Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Public financing, suppression of 3rd parties in N.Y. on hold after ruling

New York Andrew Cuomo

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers could still enact the reform package through the standard legislative process.

Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

New York's new public campaign finance system and rules limiting the power of small political parties were struck down Thursday, a state judge ruling their creation by an independent commission last year violated the state Constitution.

A package with both provisions took the force of law in January under an unusual procedure in which the Legislature's choices were to either reject it or let it happen. That was "an improper and unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority," Niagara County Supreme Court Justice Ralph Boniello ruled.

Third parties hailed the ruling, which preserves their candidates' relatively easy access to spots on the ballot in the nation's fourth most-populous state. Advocates of reducing big money's sway over campaigns, meanwhile, said there was plenty of time to recover. The new taxpayer matching funds were not going to start flowing for six years — allowing plenty of time for the system to get enacted the usual way.


"Albany can't use today's court ruling as an excuse to derail a public financing program that was promised to New Yorkers," said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, one of the most prominent groups pushing the overhaul. All legislative leaders and Gov. Andrew Cuomo need to do, he said, is enact "the law the commission drafted after months of public testimony and expert input, which includes features that could make it a model for reform across the nation."

After the state government in 2019 came under total Democratic control for the first time in the decade, however, the political leadership failed to agree on such a package — deciding instead to turn the negotiations over to a specially appointed Public Finance and Elections Commission.

The plan those nine panelists came up with in November would use taxpayer money to amplify contributions of up to $250 to candidates for statewide offices and the Legislature, with a 12-to-1 match for the smallest donations and 9-to-1 for a $250 gift. In addition, the contribution cap for a statewide candidate was to drop to $18,000 — still among the highest in any state, although a fraction of current limits that run as high as $69,700 for some races.

Part of the deal-making was a huge victory for a commissioner named by Cuomo, state Democratic chairman Jay Jacobs. He got language in the package nearly tripling — to 140,000 from 50,000 — the number of votes minor-party candidates would have to get in each statewide election to preserve their right to a line on the ballot for the next four years.

The only parties for which this would be no problem are the Republicans and Democrats, who routinely draw more than 2 million votes each, even in a lopsided contest. The Conservative Party has crested the number sometimes, but not any of the state's other minor parties.

The new requirements, which were to take effect for the 2024 election, are now scrapped unless they reappear in a future legislative package.

"This ruling is a victory for the voters of New York State. We need more choices, not fewer, to build a strong democracy," said Sochie Nnaemeka of the progressive Working Families Party, which has been a frequent nemesis of the Cuomo administration and was one of the plaintiff's in the lawsuit.

Jerry Kassar of the Conservatives said the ruling proves that the commissions' decisions were "total overreach by an overzealous governor" and called it a "victory for political freedom."

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

November 20 marks World Children’s Day, marking the adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. While great strides have been made in many areas, we are failing one of the declaration’s key provisions: to “protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.”

Sexual violence against children is a public health crisis that keeps escalating, thanks in no small part to the internet, with hundreds of millions of children falling victim to online sexual violence annually. Addressing sexual violence against children only once it materializes is not enough, nor does it respect the rights of the child to be protected from violence. We need to reframe the way we think about child protection and start preventing sexual violence against children holistically.

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

A deep look at what “American values” truly mean, contrasting liberal, conservative, and MAGA interpretations through the lens of the Declaration and Constitution.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

What Are American Values?

There are fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives—and certainly MAGA adherents—on what are “American values.”

But for both liberal and conservative pundits, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent—of lasting meaning. Because the values of people change as the times change, as the culture changes, and as the political temperament changes. The results of current polls are the values of the moment, not "American values."

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less