DOCSLIB.ORG

Revitalizing Democracy: Clean Election

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revitalizing Democracy: Clean Election REVITALIZING DEMOCRACY Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward JANUARY 2002 MARC BRESLOW, PH.D. JANET GROAT PAUL SABA A publication of the Money & Politics Implementation Project THE MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT AND ITS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS The Money and Politics Implementation Project is a joint effort of Northeast Action, Public Campaign, and the state organizations most responsible for passing and implement- ing Clean Election reform in their states. Project partners at the state level are Maine Citizen Leadership Fund, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Mass Vot- ers for Clean Elections, and the Clean Elections Institute in Arizona. The Implemen- tation Project works to ensure that the Clean Election laws passed in these four states are fully and fairly implemented and that the lessons learned there are shared with campaign finance reformers across the nation. • Northeast Action is the regional hub and support center for a dynamic network of citizen action organizations and coalitions in the New England states and New York. It played a key role in initiating and supporting Clean Election research and policy re- form initiatives in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and other Northeastern states. North- east Action. 30 Germania Street, Boston, MA 02130. 617.541.0500. www.neaction.org. • Public Campaign is a non-partisan national organization dedicated to promoting far-reaching campaign finance reform measures, such as those enacted in Maine, Ver- mont, Massachusetts and Arizona. Public Campaign. 1320 19th Street, NW, Suite M- 1, Washington, DC 20036. 202.293.0222. www.publicampaign.org. • Maine Citizen Leadership Fund is a multi-issue, statewide organization dedicated to advancing Maine’s progressive movement for social and economic justice. For most of its history, it has focused on organizing for campaign finance reform, defending Maine’s Clean Election law, and educating candidates and the public on how the new system works. Maine Citizen Leadership Fund. One Pleasant Street, 2nd Floor, Port- land, ME 04101. 207.780.8657. www.mclf.org. • Vermont Public Interest Research Group is the state’s leading advocacy organiza- tion, working to promote and protect the health of Vermont’s environment, people, and locally based economy. It has been a leader in the passage and legal defense of Vermont’s Clean Election law. Vermont Public Interest Research Group. 141 Main Street, Suite 6, Montpelier, VT 05602. 802.223.5221. www.vpirg.org. • Mass Voters for Clean Elections is a nonpartisan citizen effort to reduce the influ- ence of private money in the electoral process and level the playing field for all Massa- chusetts voters and candidates. It was the lead organization in the passage of Massa- chusetts’ Clean Election law. Mass Voters for Clean Elections. 37 Temple Street, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02111. 617.451.5999. www.massvoters.org. • The Clean Elections Institute works to implement Arizona’s Clean Election law, encourages participation in the electoral process and seeks to build confidence in demo- cratic institutions. Clean Elections Institute. 2001 North Third Street, Suite 210, Phoe- nix, AZ 85004. 620.840.6633. www.azclean.org. Copyright © 2002. Northeast Action. All Rights Reserved. CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 2 Clean Election Reform Shows the Way Forward ince 1996 four states — Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Arizona — have challenged the role of private money in our electoral process by passing comprehensive campaign finance reform laws. Under the new Clean Election Ssystems, candidates forego large private contributions and agree to strict spending limits with fixed and equal fi- nancing from a publicly financed election fund. In 2000, elections were held for the first time in Maine, Arizona and Vermont under these new systems. The results herald the beginnings of a profound revitalization of democracy. This report provides a detailed analysis of the 2000 election results from Maine and Arizona (Vermont’s new system only covered races for governor and lieutenant governor in 2000). It measures the success of Clean Election reform in relation to four key criteria that advocates have determined are essential to effective campaign finance reform: 1. Increasing electoral competition and enhancing voter choice ✓ In both Maine and Arizona, Clean Election reform in 2000 contributed to an increase in contested races and a notable rise in the number of candidates running for office as compared to 1998. ✓ A substantial percentage of candidates chose to run for office under the new public financing systems. Many women and people of color cited the availability of public funds as the decisive factor in their decisions to run for public office in 2000. 