Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less