The First Democrat Debates and The Last Hurrah!

Did you watch the first Democratic debates for two evenings this last week?  I did.  And, I’m less impressed than I would like to be.  However, that may be caused more by the format than by the candidates.  
Let me say immediately that the vast array of candidates is far more acceptable as presidential possibilities than is the current holder of the office for which they are vying.  On the other hand, a few are just not ready for that office, but could be in the future.  I hope some of them will run for Senator or Governor in their home states.

All that aside, let me list a few of the positives and negatives, in general, that stood out to me:

Positives:
· There was some actual debate between a few participants
· Many of the pressing issues of the day were addressed
· There was no heavy rancor or demeaning rhetoric
· Some candidates have actual plans for approaching issues or problems
· Several candidates have a record of getting things done
· Some lesser known candidates had a chance to be better known

Negatives:
This was not the best set-up for “debating”

• too many participants 
• too little time for answers 
• no structure for actual debate 
• unequal opportunity for participation
• questions were not always the best in terms of formulation
• Not enough time to get into depth on the issues
• Technical difficulties affected momentum
• No time or inclination to get down into the “how” (the process for making change happen)

My Biggest Disappointments:

• not enough reference to specific ways in which Trump is flaunting laws, negatively affecting national security and denigrating America’s image and values in the eyes of the world
• not enough time to describe the details of “plans” for change, 
• no major references to the importance of process; i.e. how one goes about making change happen; the ‘nuts and bolts’ of governing
• lack of reference to how one might involve more citizens and groups in the process of governing
• and maybe, of most immediate importance, a lack of steps that must be taken to stop the outrageous treatment of migrant children on our southern border 

My Comments and/or Suggestions:

• Start with a limit of Five candidates on stage, with perhaps an entirely different procedure, to wit:
• Each candidate gets to expound on their most important issues for 12 minutes without interruption (60 mins.)
• Each of the other candidates, in turn, gets to question the speaker’s presentation for 6 minutes without interruption (30 minutes)
• A total of 30 minutes is then dedicated to head-o-head challenges of each other’s questioning or issue (30 mins.)
• Each candidate gets 4 minutes to summarize their most crucial points without interruption (20 mins.) 
• If the purpose is actual debate, then every issue should be put in terms of a debatable proposition (such as: ‘Medicare-for-all is the most effective way to resolve our health care crisis’); limit the number of issues; set time limits
• If the purpose is to introduce and expand knowledge of lesser-known candidates, let each have certain amount of time to present their ideas and plans, with time then given to a panel discussion critiquing each presentation immediately after it is given, ending with original speaker’s final words of rebuttal to the critiques
• Don’t mix the two purposes or candidates of wide variance in polls
• Make process question – the “how would you do that?” question – part of every issue; for example, require every candidate present to give at least 2-3 specific steps they would use to implement whatever plan or answer they give in general terms

Why is process or procedure important?  Because without some understanding of how a candidate would implement a vision, a plan, a ‘way forward,’ we have little or no idea of:

• what kind of manager/leader that candidate might be
• whether the process s/he proposes promotes equal or elitist; fair or unjust outcomes
• whether or not their vision or purpose is possible or probable
• how the vision or proposal might affect us personally
• what other entities might need to be involved like departments, outside vendors, sub-contractors, experts, etc.
• whether democratic values and freedoms will be advanced or undermined
• how long might the proposed process take to implement fully?

I might seem overly concerned about these matters of process, but in the current context, concern is an imperative given the numbers of voters willing to risk our form of government by buying “pig-in-a-poke” Trump with his extensive record of messing-up, mis-using or mis-managing process, such as: 

• children of immigrants dying or suffering physically and mentally at our southern border because he can’t figure out how to manage a crisis of any kind
• the needs of 80,000 federal workers affected by his “government shut-down”
• failure to get Mexico to pay for a border wall (and wanting to build one in the first place)
• gross ineptitude for choosing and maintaining excellent managers for the departments of the Executive Branch of government
• undermining of relations with other countries
• a bumbling, fumbling approach to health care reform
• threatening national security by withdrawal from certain treaties such as the Paris Accords
• and these are just a few examples of his many managerial/process debacles.

SO, what is the LAST HURRAH?
The "Last Hurrah" is the end of a performance; the conclusion of a run of shows; the last round of applause acknowledging that something of value has passed from the scene.  Are we there yet?  Are we almost there?  Are we just on-the-way?

Should Donald Trump, and enough of his pusillanimous puppet-pal Senators, be re-elected, I would say that would be the "Last Hurrah" for our magnificent experiment in representative democracy.  Unless, the Democratic ticket and Senatorial candidates can pull-off a victory of major proportions in 2020 elections.

BUT, here’s the rub:  even if the latter were to become reality, the Democrats in the White House and the Congress must be on a Mission of Destiny to lead the way out of a system that is flawed and not working for many of our people.  Many of the of the ideas and changes that we need were mentioned in Wednesday’s and Thursday’s debates, but how we will get there was inadequately addressed. 

