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

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less