As many of you know, I am a member of the American Council of the Blind of New York, ACBNY. This year, I am serving the organization as their legislative chairperson. In that capacity I have been planning what we refer to as the legislative weekend. At the legislative weekend, we as most representative organizations, train on the legislative issues put forth by the membership to be addressed during the session. Additionally, we hear from other organizations and agencies on how our issues can affect or be affected by their position on the same issue. Finally, the ACBNY Legislative weekend culminates into a day of lobbying the prepared issues in the capital and Legislative Office Building, LOB. However, today was different then those of the past in that I as the Suffolk County Systems Advocate and a member of NYSILC who has worked with Brad Williams of NYSILC, Tim Cronin of Howard Schaffer Media Marketing, Sharon Shapiro and Chris Zacmyer co-chairs of the NYSILC Election reform sub-committee in planning the release of the NYSILC Voter Discrimination Report at a scheduled press conference.
As today was the culmination day, I prepared my colleagues of ACBNY by informing them of the fact, that we had a rare opportunity to participate in a press conference that had the potential to bring our issues as well as the issues of others to the forefront in today’s debates on HAVA. That said, ACBNY made legislative visits all morning and attended the press conference at the scheduled 1 PM. Bred Williams kicked off the conference at about 1:05 with some words on how NYSILC had begun to compile documented incidences of voter discrimination as a result of the legislature’s refusal to acknowledge any discrimination in the voting process. Brad concluded his comments by stating that 92 complainants can easily turn into 92 plaintiffs.
We then heard from me, Mike Godino. I talked about the NY Constitution that entitles NY’s the right to a secret ballot. I talked about how HAVA is to provide NY’s the right to vote privately and independently. I talked about how to date blind and visually impaired NY’s have not and do not have the ability to exercise these rights as citizens and how we should not have to stand for this blatant discrimination any longer. I talked about how women gained the right to vote in 1920. I talked about how the African American community gained the right to vote in 1968 and how it’s now 2005 and people with disabilities are still not afforded equal access to exercise their fundamental right to vote in New York.
Charlie Reichardt was next on the microphone. Charlie discussed some of his own experiences as he participated in the voting process. Charlie talked about how he brings his wife into the booth and how he trusts her but, he made clear the fact that, this was not a private nor was it an independent vote. Charlie also pointed out to the attendees that an absentee ballot was not a private or independent vote as he, a person who is blind, needs someone to read and mark his ballot.
Sue Cohen followed Charlie. Sue talked about how she has assisted her peers in understanding their rights. Sue talked about how people with various disabilities have difficulties accessing polling sites. Sue talked about how people with disabilities want to participate yet, in as much as they try, they are put off and discouraged and told to vote absentee. Sue said that this type of discrimination was not fair and fostered disenfranchisement.
Next up was Barbra Knowlen. Barbra talked about the history of voters rights for PWDs and how she and others worked to insure the fact that her peers had the opportunity to register to vote. Barbra talked about how we needed to unite and insure that all PWD have the access necessary to cast a private and independent ballot.
Finally, Sharon Shapiro rolled up to the microphone to share with the audience her views and experience at the polls. Sharon talked about the overwhelming size of the full face ballot machines. Sharon talked about the inaccessibility of the large machine to people with dexterity disabilities. Sharon talked about the overall inaccessibility of the full face ballot and called publicly and on the record for the removal of the full face ballot requirement in election law. Moreover, Sharon called for an end to the disenfranchisement of PWDs in the voting process.
Following the speakers, Brad returned to close out the press conference with a brief comment on how PWDs have not had full access to participate in the election process and how we are now standing up and we will be counted.
After the press conference, I continued my legislative visits now with others from the advocacy network. We attempted to visit Senator Dalon the newest member on the assembly side but, he was off at a pre-meeting on HAVA. Because we were unable to see the senator, on the assembly side, we headed off to see a senator on the senate side.
At Senator Maziarz office we sat with Joe, his aid on HAVA, for about 20 minutes. We explained to Joe all of the reasons why we continue to come in. we explained how the current machines being considered are not accessible. We explained how the addition of a printer as the auditing trail only creats another level of inaccessibility resulting in further disenfranchisement.
Following this meeting, it was time to sit in on the HAVA Joint Conference Committee Hearing so we all headed off to hearing room A for an afternoon of what turned out to be a rewarding experience.
At the start of the hearing, the Assembly handed the control off to the senate as Senator Flanagan was to chair this meeting. The senate chair began by stating the day’s agenda with comment: 1, staff needs to set up a Wednesday meeting because Wednesday is the final day in the senate calendar for these conferences. 2, we are in agreement on the issue of the complaint process. 3, We are close on the issue of list integration. 4, Identification, 5, the HAVA fund, 6, list verification and finally, machines. That said, Assemblyman Cahill asked about polling site accessibility and added that the cost of polling site accessibility might be negligible as the polling site, if inaccessible, merely needs to be relocated. The senate chair stated that we will look at that.
With the issues on the table, the debates began. There was some discussion between the senate chair and Assemblywoman Weinstein on the topic of voter lists and how the lists should be updated and maintained. There was discussion between the senate chair and Senator Dalon on the funding stream and how the Assembly allocates two funds to be legislated. There was discussion between Assemblywoman Destito and the senate chair on the voter verification issue; all long filling the room with the sense that the Assembly did indeed do their homework whereas the senate seemed to have lost their understanding of the issues. At this point, about an hour into the hearing, the assembly chair asked what was next to hear the reply “that’s it.”
In response to the senate’s end, the assembly chair said, we just have a few things. Assemblyman Cahill outlined the optical scan as the voting machine that has been endorsed by some groups: the NY Times and the League of Women Voters and added that the senate does not address optical scan machines in their bill. The senate stated that they did not explicitly exclude or include optical scan machines so that the Board of Elections would have some room to make a selection. The assembly chair said that the senate is looking to pass the selection off to the BOE but, he added that the senate really needs to fix the imbalance in the BOE before sending anything there. The senate defended their in action with the BOE by stating that, that issue is not a part of HAVA and not up to this committee to address. Still on the topic of optical scan, the assembly chair quoted HAVA language that recommends inclusion of optical scanners. The assembly was clear in their ideas, that clear and concise standards need to be set and the senate was clearly wishy washy on the BOE setting the standards. We really need to watch this issue and know that the BOE needs to be balanced before we permit the BOE to set the standards for accessibility.
There was discussion on the topic of one type of machine in every polling place. This means that we would see similar (those of the same type: DRE or optical scan) not any type of hodgepodge. Again the senate did not or could not defend their bills.
Finally, I know this is getting long, back to the optical scanners, the senate brought up the fact that the cost of each ballot could be anywhere between 33 cents to $1.05 and why should the local BOEs be forced to carry this cost. As a novice, I identified multiple funding streams one of which is the storage savings that could fund the cost of the paper. This senate seemed to be grasping for anything they thought they might have some knowledge about or means of getting out of the room and that is just what they did. The senate called for the hearing to continue on Wednesday. At that point, someone asked for an adjournment and the meeting ended.
I stayed in the room for some time to speak to reporters and thank the assembly staff for their insuring that our issues were brought to the table.