Since I have never shied from presenting suggestions for how to ‘do’ things, I will mention some of them here:

1) Amend the Constitution, examples:

a. establish new amendment process instituted by the People
b. abolish the Electoral College
c. establish 12-year term limits for all members of Congress
d. limit justices to 20-year terms
e. reverse the Citizens United decision and unequivocally state that corporations (or any other organized entity) cannot be considered eligible for constitutional rights reserved to individuals

2) Pass meaningful reform legislation that includes procedures for implementation, examples:

a. continue the reforms of HR 1, including: voting reform, campaign finance reform,  ethics reform for public servants

b. begin legislating the provisions outlined in the Green New Deal
c. carefully restrain the right of each House to determine its own rules of procedure by adding a caveat such as:  “provided no rule gives unbridled power to one person or group, or allows one member to place a restriction on consideration of any piece of legislation"
d. make access to Information a broader right than it is currently; set time limits for responses; open up access to congressional office/staff activities and discussions; limit, or clearly define, what can be considered “secret’ or ‘classified’
e. enlarge description of Congress’ power to “establish a uniform Policy and Procedure for Immigration and Naturalization; also, restrict presidential power to make immigration and naturalization policy
f. strengthen the power of Congress to appropriate all money from Treasury, and consider:

• terminating all special arrangements in the Tax Code that provide subsidies, rebates, exemptions or any special consideration to certain individuals and groups; in other words, make sure any reasonable rebates or subsidies are only granted for the purpose of addressing broad needs of citizens 
• instituting fairness in the Tax code by requiring special provisions or tax breaks be common to all tax brackets, or by ‘trade-offs’ for special provisions that are equal in value to each bracket
• require all money appropriated by Congress for any reason or purpose to a contractor or sub-contractors, grantee, country, or any entity be subject to an annual (or more frequent) evaluation or audit that measures specific goals for use against actual accomplishments; reports of such should always be made public

3) Reform operating procedures in the House (and Senate if control shifts) 
a. get rid of partisan rules and procedures
b. use a problem-solving model to get things done

• require professional training of all members and staff in the techniques of problem-solving
• ensure that every piece of legislation has a Title that is devoted to explaining its Purpose, the problem(s) to be solved, and the process by which it will be implemented and evaluated
• begin use of bi-partisan Task Forces (not committees) to find and report on ways to resolve particular problems; each TF dedicated to one issue or problem with deadlines set for reporting

c.  operate on a bi-partisan Team concept (which also requires individualized training)
d. outlaw the filibuster and 60-vote cloture; return to simple majority vote on legislation

4)  Involve ordinary citizens in the governing process

• Town Halls; ad hoc issue group
• formal advisory councils or groups to advise on issues and problems
• real surveys of constituents, expertly produced
• attachment to Inspector General offices to assist in evaluations, audits, investigations, reports non-partisan candidacy (and consumer advocacy) training

While this attention to process “nuts and bolts” is not particularly attention-grabbing, it is a necessary exercise in determining just how prepared candidates really are for information gathering, representing constituents, managing government structures and implementing rhetorical ideas and principles of our constitutional framework. 

This matter of translating policy into fair, equal, effective and efficient procedures is vital.  Without proper attention, implementation goes awry, and we end up with nuisances like:
-- long lines at voting places
-- machines that don’t work
-- hardware and software that are out-of-date and inadequate for information-gathering, implementation of procedures, and outcomes that serve a good purpose for the people
-- confusion amongst consumers as to how to apply for and acquire government benefits, services, aid, or opportunities

-- Worse: we get corruption, manipulation, contracts that waste tax dollars, departments that can’t function as they should

-- Much worse:  we get children incarcerated in detention centers at our southern border (and elsewhere) without adequate care at any level of their existence; denied their rights; living with filth and uncertainty; lacking family contact, even denied the re-creative aspects of outdoor play.

When we allow corrupt politicians like Donald Trump to get away with manipulating policies and procedures in order to punish, frighten, intimidate and isolate people, we begin to understand why we must require more precise answers to that “Exactly How Will You Make This Happen?” question. 

Just like policy statements, procedures can be racist, corrupt, discriminatory, unjust, cruel and harmful. 
We cannot, and must not, ignore the procedures and implementation techniques of either our politicians or of our corporate big shots.  Not only is such ignorance costing us in terms of money and influence; it could cost us our lives and our planet!  

We must pay much greater attention to “HOW’ things are (or will be) done.  Neglect of such could be harmful to your health and inevitably to your pocketbook! 

AUTOMATIC UNIVERSAL VOTER ENROLLMENT

As you may know, there has been a concentrated movement in NYS to improve the process of voter registration and that of voting.  To be sure, there is a broader movement to institute an in-depth reform of the election system within NYS, and other states. NYS has been woefully behind other states but is currently attempting to change its horrible record on voter registration, voter participation and the voting process.  Kudos to Governor Andrew Cuomo, the new Democrat-controlled legislature and the numerous individuals and organizations dedicated to a successful outcome regarding election reform, especially the organization known as “LETNYVOTE” ( www.LetNYvote.org; www.facebook.com/LetNYvote; www.twitter.com/LetNYvote)

With the history-making signing, on Monday, January 14, 2019, of a package of bills passed by the NYS Senate and Assembly, we are now seeing long-awaited (and long fought-for) reforms that will start to correct previously promulgated and supported laws, rules and regulations that prevented citizens from voting. 

