- Galvin did some good things earlier in his time in office (like getting rid of punch card ballots), but lately he seems to have lost his way. The fact that there are four different voting rights investigations ongoing in Massachusetts – by the Bush Justice Department, no less – doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
- Galvin’s failure to comply with the Help America Vote Act‘s requirement that the state provide adequate voting facilities for the disabled among us by next week’s primary election appears emblematic of the long-term incumbent’s flagging ability to do his job properly. That law has been on the books since 2002. Four years was plenty of time to get it done.
- For heaven’s sakes, one can’t even download a voter registration form from the state government in Massachusetts, where the building blocks of the web were invented.
- Galvin’s now-legendary refusal to debate his primary opponent reflects a near-terminal case of incumbentitis. The details of this ongoing issue have been discussed in the posts linked above, but the bottom line seems clear: Galvin is hoping to ride his superior (if modest) name recognition back into office by starving his opponent of oxygen in what he hopes and predicts will be a low-turnout primary. A tragic way for the state’s chief elections officer to behave.
Are we just against Galvin, rather than being for Bonifaz? No. Bonifaz is a nationally-recognized, MacArthur “genius award” winning leader in voting rights, and without fair elections, nothing else will work very well. He wants to use the office of Secretary of State as a bully pulpit for elections reform and has some good thoughts on how to do that; and he wants Massachusetts to be a national leader in this area, which strikes us as a fine idea. In addition, he favors moving state government toward open documents format, rather than allowing Microsoft to wrap its tentacles ever more tightly around our collective windpipes.
A good deal of attention, and some criticism, has been directed at Bonifaz’s “corporate citizenship initiatives.” Some argued that they will simply enrich lawyers and accountants, and will make Massachusetts a less attractive place to do business. We asked Boston College Law Professor Kent Greenfield, who has been advising the Bonifaz campaign on this subject, to write a little more about the merits of these proposals. Here’s an excerpt (you can read all of what Prof. Greenfield sent us at this link):
At their base, these ideas are founded on a couple of important assumptions. First, that high road business practices caring about more than short-term profits are better for Massachusetts and for most corporations themselves in the long run. Second, that government has a role to play in encouraging such high road practices….
- Enforce Massachusetts Right to Govern Massachusetts Corporations. This is simply an assertion on the part of Massachusetts to have a say in the corporate governance of companies based here and with most of their employees and shareholders here…. This matters most in situations where a Massachusetts company is the target of a takeover attempt. Now, there is not much Massachusetts law or lawmakers can do about it (remember Gillette?). But the harmful effects of the takeover will fall on Massachusetts shareholders, employees, and communities. Massachusetts ought to be able to protect itself better….
- Establish Responsible Business Corporations. This seems like a no-brainer. We should encourage high-road companies. No one is hurt by this, and companies that want to do the right thing can do so at lower cost….
- Establish a Small Business Task Force. Another no-brainer….
- Require Public Interest Decision-Making. Probably the most controversial of the initiatives, but it makes sense. Corporations benefit the public now by making money and providing goods and services. But sometimes, the public interest conflicts with the short-term interests of companies (remember how Enron manipulated the energy markets to make billions of dollars?). Most executives are mindful of their obligations to the public, but corporate law (especially Delaware corporate law) shoves the public interest aside when the going gets tough. Massachusetts ought to protect the high-road companies that want to do the right thing by leveling the playing field for everyone.
- Advance Employee Protection. Again, here is a place where good companies are at a disadvantage now. Under current law, a company that lies to its employees can do so with near impunity. The company that tells the truth to its employees whether about good news or bad is at a disadvantage, since a dishonest company will sound exactly the same. In any event, if companies have to tell the truth to shareholders, they should have to tell the truth to employees…. It’s better for the market, but it’s also just the right thing to do.
- Ensure Corporate Tax Accountability. This is just another tell the truth requirement, which only hurts companies that dont….
- Create an Election Day Holiday. Another no-brainer….
So. Do we all agree with Bonifaz on everything? No. We continue to harbor reservations about some of his corporate law proposals — though we take some comfort in the fact that the more far-reaching of them seem unlikely to be adopted by the legislature. 🙂 And Bonifaz strongly backs public campaign financing – Charley’s with him on that one, and Bob too, but David remains skeptical. David also thinks Bonifaz could stand to tone down the rhetoric now and again.
