Saratoga Springs Police / Public Safety Comments

Statement regarding Saratoga Springs Police and Public Safety June 28th Press Conference

The League of Women Voters of Saratoga County absolutely supports individual rights including the right to protest. The right to assess government actions and indeed criticize the government is a cornerstone of democracy. Unfortunately, statements made at the Public Safety Department’s press conference on June 28th linking protests and criticism of the police to increases in criminal activity appear to be aimed to intimidate those who exercise that right.

We acknowledge the efforts of the police and city leaders to listen to citizen concerns during the publicly held discussions this past year as part of the Governor’s executive order on police reform. We encourage public officials and leaders to continue the dialogue, to build public trust and positive community relationships by supporting community participation in policy and decision-making, increasing transparency through the timely dissemination of information to the public, and unequivocally supporting the right to protest.

Like many organizations, the League has recently recommitted to working toward equity and inclusion, not only within the League itself but also in the communities it serves. We acknowledge systemic racism and look within our own organization and every level of government to eradicate it. The League recognizes that the individual liberties of Persons of Color are not being equally protected. We believe that racial and economic factors influence the treatment of citizens in the law enforcement system. Improving equity involves increasing justice and fairness for all members of our community within the procedures and processes of all systems.

—-

See article in the Times Union on July 8, 2021: “League of Women Voters joins condemnation of Saratoga officials” https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/League-of-Women-Voters-joins-condemnation-of-16301735.php

Fair Maps / Representation

Fair Maps/ Fair Redistricting/ Fair Representation

As required by the Constitution of the United States, the U.S. conducts a census every ten years to accurately count the number of people residing in the United States. This count is used as the basis for determining the number of representatives each state is entitled to in the House of Representatives.

Up until the end of the Civil War, although slaves were accurately counted, states only got representation based on 3/5 of the number of slaves. Voting in the original 13 states was originally limited to white, male, landowning residents, but each state’s representation was based on everyone living within its borders.
Then, in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that in all election jurisdictions, including in both houses of state legislatures, the principle of one person/one vote must prevail. The only exception to this principle being the United States Senate, which was established with unequal representation in the United States Constitution.

The block by block results of the 2020 census are due to be released this Fall, but the preliminary results show that New York State population hasn’t increased as much as some other states – so we will lose one representative in the House of Representatives, and somehow we have to come up with Congressional Districts of approximately equal populations. Ditto for New York State Assembly and Senate Districts, and County and City legislatures.

In 2014, New York State (with League of Women Voters of New York’s support) passed a state constitutional amendment creating an Independent Redistricting Commission to help mitigate partisan gerrymandering. Unfortunately, the Governor and the Legislature didn’t pass and release the funding for the commission in a timely way – but the Commission is now functioning and will be holding 12 hearings around the state to hear concerns from the public. Think of some of the things to consider in drawing lines: Does Saratoga County have more in common with the North Country or the Capital District? Would we be better represented if the entire County was one Senate District, instead of being parts of two Senate Districts?

Want to try your hand at drawing Fair Maps? Contact Elizabeth Rossi, our Redistricting Coordinator. Email president@lwvsaratoga.org and put Elizabeth Rossi in the subject line.

Author: Barb Thomas
June 30, 2021

Complexities of the Filibuster

Complexities of the Filibuster: The Accidental Rule That Is Interrupting the Democracy We All Deserve

Virginia Kase for the League of Women Voters
4/7/2021

Over the past several months, we’ve heard a lot about ‘the filibuster' — and yes, I can already feel some eyes glazing over at the wonky ‘inside-Washington’ language about the Senate process. But after a historic election and record-breaking voter turnout, the American people want to see Congress pass laws that improve our lives and reflect a democracy we all deserve. Yet mere mention of the term 'filibuster’ can shut down discussion, almost instantly, throughout Washington.

Why? The answer isn’t simple, but perhaps sharing my own exploration of what the filibuster is all about, analyzing its historical context, discovering the different paths and options toward achieving legislative action, and finally, explaining how the League arrived at our position on this complicated tool, can be helpful to others.

What Is a Filibuster Anyway?

A filibuster is a legislative tool used only in the Senate to delay or prevent a vote on a bill, usually through extended debate.

More than two centuries ago, the framers of the US Constitution gave every state two senators. This incentivized small states to join the union, an arrangement that has always left some citizens vastly overrepresented (contrastingly, those who reside in the District of Columbia are left totally unrepresented).

The filibuster tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for action that, by design, prolongs debate and delays or prevents a vote on a bill, resolution, or amendment.