Fortunately, the legislation passed in the NYS Senate and Assembly will provide for some of the needed changes in voter registration, in particular:

ü  early registration for 16 and 17-year-olds

ü  early voting (period of nine days)

ü  same-day registration will require constitutional amendment after approval by voter referendum and second passage by the next legislature

ü  ‘no excuse’ absentee voting must also be passed again by the next legislature and go to ballot referendum before being finalized as an amendment to the NY constitution

ü  portable registration, meaning when a New Yorker moves elsewhere within the state, his or her voter registration will be updated

ü  combining primaries into one day and therefore having one deadline for registration of party affiliation

The reforms that passed are fairly comprehensive, but we must remember that NYS is playing catch-up here; it has had one of the worst records for voter registration, voter turnout and for innovative election reform.  When liberal-leaning NY state, with a reputation for voting fairly progressively on most matters, was used in federal court by another state to defend its inadequacies (actually, two states – North Carolina and Ohio), it was certainly past time to acknowledge that NY was not out ahead or at par with progressive states; it had not been a good role model for election reform.  New York still has work to do to overcome remaining shortcomings when the leaders of the NY Legislature meet this coming week before the session ends to iron out some of the ‘left-overs’ in the package of reforms, such as these 3 laws:

1) A 25 DAY party enrollment deadline (S2338/A1423)

2) Automatic voter registration (S6457/A8280)

3) Voting rights restoration for people on parole (S1931/A4987)]

So, let’s be clear about this:  NYS has taken much needed reform steps, but is still some distance from completing the journey.  The bills passed in both the state Senate and the Assembly will put NYS on the road to reform, but some of the chores that remain have to do with:

•  truly automatic voter registration,
• campaign finance reform that removes big money and special interests from their dominant position,
• automatic portability of voter data from one location to another, not just within the state,
• completing amendments to the state constitution for ‘no excuse’ absentee voting and same-day registration,
• automatic registration using the DMV (and other state agencies) as designated source centers for registrations,
• re-enfranchisement for those completing felony penalties,
• How to pay for the cost of nine days of early voting must be resolved. The New York State Association of Counties estimates between $500,000 and $1 million will be needed per county board of elections to cover the cost of additional space and staff for more days of voting. 
• Even the LetNYVote folks admit that we are just getting started on first steps with most of this legislation.

Indeed, we must attend to some remaining conceptual shortcomings:

1. Registration still depends upon individual initiative – if you don’t act to register, you can’t vote
2. There is still too much paper  involved in the registration process – an unnecessary burden in the electronic age.  NY is one of the few remaining states that requires voters to mail paper registration forms, and to update their records every time they move
3. Designated registration ‘source’ agencies and locations are not only limited, they are often unavailable (and sometimes repugnant) to certain cohorts of our population
4. Some Deadlines and restrictions are still burdensome, like party registration
5. Unreported changes for whatever reason often disqualify voters because registration is “out-of-date”
6. As yet, we have no Same-Day registration but still require registration at least 10 days before a general election, and this is one of those reforms, although passed in January of this year, that must go through constitutional amendment procedures so it will be delayed at least until 2021.
7. As mentioned, we still have restrictive deadlines for registering party affiliation before the newly consolidated primary
8. Electronic submission of a voter registration application online directly to BOE is still not possible in NYS, (unless done through DMV), while making out an online form that can be printed and mailed is possible. 

Nation-wide American elections are marred by a ramshackle voter registration system. Still based largely on paper, the system is plagued with errors, which create needless barriers to voting, frustration, and long lines at the polls. According to the Pew Center on the States:

• One in four eligible citizens is not registered to vote.

• One in eight voter registrations in the United States is invalid or significantly

inaccurate.

 “For too many citizens in 21st century America, voter registration is a 19th century relic. Today we deposit checks on our iPhones and push a button to start our cars, yet many states and localities still rely on piles of paper records to maintain voting lists. Civil servants who perform data entry from paper-based applications must interpret citizens’ chicken scratch handwriting. Typos are common.”

Thus, today I have chosen to concentrate on universal automatic voter enrollment, because, in my thinking, this is where we must fulfill the constitutional promise of the franchise for all citizens. The right to vote must be based on at least three principles, originally advanced by the Brennan Center for Justice:

1)     Sovereign—i.e. voting must be enshrined as the absolute right of every citizen and revered as the foundation of our form of government; without which, our democracy is made null and void because consent of the governed is the bedrock upon which democracy is based and fulfilled.

2)     Easy to obtain and to maintain—registration to vote must be made to be a system or process that does not in itself present obstacles, challenges or restrictions to potential voters.  Enrollment is a necessary process (for identification, eligibility and notification), but must not be a restrictive process that results in nullification of one’s right to vote.

3)     Universal—one person or one segment of citizens denied the ability to exercise this right through easy and obtainable registration amounts to a nullification of the equality of every vote; such restriction or denial unbalances the scale and makes every other vote weighted beyond one person, one vote. Such restrictions when multiplied, can result in consent to govern by plurality rather than by majority.  In other words, restrictions placed upon voter registration can easily result in oligarchy, plutocracy or even authoritarian government and governance.