Nonetheless, after Bob and David (Charley couldn’t make it) talked with Bonifaz for over an hour last week, we came away convinced. Bonifaz has a lot of good ideas, particularly about election reform, and he wants to use the Secretary of State’s office to advance them, rather than as a jumping-off point for a campaign for higher office. Galvin is perpetually “considering” a campaign for Governor, and we’d hate to see the Secretary
of State treading water for four more years wondering whether 2010 will be “the year” for a Galvin for Gov campaign. As described above, Galvin seems to have lost interest in the day-to-day work of the office. It’s time for new energy and new ideas to reinvigorate that office, and the Editors of BMG are pleased to announce their unanimous support for John Bonifaz’s candidacy.
[quote]Create an Election Day Holiday. Another no-brainer….[/quote]
<
p>
Why is an Election Day Holiday a no-brainer? * If you’re going to claim higher turnout, explain why. * If Bonifaz is successful in expanding voting opportunities (same day registration, absentees for all who want ’em [ie not “need based]), is this still necessary? * What about odd years (ie 2005, 2007)? * What about primaries? * What about town elections? * What about special elections?
<
p>
But mostly, explain why a holiday on election Tuesday will result in a higher turnout.
I also don’t see the point of an election-day holiday for an act that takes — or should take — 15 minutes. (If we’re going to improve something, let’s get those 8-hour voting lines in Ohio down by providing voting facilities to meet demand.)
<
p>
Everything is a balance, and as stomv points out, there are a lot of elections in a given work year. Our economy, whose strength makes possible so many good things in our lives, loses productivity when people don’t go to work. There are so many good ways to increase voter participation, that doesn’t mean that every single way to do accomplish that end is a good idea.
choosing candidates is also a balance, and with every week, the overall balance for me swings more in favor of Bonifaz. I hope he wins.
I don’t understand this ground for opposition. You’re not pointing out any disadvantage to election day registration, merely asserting that the advantage is small.
<
p>
In fact, a study found that about 9% of people who went to the polls in Massachusetts in the 2004 presidential election, thinking they were registered, found that they were not on the list. And that tens of thousands of provisional ballots were not counted.
<
p>
In fact, we have direct evidence that voter participation is significantly higher in the states that have election day registration, than in those that don’t. And this means candidates pay attention to, and try to serve, more of the people.
<
p>
Later this week, I’ll also be posting a story at johnbonifaz.com about how the maintenance of the voter rolls can be used to deliberately disenfranchise large numbers of legitimate voters in order to swing an election. This story is about Connecticut, but I’m sure you remember Florida.
<
p>
Given that election day registration works, and is effective… do you have any case for why requiring people to register 20 days in advance is a good thing? In what way does it improve democracy or add anything valuable to the process? What positive reason is there for this barrier?
I somehow misread you as talking about election day registration. Everything I said, I still stand by, but it’s not a reply to what you said. Sorry!
<
p>
Election day holiday OR weekend voting OR some hybrid of the two…
<
p>
Yes, it should take only 15 minutes, but in many cases it takes a lot longer, and it can take a while to get to the polls. Particularly for poorer people who often have multiple jobs, with inflexible schedules, can’t afford to live near work, don’t have a car… the net effect is that holding elections on workdays swings the balance of voter turnout towards the more affluent, who tend to have an easier time accomodating.
HE also mentioned possibility of weekend voting at the forum yesterday. Wouldn’t voting on a Saturday, make a lot more sense than Tuesdays. That would increase access and not cost employers a day of work.
The odds of someone working on Saturday vary widely on education and employment sector. Young people, people with sub college-grad education, and people in industries like retail tend to work on Saturdays far more often than middle aged or older people, college educated, and people with white collar jobs.
<
p>
So, moving election day to Saturday is likely to adjust the ratio of lower income voters downward. Just something to consider.
<
p>
It seems to me that if you (a) allow for same day registration, which is not going to lead to massive corruption like EBIII suggests because an individual conspirator could realistically only increase a vote total by about 10 in a day, and it would take a massive conspiracy to have a significant impact, and (b) allow people to vote absentee for any reason and let them know that this is a choice, then you don’t need to change the day of the election or make it a holiday.