Praised as the protector of political minorities from the absolute power of the majority, or attacked as a tool of partisan obstruction, the right of unlimited debate in the Senate, including the filibuster, has been a key component of the Senate’s unique role in the American political system. The complex nature of this process contributes to its name. Derived from Dutch and Spanish words which described pirates the raiding Caribbean islands, the term began appearing in American legislative debates in the 1850s. All this to say, this filibuster thing has been around for a while and with a less-than-pristine origin story.

Even by the Senate’s own depiction, the filibuster tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for action that, by design, prolongs debate and delays or prevents a vote on a bill, resolution, or amendment. However, before 1917, the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. In that year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as “cloture.” In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators present and voting to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

The Accidental Rule that Created the Filibuster

In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate and said something to the effect of, “You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. You have lots of rules that do the same thing.”

He singled out the previous question motion. Today, we know this as a tool which the House can use to cut off debate and go to an immediate vote. But prior to that time, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it.

At the time, there was a ‘gentlemen’s rule’ in the Senate to give every senator the opportunity to speak prior to any vote. Burr argued that limiting debate was therefore unnecessary. So when Burr said to get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn't think twice; but by not replacing the previous motion with another rule, Burr created the opportunity for a filibuster.

How the Filibuster Works

Most Senate business is conducted by unanimous consent, a process to advance procedural and noncontroversial matters in cases when both parties have already negotiated an agreement. If no senator objects to holding a vote on a question—i.e., if the Senate grants unanimous consent—then the vote can occur right away. If just one senator objects to an action, however, a drawn-out process begins that can delay or even prevent a vote on the underlying matter.

This brings us to the second way to bring a vote to the Senate floor: cloture. Cloture is a lengthy process. To invoke cloture, the majority must first present a petition, signed by at least 16 senators, which seeks to end debate on a matter. Then senators must wait. According to the Congressional Research Service, a cloture petition must wait “until the second calendar day on which the Senate is in session. For example, if the motion is filed on Monday, it lies over until Wednesday, assuming the Senate is in session daily.”
The filibuster has been used to stop anti-lynching bills, uphold racist poll taxes, and block civil rights legislation.

The Historical Use of the Filibuster: A Tool to Silence Communities of Color and Women

The filibuster has been used by both major political parties in different ways, but it “has always been used to block measures that would lead to racial equity and justice,” according to Erika May, deputy senior director of criminal justice and democracy campaigns for Color of Change, a racial justice advocacy group. Specifically, the filibuster has been used to stop anti-lynching bills, uphold racist poll taxes, and block civil rights legislation.

A recent report by Demos shows the impact that the filibuster has had on communities of color is clear and ugly:

"The filibuster is a racist remnant of a Senate designed to entrench white minority rule. It actively stifles the legislative process, and throughout history has been used to protect racial terror, like lynching, and prevent progress on civil rights legislation and other issues Black and Brown communities care about. In obstructing legislation that would advance racial and economic justice, the filibuster also undermines organizing, democratic participation, and electoral victories fueled by Black and Brown communities."

There’s little doubt that depriving certain communities of their rights will have negative impacts for decades to come.

The League’s Filibuster Reform History

The League strives to ensure that our government works as effectively and fairly as possible at every level. Though issues like Senate rules and appropriations may not sound “sexy,” League members and the public recognize these rules as essential to the functioning of American democracy.

In 2011, the League called for reform of the rules governing the US Senate. In place of a deliberative process that prioritizes open debate, accountability, and cooperation, the Senate descended into gridlock and partisan warfare at great cost to our nation. The unprecedented use of the filibuster and so-called “holds”—when a single Senator grinds Senate business to a halt by denying unanimous consent, often done in secret and out of the view of the American people—did a grave disservice to our democracy. The League called upon senators to reform the Senate rules in a way that would maintain the chamber’s best traditions and end the needless obstructionism.

In 2013, the Senate reached a modest agreement to amend the filibuster but failed to go far enough in not have long-standing reformation.

With a decade of Senate reform activism in our rear-view, the League is confident in our ability to continue to act on behalf of voters. Yes, we still proceed with caution. After all, the League’s reputation as a nonpartisan organization is unwavering, and we fully recognize that any change to Senate rules has consequences for the future of our democracy. But our country cannot move forward on vital issues to all our people until our government is freed from this gridlock. Therefore, the League of Women Voters is steadfast in our support of filibuster reform.

Why the League Supports Filibuster Reform

The League believes that the best course forward for the Senate is reforming the filibuster. It is clear that in recent years the filibuster has been abused as a partisan weapon of obstruction that stifles bipartisanship, deliberation, and public debate.