 “Automatic voter registration would add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls, save money, and improve accuracy and security. It is the centerpiece of a modern voter registration system built on four components:

• Automatic Registration: State election officials automatically register eligible citizens using reliable information from other government lists.

• Portability: Once eligible citizens are on a state’s voter rolls, they remain registered and their records move with them.

• Online Access:  Voters can check and update their records through a secure and accessible online portal.

• Safety Net: Eligible citizens can correct errors on the rolls or register before and on Election Day

According to the Brennan proposal, “Every citizen should have a fair and equal opportunity to get, and stay, registered to vote. Citizens must take the responsibility to vote, but government should do its part by clearing bureaucratic obstacles to the ballot box. Automatic voter registration would vastly improve American democracy.”

Based on these concepts, and the shortcomings of current proposals, here is my own prescription for universal automatic voter enrollment, based somewhat on that proposed a few years ago by the Brennan Center for Constitutional integrity.

In my opinion, one of the problems that still exists in New York and other states is continuing to believe that contact with state agencies (especially the Department of Motor Vehicles, but also the Health Department) is the definitive answer because these agencies either have or can collect information about us that can be used for voter registration.  In my opinion, this has always been a stop-gap measure designed to increase voter registrations, and it has borne some fruit, but is not the final word.

RED FLAG – while some State DMVs have reported substantial increases in interactions that have produced significant increases in voter registrations (like Oregon in its first years using this method), the sad fact is that state agency registrations are not capturing everyone who is eligible to vote.  In one study in California in 2018, it was found that 40% of those eligible to vote left the DMV without registering. Another report from AVRNOW.com, according to Census Bureau data, only 33% of registered people report registering at the DMV.

Executive Order 169 from NY Governor Andrew Cuomo attempted to increase the number and type of state agencies involved, like state universities, Medicaid offices and others.  But this is a concept that will not fill the gaps because there are substantial numbers of eligible voters, like non-college young people between the ages of 18-29, minority members and many persons in poverty who have limited contact with these agencies.  An experiment here in the Utica NY area of recruiting non-profit agencies in low-voter areas as source agencies for registration during 2017-18 did not produce substantial results, although it was successful in expanding the number of registrations in targeted areas and seems to be ongoing. 

  

The increase of source agencies is probably not the final answer either.  What then is the answer?  I believe we have to change our focus on the stop-gap effect of the NVRA of 1993 (“Motor Voter Law” using DMVs and other state agencies as major source agencies for registration) and take a new look at where there may be a greater likelihood of capturing vital statistical information that can be used for universal voter enrollment. 

 

But first, there is a difference of opinion that needs to be addressed.  There are two main systems for implementation of voter registration: front-end and back-end.  In a back-end system, like in Oregon, eligible voters are automatically added to the voter rolls when they interact with a designated government or “source” agency, like the state DMV, unless they “opt-out.”  If they opt to stay in the system, addresses and other changes are transmitted to the Board of Elections by that agency.

In “front-end” systems, as in California and Colorado, eligible individuals are required to decide whether they want to register to vote, update their address, or make some other change, while interacting with a source agency.  They have to opt-in or opt-out on the spot!  Both systems have been successful in increasing voter registrations, so something is better than nothing. One website – AVR.NOW – recommended to NY state that it adopt a hybrid system that would fit different-sized agencies.

 

I want to go even further to suggest that we should support a nation-wide system of enrollment (as called for in HR–1) implemented by the states, that would assure that all voters are recorded on a register (or database), not by opting-in or opting-out, but by simply becoming a citizen! As I read our Constitution, the right-to-vote must be conferred upon every citizen as a sovereign right, not dependent on an individual’s initiative to seek it out through some process invented for registering to vote!  It’s like free speech, or freedom of religious expression, or right to trial by jury, or any other right which is constitutionally guaranteed – it is there automatically -- unsolicited, but inherent and inalienable.

On that basis, I propose that every state be responsible for certifying the sovereign right to vote on the occasion of people becoming citizens.  Such notification could be in the form of a certificate (see sample below) or a simple card.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Certificate of Voter Enrollment

THIS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT

JOHN (or MARY) DOE
 

IS RECOGNIZED AS A NEW CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

AND ENROLLED AS A POTENTIAL VOTER IN LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL ELECTIONS
PENDING FULFILLMENT OF NECESSARY LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS.

Your Permanent Voter Enrollment record is available for your inspection

and appropriate amendment at http://www.nysboe.gov

CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES

       Name and address of local BOE

       PROGRAM COORDINATOR

       DATE    

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

Opt-in and opt-out become null and void at this point. Every new citizen (or their parent(s) simply receives notification that the new citizen has been recognized and recorded by the local BOE as a potential voter, and, according to the Constitution, may choose to exercise that sovereign right-to-vote at age 18.  Mention of a process of activation as a voter can be sent by post office mail and over the Internet when the child turns 17. 