<
p>
That sounds like a decent compromise to me. However, I don’t see why giving someone an Election Holiday would be all that horrible. After all, it seems far more important than Columbus Day! Furthermore, there are lots of people in this country that only get a handful of days off. For example, my sister only gets about 12 paid days of vacation despite the fact that she’s worked at her job for approximately five years. With so many places of employment so stingy, I can hardly rail against an Election Holiday.
<
p>
Alternately, perhaps the election holiday law could apply to employees who have less than 3 weeks off a year? That way, it could be assumed that others could take the day off if they wanted, especially since there would be so many others getting the day off (making it a quasi holiday anyway). It’s just an idea.
I know you said it’s “only an idea”, but I’m very uncomfortable with taking this idea of an election day holiday — which I don’t like in the first place — and putting quid pro quo’s on it — “you only get the holiday if you are one of the oppressed working class” – etc.
<
p>
Ultimately, modernize our existing voting system with better technology and procedures is much more important, and has no attendant drawbacks, compared to giving people a holiday that would detract from the economy, aggravate employers trying to keep track of who really had an election on what day, and be abused by many.
What’s more important? Maybe doing something that helps everyone have the ability to take part in the system – including those who get almost no days off from work – or keeping up the slave-like labor at low wages that clearly isn’t helping the economy?
<
p>
Giving hard working people a day off when they have almost none now isn’t going to dramatically hurt the economy. In fact, there are probably those out there who would say it would actually improve due to increased productivity.
<
p>
In the end, it doesn’t matter. Workers deserve common decency, which includes a number of paid days off. In a lot of countries, it’s mandated that people have X number of weeks off… and I don’t see their economies dying because of it. It’s called common decency and I take offense to those who don’t think every worker deserves that bare-bones treatment of respect.
It’s not about how many holidays someone wants or deserves. You’re confusing the two issues. If you think people need more holidays, lobby for more state-mandated holidays, be my guest. But don’t tie it in with election reform, otherwise we get poor election reform.
OK Here Goes.
<
p>
First let’s look at then Voter Bill of Rights trumpeted by Bonifez.
1. Count Every Ballot. Have paper trail and legitimate audits.
Agreed BIG TIME. So does Galvin.
<
p>
2. Same Day registration –
Wrong Wrong. James Michael Curley is crying in his grave wishing he had that to work with.
<
p>
3. Public Financing of Elections.
Agreed but, show me some real numbers. It sounds like wishful thinking because the $$$$ needed to make it work are too big. I’ll listen to a plan for legitimate funding, but Bonifez ain’t giving me one.
<
p>
4. Intstant run-off, cross endorsement voting, and proportional representation. I don’t see any explanations of these proposals and how they would apply to specific state offices. Smells fishy to me.
<
p>
5. Foreign language ballots.
Sorry to be the one to you guys, but no matter how hard you try to organize the Spanish vote so you (the far left) can take over the world, they ain’t voten’. Even if you rig it with same day registration.
Just because Bonifez and a small number of civil actions from the feds says there is problem in four neighborhoods with foreign language CITIZENS having ballots in their native language does necessarily mean it is true or more importantly it is systemic. Most CITIZENS can read a ballot and the current safe guards in place are for working and problems being addressed.
<
p>
6. Redistrict in Reform:
Sorry Johnny. I want my rep and senator to explain and argue and use his influence to make my district. They know more about our needs and how best to divided so my district gets heard on Beacon Hill.
I do not want some small commission dominated by pipe
smokin’, leather patched jacket wearin, professor from Smith or Faber College deciding how my senate district should be divided. Because the truth of it is he is going to divide the districts so card carrying Kool Aid drinkers will get elected.
<
p>
Question: Why do we take the power away from the voters?
Answr: So the super minority can force their will upon us.
<
p>
7. Ensure Non-partisan administration.
What ever that means. Is there a problem? I haven’t heard of one.
<
p>
8. Make government transparent.
Again no details. Just fluff. “Hope is a wonderful thing.”4a7d3d609129a9296bf7ac0608c2097
<
p>
9. Amend Constitution ensuring the right to vote.
Huh? Again, is there a problem? All that unnecessary work. hmmmmm.