The League supports reforming the filibuster to prohibit the minority party from blocking the opening debate of a bill. We support instituting a ‘talking filibuster,’ ending silent holds, putting the onus on the minority party to produce 40 votes, and lowering the cloture vote threshold to bring bills to a final up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

The League has a decade-long history of supporting filibuster reform to ensure a functioning democracy. We cannot ignore the fact that the filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era with a long history of being used to defend slavery and preserve segregation, block civil rights, and otherwise deter progress for our democracy.

The American people elected Senators to legislate, and they do not want to see insider tactics prevent Congress from doing its job. This outdated rule, when used to obstruct, does a disservice to our democracy, and it is time to amend the filibuster to ensure our government can govern for the people.

It is time to be brave, America. Together, we must recognize and acknowledge our history and the trauma it has caused for so many, and we must own that history as we move forward. We must choose to authentically move away from the idea of scarcity and the notion that there is not enough for us all. Instead, we must lean into the abundance mindset and radically believe that we all belong, that we all deserve the right to full access to life, liberty; and the pursuit of all the happiness that our amazing country can provide. Now, let’s get to work on fixing democracy.

“Curing” My Ballot

By Ann Marie Pendergast

Like many last year, I opted to vote via absentee ballot. I ended up dropping it off at one of the early voting sites. The week of the election, I received a “Notice to Cure” in the mail informing me that the signature on the ballot envelope did not appear to match my signature on file. The notice gave me the opportunity to “cure” my ballot by filing the attached “cure affirmation” confirming that the ballot was indeed submitted by me.

I was actually excited to get this notice! This is a new voting provision in New York. In 2020 the League partnered with the Campaign Legal Center and successfully settled a lawsuit that allows voters to cure deficiencies with their absentee ballots. This includes issues with signatures, witness declarations, and sealing of the envelope. The lawsuit also removed rules in place that allowed ballots to be challenged if the voter marked outside the designated areas, used non-black or blue ink, or sealed their envelope with tape.

Notices regarding invalid ballots are sent out on a rolling basis as ballot envelopes are received and reviewed. The new provisions allow seven days to sign and return the affirmation. In previous years, these ballots would have simply been invalidated with no notice nor recourse to voters.

Out of the 24,641 absentee ballots cast in November, 192 voters in Saratoga County received a notice that their ballot was considered invalid, less than 1%. Most of these, 119, were specifically for signature verification. In the end, 17 of these got resolved. I was pleased to see the results of the League’s work firsthand, but more importantly relieved to have the opportunity to “cure” my ballot and have my vote count!

Make Women's History

Make Women's History: Add the ERA to the Constitution

As we turn the calendar to March, I find myself reflecting on the role of women in our democracy from the beginning.

Despite Abigail Adams’s famous advice to her husband to “remember the ladies,” he and the rest of the founders left any mention of women out of the founding documents. As a result, the U.S. Constitution does not mention women at all.

This is ironic, to say the least, in our current day and age, when women fill the halls of Congress and hold leadership positions, from Speaker of the House to Vice President of the United States.

It's been 101 years since the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote.
It's been 98 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress.
It's been 49 years since the ERA was passed by Congress.
And it's been one year since the ERA was ratified by the required 38 states.

But the Equal Rights Amendment still needs to be added to the Constitution.

This year, after a century in the making, the ERA is closer than ever to taking its rightful place in the supreme law of our nation. What stands in our way is an arbitrary, ambiguous and legally questionable deadline for enactment imposed on the ERA at its passage.

Learn more about the history of the ERA and why we need it on our blog.

In a nutshell, the Equal Rights Amendment states that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

It is important to recognize that, while women’s rights are inextricably linked to the ERA, inequality hurts everyone. The ERA represents a promise that our government will not pass laws or take any official action that discriminates against its people on the basis of sex.

We need the ERA because we need equal pay, fair healthcare coverage that addresses maternal mortality and coverage for caregivers, protection against gender testing laws, prevention of discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons, protections for men in occupations and roles traditionally held by women, and protection against rollbacks in women’s rights.

We need the ERA because, just as many women of color faced added barriers for voting until the Voting Rights Act, today women of color are more likely to be under-paid and discriminated against than white women. The ERA would make the Constitution prohibit discrimination on the basis of race AND sex.

But more than that, we need the ERA because our nation must close the book once and for all on the idea that equality of rights is a debatable issue. Because a constitution is not only a set of legal protections: it is a proclamation of a nation’s values. And little girls should not grow up in a country where they question their rights simply because they are a girl.

This Women’s History Month, tell Congress to remove the ERA ratification deadline, and let’s establish gender equality in our Constitution, once and for all.

Sincerely,

Dr. Deborah Ann Turner
Board President, LWVUS