion of voting rights not seen since 1965," Wang said. "Done poorly, greater disenfranchisement becomes a risk."
This new legislation does represent the biggest single set of voting reforms seen since the Voting Rights Act, but the volume of the legislation may be deceptive. The most serious cases of voter disenfranchisement, those due to language barriers, or illiteracy, may not be addressed by even this sweeping legislation.
Many of the problems that resulted in New York having the greatest number of lost votes in the nation in 2000-- greater than the number of lost votes in the rest of the nation combined-- were technological failures. They were the collective failure of machines to do the job they were created to do. But many of the problems that New York voters and New York election officials faced just one year later were not technological failures but human ones; the failure of people to do the job they were hired to do, and the failure of the city to hire adequate workers to do the job, period.
Granted, the challenges presented to New York's Board of Elections may be greater, and are certainly different, than the challenges faced by other parts of the nation. But the problems that New York faces are easily identifiable, if not as easily solved. In New York, there is a need for translators, and adequately trained poll workers who understand how to administer the voting procedures. And lots of them. And finding, training and retaining thousands of workers for a one-day assignment, one that requires a clear understanding of the subtleties of a new law, an appreciation for the dynamics of a diverse populace and a commitment to the integrity of the process, well, that is a more complicated problem that just replacing a piece of equipment.
The strategy for implementing the Help America Vote Act will continue to evolve in the states in the coming year as the law's timetable continues to run down. Eventually, changes will be made, and they will represent, one way or the other, the biggest changes in the logistics of American voting in several decades. But it will require continued vigilance to ensure that those technical changes result in real differences in the voting rights of Americans, both in New York and throughout the nation.
Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.