<
p>
Now, BMG’s reasons for endorsing.
<
p>
1. Remember Gillette.
Yeah, what the hell could Bonifez do without government take-over? Not sure I like that.
<
p>
2.”Establish Responsible Business Corporations. This seems like a no-brainer.”
Great argument. I have one question. What the Christ are you talkin’ about?
<
p>
3.”Establish a Small Business Task Force. Another no-brainer….”
See #2.
<
p>
4.”Require Public Interest Decision-Making.”
This mumbo jumbo is definitely decided by people many pay grades higher that the Massachusetts Secretary of State.
(Note: I promise never to use that over-used “pay grade” referenced again.)
<
p>
5. No lying to employees.
OK, I admit it, I am intrigued with that one.
<
p>
6.”Ensure Corporate Tax Accountability”
Again, where is the big problem here.
<
p>
7.”Create an Election Day Holiday. Another no-brainer….”
Another convincing argument, BMG. Hey kids, really. You have to get out more often. I think more people will be hung-over, drinking, away, sleeping. Shopping, but most importantly NOT VOTING.
<
p>
But you know, Same Day Registration trumps everything. Sorry, I cant vote for this guy.
<
p>
Besides, I dont think Galvins done a bad job.
This reply isn’t to Ernie specifically but to the legions of people here on BMG who raise the specter of corruption in conjunction with election day registration. Forgive me for my not-so-subtle anger toward MA for just a moment:
<
p>
I think I have a unique perspective on New England and Massachusetts because I didn’t grow up here, I grew up in Wisconsin. This is helpful because when you spend your life in one area you tend not to question many parts of the status quo (this works both ways, since moving out here I can see the silly things I didn’t really notice about WI). One thing I don’t think most Massachusetts residents can see is the absolute depth of corruption in this state. Just yesterday I was learning of the MDC Police, a now defunct force whose job was solely policing parks. Are you kidding? An entire force of park cops? This doesn’t seem wacky until you realized that there are also park rangers, city cops, and state troopers all protecting the same stuff! It is then that you realize that this force was created to for some politician to dole out jobs. Another great example are the police details. Every other state outside of New England manages to do construction without having to have a cop standing there DOING NOTHING! Why can’t we do the same out here? Or how about the fact that Massachusetts elects or appoints somebody for nearly every single job you can imagine — all ways to ensure that someone can put someone else in their pocket.
<
p>
Of course the biggest example of all is the Big Dig. Who was in charge? Frankly we don’t know because everyone wanted their hand in that cookie jar but no one wanted responsbility, so with every agency involved everyone could rip off the state and no one had to take responsibility. Nice.
<
p>
So forgive me when I chuckle and then get annoyed at the suggestion that Massachusetts is some how worried about the corruption of elections…you haven’t cared too much yet!! Right now there are four major cities under investigation by the US DOJ for elections problems, Boston, Lowell, Springfield, and Lawrence. At worst election day registration will continue the level of corruption that currently exists and at best it will go a long way to showing that Massachusetts is not only aware of its earned reputation but also interested in correcting it.
I forgot two things. First another example I wanted to bring up was state troopers giving driving tests. I was recently informed that STATE TROOPERS are the people who ride along with you for your driving test (if this isn’t true, because there was some debate among my collegues, I will humbly retract this example)!!! State troopers, the people who carry guns and are trained to protect and serve are the ones who check to see if you can parallel park? I am pretty sure Massachusetts isn’t so safe that it can just ship out troopers to do driving tests.
<
p>
Second, I forgot to highlight that in Wisconsin, where we register and vote on the same day, the state has NEVER had an investigation into its voting practices for issues related to fraud do to registration. These fears people have of “voting early and often” are basically unsubstantiated and intended to reject change.
Who does the driving tests in other states?
My drivign instructor was certified (not all of them are) or you go to the DMV.
They are state employees who work at the DMV that are certified to give driving exams. I would have flunked for sure if I had to take a driving test with a statie sitting next to me!!