2. Allowing candidates to pay more attention to voters and less to potential donors ✓ Candidates who participated in the new systems consistently reported that public funding allowed them to concentrate on connecting with voters rather than on soliciting campaign contributions. Can- didates and voters alike were enthusiastic about this shift in focus. 3. Helping candidates with less access to wealthy private contributors to be more competitive ✓ Clean Election reform resulted in greater financial parity among candidates, thereby enhancing elec- toral competition. On average, participating candidates in both states matched non-participants in campaign spending. Challengers came far closer to matching incumbents than in the 1998 elections, and spending by losing candidates was much closer to that by winners. ✓ Notwithstanding this achievement, fundraising parity did not overcome the numerous advantages of incumbency. In both states, incumbents continued to dominate the general elections. 4. Reducing the influence of special interests on elected officials ✓ Almost half of Maine’s current state Senate and 30% of the House ran with public funding. In Ari- zona, the proportions were 20% for the House and 7% for the Senate, while both members of the three-person Arizona Corporation Commission who were elected in 2000 participated in the Clean Election system. ✓ The victories of so many Clean Election candidates has already begun contributing to a new kind of state politics that reflects the diminished power of special interests to influence legislative decision- making. The achievements of Clean Election reform seem even more impressive in light of their modest cost to taxpayers. It cost less than $1 per Maine or Arizona resident to run the systems, including both the funding of candidates and associated administrative costs. Measured against all these criteria, after only one election cycle Clean Election reform has clearly demonstrated that it can play a critical role in revitalizing American democracy. MONEY AND POLITICS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 617-541-0500 3 Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the expert assistance of a host of campaign finance reform leaders and activists from across the nation. We want to es- pecially thank the following people: Andrea West of the National Institute on Money and State Politics (NIMSP), Cecilia Martinez and Monica Perez of the Arizona Clean Elections Institute (ACEI), Alison Smith of the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund (MCLF), and Peter Sterling of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. We also want to acknowledge our debt to those organizations whose tireless efforts on behalf of Clean Election reform are responsible for the tremendous achievements detailed in this report. These include MCLF, the Dirigo Alliance, ACEI, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and Vermont Citizen’s Coalition for Clean Elections, Mass Voters for Clean Elections, Public Campaign, DemocracyWorks, the Brennan Center, and NIMSP. This report also made extensive use of previous studies and re- ports issued by a number of these organizations (see the references in Section IX for more details). Finally, we are also very grateful to the following foundations whose financial support has been critical to the success of campaign finance reform efforts. Carnegie Corpo- ration of America, the Open Society Institute, The Ford Foundation, The Joyce Foun- dation, the Stern Family Fund, the Threshold Foundation, The Arca Foundation, Alida Messenger, the Albert A. List Foundation, the French American Charitable Trusts, The Educational Foundation of America, the Solidago Foundation, the Or- chard Foundation, and the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program. Methodology The statistics in this report come primarily from databases compiled by NIMSP, ACEI, and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections (MCCE), a project of MCLF. The NIMSP com- bined its data on primary and general election races into one database that provides unified information on the election for each available office. Tables in this report that present unified data are from the NIMSP. The two state-based organizations, MCLF and ACEI, provided data separately on primaries and general elections, and tables in this report that appear in this fashion utilize their data. In some cases, the informa- tion from the NIMSP does not precisely match that from MCLF and ACEI, and this accounts for any inconsistencies that emerge between tables. In most cases, the differ- ences are due to candidates having dropped out at some point during the election cycle, and their being included in one database but not another. CLEAN ELECTION REFORM SHOWS THE WAY FORWARD 4 CONTENTS Executive Summary 7 I. Introduction: The Problem of Money in Politics 11 II. How Clean Election Reform