The only opting in or out will occur when a voter makes his or her choice to vote or not to vote in an election.  Whatever choice is made, the potential voter’s record will remain on the books (most likely, in a national and/or state database) and will be removed only when that person dies.  In case you missed it, this is much like new citizens automatically receiving an SSN at birth but being delayed until a certain age to start receiving a benefit check.  Meanwhile, they do not have their SSN inactivated or removed until death occurs.  There are already several databases that provide birth and death information to the government.  And, SSA has its own widely used database (SSN Death Index) that is utilized by many groups and organizations.  We already know how to do this!

  

It is my firm belief that any other method or steps toward registering to vote constitute nothing less than obstruction of the sovereign right to vote inherently possessed by every citizen.  Requiring a citizen to be the initiator of this right is basically restrictive of that right. We do not make application in order to use our freedom of speech; we do not apply to government every time we worship in a new place of worship; we do not apply or update every time we protest a governmental act or regulation. Voting is a sovereign right of every citizen not meant to be restricted by registration requirements! It is past time to differentiate and separate the absolute right to vote by every eligible citizen from dependence on application to register to vote, and the updating of registrations as a further requirement for voting.  Initiating an application to register to vote is an unnecessary burden on the voter.

Moreover, it is not appropriate to opt in or out of a constitutional right – you either use it as needed, or you don’t.  In this case, you either vote or don’t vote – that is the choice everyone makes.  However, there is a necessary consideration:  if one feels threatened in any way by having personal information displayed and publicly accessible (such as the victim of a stalker or of domestic violence), then provision should be made for opting out of public enrollment (see #4 under miscellaneous thoughts below) while the right to vote is maintained.

In order to provide some structure to this process, let me use the provisions in HR-1 (“For the People ACT of 2019”), Division A – VOTING, Title I – ELECTION ACCESS, Subtitle A – Voter Registration Modernization, Parts 1-7.  I have indicated in red letters where it is that I would change, modify or eliminate the proposed provisions in their national plan.

PART 1 – PROMOTING INTERNET REGISTRATION

Sec. 1001.  Requiring Availability of Internet for Voter registration

Each state, acting through their chief state election official, shall ensure that the following services are available to the public at any time on their official website:

               a.  Online application for voter registration – rather, the voter’s enrollment record is made available online (and/or by postal mail) to be corrected or modified by the voter or a surrogate

               b.  Online assistance to applicants in applying to register to vote – rather, agency assistance given for updating or amending (or disagreeing with) the government record

               c.  Online completion and submission and updating is available to applicants

Ø  Voter registration application forms – no ‘applications to register’; only voter enrollment record to modify

Ø  Voter registration drives, National VR Day, state agencies (and others) as registration sources – instead, use agencies as reminders and resources for voters to check their records; all registration activity becomes null and void

The following procedures and structures will need to be added, substituted or strengthened:

ü  Use of national vital statistics databases; especially national birth records, naturalizations, and death records (for some existing resources, see the following link)

ü  https://ncvhs.hhs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NCVHS_Vital_Records_Uses_Costs_Feb_23_2018-1.pdf

ü  Involvement of federal, state, county, municipal and non-profit agencies serving a particular clientele or consumer base, and meeting national guidelines (certified by their State as voter rights monitors or navigators) who shall aid their clients in maintaining up-to-date voter enrollment records

ü  Any person at a voting location not having an up-to-date voter enrollment record shall be assisted in amending those records on-the-spot, and shall be assisted in finding their proper polling place if they are not at the right location; more thought needs to be given to having greater numbers of polling places and allowing persons to vote at any poll within a broad area (such as a county); on-line voting should also be considered as should mail-in paper ballots

ü  Registration records shall be available online at all times, and shall be able to be amended online with proper ID and secure encryption;

ü  BOE’s role shall be strengthened with entirely adequate technology and technicians able to initiate and update all records from national and state databases

ü  Those turning age 17 shall receive a ‘voter activation notice’ from state DOE reminding them to activate their sovereign right to vote in the next election after they turn 18; also, send record as it is and ask for updates if there are any by return mail, email, online, at an agency, at their ‘polling place’, etc.  

The following miscellaneous items, policies, procedures or structures could also prove necessary to this proposed system:

1. Notices from BOEs to:
1. Parents or guardians of new-born children as soon as birth is reported in a national database or directly to BOE; such notice to include certificate of voter enrollment and reminder that child will receive notice at (or around) age 17 to remind them of their on-going enrollment and their right to vote at age 18
2. New citizens as soon as possible after they have taken the oath of allegiance
3. Children and adults not found in the usual databases – including homeless persons and those who have served out a required term as convicted felons.  Again, a certificate of right to vote shall accompany the notification
4. Similar treatment shall be undertaken for citizens found to be unregistered by “source agencies.” Source agencies need to be greatly expanded to include non-profit agencies; libraries need to be included; all high schools, universities and colleges as well
5. Notify all enrolled voters in the database at least twice a year (January and September or October) to update their record online, at the BOE, at a Source Agency if any changes have occurred; and, deliver any needed guidance on voting
2. Publicity needs to be ongoing in regard to the procedures and importance of updating records
3. USPS involvement mandated by federal legislation to transmit changes of address directly to local BOE.
4. For people who do not want their name to appear on a national (or state) database for a valid reason: they should still be able to vote at a polling station if they submit at time of voting: the original voter recognition certificate or the BoE notice of activation of right to vote; OR: an acceptable form of citizenship (birth certificate; passport) and their signature on a form that certifies their right to opt-out of having their name on a database
5. Usual notices that remain relevant to the new system
6. It will be necessary to protect this new method of universal automatic voter enrollment with appropriate laws and regulations.  The BOE should be responsible for overseeing that process.
7. One provision of federal law that makes sense to me would indicate something like this:

“The right to vote belongs inherently to all citizens, without exception.  Under no circumstances shall any government official restrict the sovereign right to vote beyond the requirements listed herein”:   

v  Must be a United States citizen

v  Must be 18 years old by the date of the primary, general or other election in which he/she will cast first vote

v  Must be a resident of the state, county, town, city, or village in which voter has chosen to vote

v  Must not have been judged mentally incompetent by a court

v  Other restrictions might be necessary on a national level.  Congress should consider whether one may exercise the right to vote who:

o   Publicly advocates overthrow of government by violent means;

o   Has been convicted of a treasonous act against this country;

o   Is in prison for a violent felony conviction

“No other restrictions or exceptions may be legislated or enacted by any state or local government (or agency of government) without the legislative approval of the United States Congress.”

In conclusion, let me re-iterate my main points in this concept of the sovereign right-to-vote:

1)     Having to apply to register to vote is a restriction of the sovereign right to vote because it depends on the voter initiating (and maintaining) a registration application and record which no other constitutional right requires

2)     Having government agencies maintain records of enrolled voters (on basis of birth and acquired citizenship) voids any necessity for making application to register to vote.

3)     Required voter registration, up-dating of such registrations, determining ‘incorrect’ registrations, choosing political affiliation by an advanced date certain in order to vote in a primary, and making registrations non-portable are all ways in which voter participation has been restricted. Such restrictions need to be replaced by assumptions and procedures that enhance, not restrict, voter participation.

4)     New York is on the right track but still has some distance to go before we can rest.

5)     Universal Automatic Voter Enrollment is the way to proceed! Voters opt in or opt out, not of registering to vote, but of whether-or-not to activate their right to vote.  That sovereign right to vote is always available and viable; the voter simply activates that right when appropriate just as we do with our other inalienable rights!

The State of New York has an opportunity to re-affirm our motto: EXCELSIOR!  Will the leadership ever move beyond (“rise above”) mere automatic voter registration to automatic universal enrollment of potential voters?  Your guess is as good as mine…

Abettors of Obstruction and Destruction?

It appears to me that the time has come when questions must be raised that are difficult to  contemplate.  In fact, the main media has virtually ignored such questions because they are covering only daily breaking news, while politicians do everything in their power not to raise them and the uninformed don’t even know what to ask.  So, as usual, I will insert well-worn toes to test the waters.

Perhaps, there is no better place to begin than to recall that Donald J. Trump has once again projected something characteristic of himself onto others, in order to show how rotten everyone else is compared to him.  It is a tactic of diversion and propagandizing that the Donald has used for many years.  It is used to excoriate his detractors and to shift the prevailing or potential narrative to a focus on others.

Trump has reacted in his usual punitive and pugnacious manner to charges of “cover-up” and talk of impeachment as well as to the defection of Republican congressman Amash who has dared to declare that some of Trump’s actions are equivalent to impeachable offenses.  In retaliation, Trump has acted in his most authoritarian manner to divert the public’s attention from investigations of him to focus on the following:

• ·       investigation by Attorney General (AG) Barr of the investigating agencies -- FBI and CIA and NSA -- to find evidence of their having undertaken the original Mueller investigations and prior ones on false pretenses and with criminal intent. In order to do this, Trump issued an Executive Order that allows de-classification of “everything” pertinent to Barr’s investigation.  In other words, Trump has directed the AG of the United States to act as his personal  agent and to access all intelligence records with no limits imposed, meaning the AG can do what he did with the Mueller Report – he can cherry-pick what he can use to make a case against the intelligence agencies and their agents, whether or not those snippets have any relevance or relation to the actual circumstances of the case-at-hand!

• ·        Trump has taken to calling the supposed actions of leaders of these agencies (and others) as “treasonous” implying that our intelligence and investigative leaders have acted as “traitors”
• ·       Come up with a plot to extradite Julian Assange to the United States where he can be tried for actions he undertook to publish secret documents stolen from our government (and others); the rub is that such action against Assange can also work to undermine the protection of secret sources utilized by investigative reporters in this country; such a ruling would be detrimental to the ability of a free press to investigate government (or private sector) corruption
• ·       Has, at the same time, refused to do any more work with Democrats on infrastructure (and perhaps any other legislative work) until investigations by congressional committees are stopped (broadly speaking, just another obstructive action by this authoritarian ruler)

·       While all this is happening on the domestic front, Trump has also begun diversionary tactics on the international scene, by:

o   ramping up warlike actions against Iran

o   supporting ultra-right-wing candidates in Europe and elsewhere

o   talking about N. Korean “successes,” while down-playing recent short-range missile tests

o   making a trip to Japan to be the first to meet with their new emperor

o   and, continuing the trade war (tariffs) with China, and now Mexico

• ·       With the acquiescent Mitch McConnell leading the Senate, Trump has been pushing the approval of conservative judges to lower courts to stack that branch in his favor as challenges are made to his domestic agenda and his authoritarian “orders”
• ·       Perhaps Trump’s most obstructive moves currently involve his actions designed to prevent present and former staff from testifying at all before congressional committees; thus, he has embarked on a strategy that may come back to bite him, discouraging anyone in his administration from answering congressional invitations or subpoenas
• ·       Meanwhile,  Trump continues to rally his base with outrageous scenarios, including ‘pep’ rallies, big lies about people and circumstances; taking credit for a robust economy that he did not initiate, and ignoring the huge social issues that cry out for solutions

With this picture of government destruction, obstruction and authoritarian overthrow fresh in our minds, let us raise the issue that will be with us now and for some time to come.