Its not like they just grab a Statey and say “Go administer this test.” They’re State Troopers whose only job is to administer the test. Often they are older (partially retired) or have an injury or health reason that means they can’t do the normal parts of the job.
This state creates jobs as favors. I find that problematic. If an officer is partially retired why do we need to create a special job for him or her? Isn’t the point of retirement that, you know, you retire? Instead we let them “reitre” probably around age 50-55 collecting a full pension and then they get this special job that pays what I imagine is a decent salary becaue they are a state trooper, to administer a driver’s test. So now you have closed off well paying jobs to a lot of people for no other reason then they are not part of a powerful union. That is the kind of stuff I am talking about. That is the Big Dig culture.
<
p>
http://www.jsonline….
<
p>
Inquiry finds evidence of fraud in election
<
p>
Cast ballots outnumber voters by 4,609
<
p>
By GREG J. BOROWSKI
gborowski@journalsentinel.com
<
p>
Investigators said Tuesday they found clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 [2004] election in Milwaukee, including more than 200 cases of felons voting illegally and more than 100 people who voted twice, used fake names or false addresses or voted in the name of a dead person. …
<
p>
… Some of the problems identified by the newspaper, such as spotty compliance with procedures to verify same-day registrants, are broader and are the subject of a statewide audit approved by lawmakers. …
<
p>
… The city’s record-keeping problems meant investigators from the FBI and Milwaukee Police Department have logged more than 1,000 hours reviewing the 70,000 same-day registration cards, including 1,300 that could not be processed because of missing names, addresses and other information.
<
p>
Indeed, about 100 cards described as “of interest to investigators” cannot be located, officials said. And within the past few weeks, police found a previously lost box of the cards at the Election Commission offices.
<
p>
Biskupic and McCann said they remain troubled that three months after the investigation began that city officials have been unable to account for a gap of about 4,600 votes, with more ballots counted than people listed as voting. …
<
p>
… Among other findings, some 1,300 same-day registration cards were processed by poll workers who allowed people to vote even though the cards were incomplete. Some 548 had no address listed and 48 gave no name – yet the person was allowed to vote. Another 141 listed addresses outside the city. …
I think Connecticut also requires a police officer at every road construction site. At least they used to (I’m not sure that has changes, but I would be surprised if it had).
My father-in-law is a MA cop. A few years ago, a fellow cop–guy who used to be his partner–was struck and killed while doing a flag detail.
<
p>
Can you imagine the outcry the first time this happened to an 8-dollar-an-hour non-cop flagwaver? God. I can see it now: front page of the Herald. Big headline.
<
p>
When asked by out-of-staters about “Why do you have cops doing traffic details????” my standard response is, “Because MA drivers suck. Standing in the middle of the road waving a flag in this state is probably the most dangerous job a cop does.”
Is that any less dangerous?
The Metropolitan District Commission was an honorable institution and should have been duplicated in other regions of the state. If you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t say anything. MDC police were the sole authority in their region they removed a burden from local communitiees and saved State Police for more serious crimes. Storrow Drive was an MDC roadway, MDC preceded MWRA in providing water and the MDC policed reservoirs. Gee 4 complaints in a Commonwealth of 6.5 million people. Any actions by the Bush administration investigating election fraud are laughable. Why did you leave Wisconsin if it was so much better? Could it be that you are young and just beginning to notice such issues?
Bill Galvin decertified the use of punch card voting in Massachusetts after an election scandal in 1996, where a Congressional race almost went to the wrong person due to miscounted punch cards. It was the right thing to do, but it wasn’t the kind of preventive forward-thinking action he presents it as on the campaign trail, it was simply a reaction.
<
p>
Now, we have paper ballots all over the state. That’s good.
<
p>
But, we have to comply with HAVA’s requirements for disability access, and simply using paper ballots doesn’t do that. We could use Vote-PAD, designed exactly for this. But Galvin’s office isn’t considering it. Instead, they’re telling us, they’re considering three possibilities, two of which are touchscreen voting machines! One of them from Diebold!
<
p>
They’ve been “considering it” at least for most of the year – I’ve talked to town clerks about it since the spring.
<
p>
If you want to keep Diebold out of Massachusetts, vote Bonifaz.
I think Galvin’s refusal to debate should really seal the deal.