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Constitution Article I ARTICLE II
    Preamble We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. ARTICLE I. STATE BOUNDARIES 1. Designation of boundaries The boundaries of the State of Arizona shall be as follows, namely: Beginning at a point on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, as fixed by the Gadsden Treaty between the United States and Mexico, being in latitude thirty-two degrees, twenty-nine minutes, forty-four and forty-five one- hundredths seconds north and longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, forty-eight minutes, forty-four and fifty-three one -hundredths seconds west of Greenwich; thence along and with the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico in a southeastern direction to Monument Number 127 on said boundary line in latitude thirty- one degrees, twenty minutes north; thence east along and with said parallel of latitude, continuing on said boundary line to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred nine degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one-hundredths seconds west, being identical with the southwestern corner of New Mexico; thence north along and with said meridian of longitude and the west boundary of New Mexico to an intersection with the parallel of latitude thirty-seven degrees north, being the common corner of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico; thence west along and with said parallel of latitude and the south boundary of Utah to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one- hundredths seconds west, being on the east boundary line of the State of Nevada; thence south along and with said meridian of longitude and the east boundary of said State of Nevada, to the center of the Colorado River; thence down the mid-channel of said Colorado River in a southern direction along and with the east boundaries of Nevada, California, and the Mexican Territory of Lower California, successively, to the place of beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]
  • 110Th Congress New Member Pictorial Directory
    P!"#$!"% &' ()" C*++,(("" *- H*./" A%+,-,/(!$(,*- New Member Pictorial Directory Prepared under the direction of THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION V"! -*- E)0"!/, C)$,! +$- | J.$-,($ M,00"-%"!-M1D*-$0%, R $-2,-3 M"+&"! N E W M E M B E R P I C T O R I A L D I R E C T O R Y A R I Z O N A A R I Z O N A Democrat — 5 Democrat — 8 Harry E. Gabrielle MITCHELL GIFFORDS RESIDENCE: Tempe, Arizona RESIDENCE: Tucson, Arizona EDUCATION: Arizona State U., B.A. 1962 EDUCATION: Scripps College, B.A. Sociology (political science); M.P.A. 1980 and Latin American History; Cornell University, Master of PROFESSION: High school teacher; college Regional Planning; Fulbright instructor Scholar POLITICAL CAREER: Tempe City Council, 1970-78; PROFESSION: Small Business Owner mayor of Tempe, 1978-1994; sought Democratic nomination POLITICAL CAREER: Arizona House of Representatives for superintendent of public 2000-2002; Arizona Senate instruction, 1994; Ariz. Senate, 2003-2005 1999-2006 (assistant minority leader, 2005-2006); Ariz. Democratic Party chairman, 2005-2006 Page 1 C A L I F O R N I A C A L I F O R N I A Democrat — 11 Republican — 22 Jerry M. Kevin O. MCNERNEY MCCARTHY RESIDENCE: Pleasanton, California RESIDENCE: Bakersfield, California EDUCATION: Ph.D. in Mathematics from the EDUCATION: Undergraduate and Masters in University of New Mexico Business Administration from California State University, PROFESSION: Wind Energy Businessman Bakersfield POLITICAL CAREER: Democratic Nominee for U.S. PROFESSION: Business Owner; District Director, House 2004 Congressman Bill Thomas POLITICAL CAREER: Calfornia State Assemblyman; Assembly Republican Leader Page 2 N E W M E M B E R P I C T O R I A L D I R E C T O R Y C O L O R A D O C O L O R A D O Republican — 5 Democrat — 7 Doug Edwin G.
    [Show full text]
  • State Education Policies
    State Education Policy Tracking We compile information on education policies from We have been researching education legislation for more than 25 years. Summaries early childhood through of enacted and vetoed legislation — from early postsecondary education learning through postsecondary education and from the early 1990s through 2016 — are and workforce, so state accessible on our website. policymakers can make Our one-of-a-kind State STATE EDUCATION POLICY TRACKING informed decisions. Education Policy Tracking 15,580 resource, launched in 2017, allows users to search 1,680 enacted and vetoed legislation across more than 45 education issues and 275 sub-issues. Search results BILLS PAGE SUMMARIZED VIEWS can be filtered by state and/ or issue and sub-issue, or by keywords found in the bill titles. In 2018, our staff summarized 1,680 bills for this resource. The State Education Policy Tracking resource received more than 15,580 pageviews in 2018. In 2018 we began closely STATE EDUCATION POLICY WATCH LIST monitoring policy action 3,930 in a few issue areas and updating a new resource, 850 the State Education Policy Watch List, with pending, enacted and vetoed bills. We BILLS PAGE tracked about 850 bills from TRACKED VIEWS introduction related to need- and merit-based financial aid, postsecondary governance, career and technical education, dual enrollment, and teacher certification and licensure. The State Education Policy Watch List resource received more than 3,930 pageviews in 2018. 