What is to be done with the base supporters of Donald Trump, who continue to support him no matter what he does or says?

Should they continue to be regarded as simply misguided, or is there now beginning to arise a more detrimental nature to their support and their acceptance of his words and actions?  Are they now abetting the high crime of obstruction of justice (and other criminal actions related to finances and abuse of power)?  After all, there are several other supporters of Trump who have been indicted and fined or jailed for their abetting of their leader’s behavior.  Is that a pointer toward what should happen to others?

Moreover, what about those who support Trumpian legislative, executive or judicial policies, programs and promulgations that threaten to undermine or destroy the fundamental values and structures of our democracy?

And, what about those supporters who freely donate money and/or in-kind services to a regime that is devoted to changing (de-constructing) a democratic form of government?

Finally, what responsibility or recourse do we have toward those who continue to support Donald Trump even though the Special Counsel’s Report found at least 11 examples of obstruction of justice that cumulatively show a pattern of behavior? 

In other words, I am raising the issue of whether or not citizens of a democracy have an obligation to protect their Constitution and their democratic values from other citizens who, by either overt actions, covert behaviors or ideological purity seek to undermine and destroy that form of government and the values that underlie it.

This nation fought two world wars to checkmate foreign forces that threatened to destroy our way of life; we fought a Cold War to keep communist nihilism from doing the same.  We fought a Revolutionary War to banish an authoritarian monarch from our very shores and our ancestor’s lives.  We fought a Civil War to keep democracy alive when human slavery and its accompanying values threatened to undermine our Constitution and our Society.  We fought in Viet Nam and North Korea to contain the advance of dictatorial Communism.  We went to war in the Middle East to contain terrorists who threatened to destroy our way of life, and we are still there.  And now, we face an old enemy that wants to undermine our entire electoral process and our democratic values – yes, it’s Russia again – but this time, it is unprecedented that the Oval Office contains an occupant who does not take action to resist the new cyber war against us by that country’s dictator, but instead heaps praise upon him and rescinds sanctions against him and his regime.

Meanwhile, that same Oval Office resident encourages, creates and applies policies and procedures that threaten our Constitution’s fundamentals.  To wit:

·       discrimination against a particular religion (Islam) by blocking immigrants from Islamic countries

·       undermining of the sovereign right to vote in states throughout this nation without so much as a word of opposition from the White House

·       support for groups that seek to disrupt and destroy the rights of others; Charlottesville will remain the epitome of this President’s overt support of Nazi’s, KKK, and other violent hate groups finding “good people” on all sides, never deigning to object to their beliefs or their tactics; even minimizing the death of one young woman killed intentionally by a car driven by a Nazi sympathizer

·       the documented growth of hate groups dedicated to white nationalism since Trump assumed office because of his support and lack of censure

·       ever-growing discrimination against persons of color; persons with disabilities; persons living in poverty; the budgets of this administration have illustrated their absolute disdain for vulnerable populations who need the help of government

·       mainly through opposition and undermining of the ACA (Obamacare), this administration has done harm to persons of low income, negatively affected the general welfare and the domestic tranquility (two of the fundamental aims of our Constitution) of tens of thousands of our People

·       undermined cabinet departments such as EPA, HHS, Education, Homeland Security by undertaking radical means of destroying their integrity and their missions

·       blocked or dismantled Consumer protection agencies, boards and councils

·       undermining of the FBI, the CIA and the DSA

·       the latest efforts to go to war with Iran have also raised the issue of war powers; will Trump act alone without Congress to press us into war?  I believe he will

(I have dealt with most of these items in more detail in past blogs.  You can use the search mechanism available on this page to find pertinent subjects)

What concerns me right now are the devotees, the automatons, the uncritical, apparently amoral and non-questioning supporters of this authoritarian wannabe dictator.  What can we do about them before succumbing to a Fuhrer-led dictatorship like the Nazi regime of the 1930s and 40s, allowed to mount a take-over by the pacified and neglectful partisans of an authoritarian fascist ideology?

That question is loaded with all sorts of difficulties that go to the very heart of civil and individual rights. I suspect the fundamental difficulty is tied into the question:  Do those who advocate or abet the undermining (or overthrowing) of the very rights and principles that undergird our constitutional system of governing deserve the same access to the protection and use of those rights?   Or, perhaps, it can be worded another way:

Can those who advocate, abet, contribute to, or participate in the abrogation, undermining, de-construction, overthrow, coup d’etat, or destruction of our basic freedoms, rights and institutions be allowed the protection and use of those same principled concepts? 