I agree with David that Bonifaz’s rhetoric is sometimes overheated, and I don’t think Galvin is part of the Axis of Evil. Still, for me, the choice to support Bonifaz is clear and easy, and one I’d made well before the convention. So I’m not even interested in the question of whether to support B. I want to know why Barney Frank has used his liberal reputation to back Galvin. Anyone have a theory? (For instance: Personal ties? Figuring you might as well collect your chits with the guy likely to win? Does G. have something on Barney?) Better yet, can anybody actually claim to know something? Perhaps those of you closer to the sweaty armpits of power (as E.P. Thompson used to say) have a sense of what the deal really is; from out here in the Berkshires, it looks, well, odd.
to their State House days.
I can both suggest and say that Bonifaz would suggest the following theory: while Barney Frank may be liberal and in support of a lot of progressive issues, he is a machine politician. He’s well-established, a powerful incumbent and has certainly built up his own political establishment. So, I’m not really surprised he’s supporting Galvin.
<
p>
Some would say that Frank has come out in support of Deval and that obviously means he’s not an establishment politician. I would counter with the fact that, to some extent, you’re right. He’s not like Representative Lynch, for example. However, I’d also point out the fact that Deval is a special scenario, someone who a lot of people in the establishment ultimately decided to back for a number of reasons, but partly because Deval quickly became very popular and it was soon obvious he had a huge delegate victory, months before the convention. It was clear Deval was going to be a tough candidate to beat way back in March or April.
<
p>
So, it wouldn’t surprise me guys like Frank could get behind Deval, but not Bonifaz. However, in Barney’s defense, I would like to point out an altertative theory: maybe Barney just didn’t know about HAVA or how citizens of the state were relying on the Bush Justice Department to fight for them in court.
I’d give you a 0 and a 6.
Barney has also worked closely with Galvin on investor protection issues — you know, one of the other job responsibilities of our Secretary of State. In fact, Galvin has testified before the House Financial Services Committee (of which Barney is the Ranking Democratic Member) at least twice in the last couple of years. If you’re really interested, you can read some of his testimony here and here.
… but I won’t be terriby upset if Galvin wins (as I expect him to). Bonifaz would be great for the job so I am voting for him in the primary – not against Galvin.
You are totally wet about Bill Galvin. He continues to protect the people of Massachusetts against voter fraud. You must be very young. You register to vote at the local level not the state level. If you want uniform voter registration get your state rep to change law to allow it.
William Galvin single handedly fought the fight to have a countible ballot in Mass. I know some handicap groups want touch screens etc but I would prefer a ballot that can be counted. In fact I would require a paper or optical scan ballot. I would also require that 1 precinct in every 10 be manually counted to verify the accuracy of the machine count of optical scanners. Any descrepancy between the manual count and the machine count of more than 1/2 of 1% would require a recount manually of all 10 precincts in group. The precinct to be counted should be chosen at random after voting has ended.
Your corporate government criticisms appear to be more appropriate to a legislature than an administrator. I want a Governor Galvin. I’m going to hold my nose and vote for the carpetbagger in this years primary.
<
p>
People are more likely to vote on a working day than on a non working day check the busiest times at your local polls. Extend voting hours, limit absenttee voting, Stop local governments from arbitrarily purging roles.
<
p>
What fight are you referring to? Sure, after punchcards spoiled the Delahunt primary, Galvin got the state to switch to optical scan only – which was the right thing to do. But now, to comply with HAVA, Galvin has been evaluating three computer voting solutions as his final contenders… and two of them are touchscreen voting machines, one of those from Diebold!
<
p>
All year, worried town clerks have been asking the elections division how MA plans to comply with the disability access requirements of HAVA, and all year, they’ve been getting the same answer: We don’t know yet, we have three possibilities and we’re considering them… and they’re seriously considering Diebold touchscreen machines. It’s scary. The best option, Vote-PAD, has barely been able to get a hearing at Galvin’s office.
<
p>
In contrast, John Bonifaz’s Voters’ Bill of Rights begins with:
Watch a video of Bonifaz talking about computer voting in Ohio. And if you want paper ballots, mandatory audits, and no Diebold in Massachusetts, vote Bonifaz!