2 www.ecs.org | @EdCommission 50-State Comparisons State Information Requests Our issue-specific50-State Comparisons allow One of the most unique and valued ways we policymakers to compare their states' laws assist state education leaders is by responding against other states on topics such as teacher to State Information Requests with personalized license reciprocity, open enrollment, statewide research, typically within 24 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Voting
    Short Report: Electronic Voting 15 SR 001 Date: April 13, 2015 by: Matthew Sackett, Research Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: Introduction Part II: General Overview of Electronic Voting Systems Part III: Summary of National Conference of State Legislatures Research on Electronic Voting (Survey) Part IV: Wyoming Legislature’s process and procedures relating to vote taking and recording Part V: Conclusion Attachments: Attachment A: NCSL Survey Results WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE • 213 State Capitol • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 TELEPHONE (307) 777-7881 • FAX (307) 777-5466 • EMAIL • [email protected] • WEBSITE http://legisweb.state.wy.us Page 2 PART I: INTRODUCTION As part of the Capitol renovation process, the Select Committee on Legislative Technology asked LSO staff to prepare an update to a report that was done for them previously (2008) about electronic voting systems. The previous report included as its main focus a survey conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) to other states that asked a variety of questions on electronic voting both in terms of equipment and legislative procedures. For purposes of this update, LSO again reached out to Ms. Brenda Erickson, a staff specialist knowledgeable in the areas of electronic voting and voting process and procedure from NCSL, to again conduct a survey related to process and procedure of other states related to electronic voting. Before engaging in a discussion of electronic voting systems, it is important to recognize that electronic voting systems are tools for facilitating legislative business. These systems are subject to legislative rules, processes and procedures. It is the implementation, and subsequent enforcement, of legislative rules and procedures related to voting process, not just the systems technology, which create accountability in the process.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Arizona Fifty-First Legislature FY 2013-14
    SSTTAATTEE OOFF AARRIIZZOONNAA HHOOUUSSEE OOFF RREEPPRREESSEENNTTAATTIIVVEESS SSUMMARY OF LLEGISLATION 22001133 FFiiffttyy--FFiirrsstt LLeeggiissllaattuurree First Regular Session First Special Session Prepared by House Research Staff PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF TTHE HHONORABLE AANDREW MM.. TTOBIN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SSUMMARY OF LLEGISLATION 22001133 FFiiffttyy--FFiirrsstt LLeeggiissllaattuurree First Regular Session First Special Session HHOOUUSSEE RREESSEEAARRCCHH SSTTAAFFFF Mike Huckins – Director of House Research Staff Diana Clay – Deputy Director of House Research; Intern Coordinator Michelle Hindman – Deputy Director of House Research; Intern Coordinator Allison Short – Executive Assistant to House Research Staff LEGI SLATI VE R ESEARCH A NALYS TS Diana Clay ۰ Ingrid Garvey ۰ Michelle Hindman Mike Huckins ۰ Stephanie Jaffa ۰ Jeanine Jones Magdalena Jorquez ۰ Gina Kash ۰ Courtney McKinstry Justin Riches ۰ Brooke White A SSI STANT LEGI SLATI VE R ESEARCH A NALYSTS Paul Benny ۰ Ginna Carico ۰ Stephanie Johnson Ryan Sullivan ۰ Aaron Wonders LEGI S LATI VE R ESEARCH INTERNS Casey Baird ۰ Miranda Cain ۰ Paige Carr Morgan Cicinelli ۰ Blanca Delgado ۰ Dillon Diffie Nicole Ealy ۰ Maritza Heras ۰ Chloe Love Jean Martinez-Vera ۰ Alexander Maynard ۰ Jacob Meshke Alesandro Norton ۰ Tom Savage GGEENNEERRAALL EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEE DDAATTEESS FFiiffttyy--FFiirrsstt LLeeggiissllaattuurree FIRST REGULAR SESSION Session Convened: January 14, 2013 Adjourned Sine Die: June 14, 2013 General Effective Date: September 13, 2013 FIRST SPECIAL SESSION Session Convened: June 11, 2013 Adjourned Sine Die: June 13, 2013 General Effective Date: September 12, 2013 BILL INTRODUCTIONS Fifty-First Legislature First Regular Session 2013 House Senate Total Bills Introduced ............................................................ 665 493 1,158 Memorials and Resolutions Introduced ....................