Or, perhaps we might ask in a much less detailed manner:  can those who participate in the overt or covert destruction of our democracy also be considered as citizens eligible for its freedoms and benefits? 

      

Similar questions arose at our nation’s beginnings and have arisen in various forms throughout our national history.  Consider

v  Royalists who opposed American declaration of independence, the war of Revolution and the establishment of a separate and distinct government

v  Those anti-federalists who opposed a strong central government under a binding Constitution

v  Those who started revolutionary movements bent on establishing new governments, or

v  Those slave owners who supported human slavery and undermined the rights of all by so doing

v  Those who kept the preeminent right to vote (along with other freedoms like freedom of religion) from Native Americans, persons of color, poor whites without property, and from all women

v  Those confederate state leaders and followers who attempted to secede from the Union to prevent the abolition of slavery, and to preserve white privilege and the profits gained from slavery

v  Those like Andrew Jackson and others like Jefferson who warred against native Americans in order to steal their lands and to prevent their full citizenship

v  Those leaders and followers who put together Jim Crow laws to keep freed slaves from gaining the rights and freedoms of full citizenship

v  How about those tycoons of industry of the Gilded Age who controlled government at local, state and federal levels by the power of their riches, and made sure that immigrants, minorities, poor whites and others were provided low wages and long hours to build their industries and products so the tycoons could become even richer, while such laborers stayed “in their place?” Some may have been great philanthropists (for their own social status aggrandizement) but worked behind the scenes to control votes, speech, institutions, labor and materials.  Their robber baron-style principles and assumptions, plus their prejudices and vices, led to the corruption of many of our institutions and democratic principles even unto this present day (talking about the absolute malice and harm brought upon customers by tobacco, fossil fuel, and food processing companies to name just a few poisoners of individuals and the environment).

v  How about those who opposed the vote for women; their attitudes and tactics undermining that eminent right for all women

v  OR, go on to ask about the KKK, the union-busters, the McCarthy era search for communist infiltrators in the government, or various attempts to silence the press; segregate public schools, and the growth of hate groups in our own contemporary society.

How do we deal with the many groups and movements that are blatantly (and often violently) anti-democratic, and that seek to twist our government and our institutions in such a way that they will benefit in the end as certain rights or freedoms are altered from their original intent?  A few thoughts:

1)      Bring back the restrictions and guidelines of Dodd-Frank; it is the constitutional duty of government to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states…, to “coin money and regulate the value thereof...and fix the standards of weights and measures…”

2)      We need strong  national laws that prevent the denigration of our rights, like voting and adequate affordable health care.  So, what are we waiting for, let’s get down to business and start making sure people have what they need, for example:

a.       regulate drug prices

b.       huge fines and arrests for CEOs and corporations who harm their customers

c.       housing units for everyone so that no one is allowed to be homeless

d.       pass legislation that holds legislators, judges and executives accountable for their legislation, regulations, decisions and orders that bring harm to those affected by those acts;

e.       set stronger qualifications for every political office and vet all candidates in depth for elective and appointive offices; reject candidacy of those who advocate violence, abrogation of any rights or discrimination against vulnerable groups; it is our duty to vet deeply and completely to prevent candidates like Trump from ever being nominated by responsible parties or organizations

f.        no district lines drawn by anyone holding office (including judges) or by anyone or group that employs or supports paid lobbyists; all re-districting must be drawn by Commissions of ordinary citizens chosen by vote of other citizens

g.       make right to vote automatic and universal by certifying that right to every new-born citizen and oath-taker; disallowing any government entity to set any local restrictions on that right (including voter registration application) unless approved by a National Elections Board or some such oversight agency

h.       restore or establish consumer protection boards in every relevant agency of government and consider renaming Inspector General’s Offices to reflect consumer protection from government abuse in all its functions

i.         consider seriously boycotting states and localities that give in to the destruction of rights, freedoms and responsibilities; or, that take upon themselves the forcing of non-majority beliefs that are contrary to the existing law of the land like the ignominious passing of strict state abortion laws that seek to define life and to impose certain religious, doctrinal or ethical beliefs of one religious group upon the entire population.  This is contrary to the establishment of religion clause of the 1^st Amendment and must be boycotted and monetarily opposed by every progressive entity in this country until the forces of destruction feel backlash in their wallets and purses

j.         let’s get back to the reforms of HR-1 and follow-through in whatever ways are possible

 That’s a small beginning.  The point is that we must immediately start correcting the abuses of King Donald I’s authoritarian regime or we shall struggle over the next 30-50 years to undo what he and his minions like Barr, Mnuchin, Bannon, Carson, Cavanaugh, Manafort, Flynn, etc. have wrought.  

In the final analysis, we cannot abrogate the rights of people just because they advocate a different political ideology, as much as we may take exception to it.  But, the question remains whether an attempt to overthrow a democratic government, or its laws, on the part of its leaders or by the abetting of its citizens, can simply be ignored.  In my estimation, it cannot -- we must protect and affirm our democratic values and system of governing by acting in ways that challenge the potential destroyers, reform certain laws and processes, and exalt our rights, freedoms and the rule of law.