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE House Had Disagreed to the Amendments Senator from Delaware [Mr
    <iongrcssional Record United States PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 82dCONGRESS, FIRST SESSION of America The message also announced that the [Mr. EASTLAND and Mr. STENNIS]' the SENATE House had disagreed to the amendments Senator from Delaware [Mr. FREAR], the of the Senate to the bill <H. R. 1612) to Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MONDAY, MAY 28, 1951 extend the authority of the President HoEYJ, and the Senator from Rhode (Legislative day of Thursday, May 17. to enter into trade agreements under Island [Mr. PASTORE] are absent on 1951) - section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as official business. amended, and for other purposes; agreed The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, to the conference asked by the Senate on KERR] is absent because of a death in on the expiration of the recess. the disagreeing votes of the two Houses his family, Rev. F. Norman Van Brunt, associate thereon, and that Mr. DOUGHTON, Mr. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. minister, Foundry Methodist Church, COOPER, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. MILLS, Mr. KILGORE] is absent on public business. Washington, D. C., offered the following REED of New York, Mr. JENKINS, and Mr. The Senator from Montana [Mr. MuR­ prayer: · SIMPSON of Pennsylvania were appointed RAYJ is absent by leave of the Senate managers on the part of the House at on official business, having been ap­ Eternal and Almighty God, from the the conference. · strident, impelling forces of strain and pointed a represenative of our Govern- · stress which bear down upon us in the ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED ment to attend the International Labor heat of day we come into the quiet sol­ The message further announced that Conference, to be held in Geneva, emnity of this moment of prayer.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the Shadow of Trump: How the 2016 Presidential Contest Affected
    In the Shadow of Trump: How the 2016 Presidential Contest Affected House and Senate Primaries Prepared for the 2017 State of the Parties Conference, Akron, Ohio Robert G. Boatright, Clark University [email protected] The presidential race did not quite monopolize all of the uncivil or bizarre moments of the summer of 2016. One of the more interesting exchanges took place in Arizona in August of 2016, during the weeks before the state’s Senate primary election. Senator John McCain, always a somewhat unpredictable politician, has had difficulties in his last two primaries. Perhaps because he was perceived as having strayed too far toward the political center, or perhaps simply because his presidential bid had created some distance between McCain and Arizonans, he faced a vigorous challenge in 2010 from conservative talk show host and former Congressman J. D. Hayworth. McCain ultimately beat back Hayworth’s challenge, 56 percent to 32 percent, but only after a bitter campaign in which McCain spent a total of over $21 million and abandoned much of his “maverick” positioning and presented himself as a staunch conservative and a fierce opponent of illegal immigration (Steinhauer 2010). His task was made easier by his ability to attack Hayworth’s own checkered career in Congress. In 2016, McCain again faced a competitive primary opponent, physician, Tea Party activist, and two-term State Senator Kelli Ward. Ward, like Hayworth, argued that McCain was not conservative enough for Arizona. Ward was (and is), however, a decade younger than Hayworth, and her shorter tenure in political office made it harder for McCain to attack her.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. 13–1314. Argued March 2, 2015—Decided June 29, 2015 Under Arizona’s Constitution, the electorate shares lawmaking author- ity on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may adopt laws and constitutional amendments by ballot initiative, and they may approve or disapprove, by referendum, measures passed by the Legislature. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, §1. “Any law which may be enacted by the Legislature . may be enacted by the people under the Initiative.” Art. XXII, §14. In 2000, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 106, an initiative aimed at the problem of gerrymandering. Proposition 106 amended Arizona’s Constitution, removing redistricting authority from the Ar- izona Legislature and vesting it in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts. The Ari- zona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in 2012 for congressional districts, arguing that the AIRC and its map violated the “Elections Clause” of the U.
    [Show full text]
  • Leadership Staffing Support
    SO=Session Only FT=Full Time PERSONAL STAFF - a study of western states PT=Part Time STATE PERSONAL STAFF OFFICER MAJORITY MINORITY Comments TERM SESSION LIMITS Alaska House 1-2 FT per member 4-FT 4-FT 3-FT None Annual 40 Members Alaska Senate 2-3 FT per member 4-FT 4-FT 3-FT None Annual 20 Members Arizona House 1-FT per 2 members 2-FT 1-FT 1-FT Yes Annual 60 Members Arizona Senate 1-FT per 2 members 2-FT 1-FT 1-FT Yes Annual 30 Members Arkansas House Constituent Services No Additional No Additional No Additional Chief Clerk hires staff Yes Annual 100 Members 4-6 FT Arkansas Senate Constituent Services No Additional No Additional No Additional Chief Clerk hires staff 35 Members 4 FT Colorado House 2-SO per member 1-FT 4-FT 4-FT Hours may be used in the Yes Annual 65 Members not to exceed 690 hrs 4-SO 3-SO interim per fiscal year Colorado Senate 1-SO per member 8-FT Shares Presiding 5-FT 50 hrs in interim Yes Annual 35 Members not to exceed 420 hrs 2-SO Officer Staff 2-SO $10.50 per hour per fiscal year Hawaii House 1-FT per member 4-FT 2-FT 2-FT Similar to Hawaii Senate None Annual 51 Members 2-FT Pro Tem (see below) Hawaii Senate 2-FT per member 5-FT V.P. 3-FT No Additional Monthly allocation for None Annual 25 Members (1 serves as 1-SO additional SO staff ($5,000 committee clerk) with an extra $1-2,000 if chairman or leader) Idaho House 1-SO per chairman 1-SO 1-SO 3-SO Leadership hires staff None Annual 70 Members 1-PT in Interim STATE PERSONAL STAFF OFFICER MAJORITY MINORITY Comments TERM SESSION Idaho Senate 1-SO per chairman & 3-FT
    [Show full text]
  • April 29, 2021 Chris Herren Chief, Voting Section Civil Rights Division
    April 29, 2021 Chris Herren Chief, Voting Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 1800 G St., N.W. Room 7254 – NWB Washington, DC 20006 VIA FAX 202-307-3961 Re: Request for election monitoring Dear Mr. Herren, We write to request that you deploy federal monitors to the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum, where agents of the Arizona Senate are reviewing ballots as part of a so-called audit of votes cast for federal office in the 2020 general election in Maricopa County. This work is being conducted by Cyber Ninjas, a firm retained by the state senate, along with its subcontractors, as part of a review of election results, or “audit,” commissioned by the state senate. It includes the handling and review of approximately 2.1 million ballots and other election materials, which a court compelled Maricopa County election officials to transfer into the senate’s custody after the senate issued a subpoena for them. We are very concerned that the auditors are engaged in ongoing and imminent violations of federal voting and election laws. Specifically, we believe that the senate and its agents, including Cyber Ninjas, are 1) violating their duty under federal law to retain and preserve ballots cast in a federal election, which are and have been in danger of being stolen, defaced, or irretrievably damaged, and 2) preparing to engage in conduct which will constitute unlawful voter intimidation in violation of the Voting Rights Act and other federal laws. The Department of Justice has authority to monitor this process pursuant to Section 10302 of Title 52 of the United States Code.1 Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the Department has “regularly monitored elections in the field”2 and “around the country throughout every year to protect the rights of all voters.”3 Department monitoring is critical to the protection of civil rights and the enforcement of voting rights and election laws.
    [Show full text]
  • The New York State Legislative Process: an Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform
    THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM JEREMY M. CREELAN & LAURA M. MOULTON BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM JEREMY M. CREELAN & LAURA M. MOULTON BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW www.brennancenter.org Six years of experience have taught me that in every case the reason for the failures of good legislation in the public interest and the passage of ineffective and abortive legislation can be traced directly to the rules. New York State Senator George F. Thompson Thompson Asks Aid for Senate Reform New York Times, Dec. 23, 1918 Some day a legislative leadership with a sense of humor will push through both houses resolutions calling for the abolition of their own legislative bodies and the speedy execution of the members. If read in the usual mumbling tone by the clerk and voted on in the usual uninquiring manner, the resolution will be adopted unanimously. Warren Moscow Politics in the Empire State (Alfred A. Knopf 1948) The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law unites thinkers and advocates in pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy. Our mission is to develop and implement an innovative, nonpartisan agenda of scholarship, public education, and legal action that promotes equality and human dignity, while safeguarding fundamental freedoms. The Center operates in the areas of Democracy, Poverty, and Criminal Justice. Copyright 2004 by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents the extensive work and dedication of many people.
    [Show full text]