The New York State Senate

Most recently, attempts to suppress the vote were documented in a
recent election in New York State. In that race, documented efforts to
suppress minority voters were captured by attorneys present in many of
the polling locations. Some of the suppressive actions reported
included an armed man with police shield escorting around alleged poll
watchers throughout various polling sites during voting hours;
repeated blanket challenges to minority voters at a particular polling
location; gluing down the lever for a candidate on a machine so that
no one could vote for that candidate; people blocking the entryways to
select polling sites in heavily populated minority areas; and a
widespread challenge to nearly 6,000 Democratic voters who allegedly
did not live where their voter registration information claimed they
did.

In light of the blanket challenge to the registration of several thou
sand voters prior to the election and reports from the prior election
for that office alleging widespread voter suppression, the federal
government, exercising their discretion pursuant to the federal Voting
Rights Act of 1965, sent federal monitors to the district to oversee
the election.

One reporter from the New York Times who personally witnessed some of
the suppression activities described the situation as "chaotic." In an
editorial printed two days following the election, the reporter stated
that "it appeared there were a dozen or more alleged poll watchers
milling about and challenging one voter after another, insisting that
their signatures did not match the ones in the registration books."
Clearly, such suppressive efforts were to slow down the lines to vote,
hoping people would leave and force people to vote on paper ballots,
which could later be subject to scrutiny and judicial review. This
legislation would fill an important void in the election law by
creating a new statute that would directly address and hold people
accountable for intentionally suppressing the vote.  While it is
unfortunate such a law is even needed, we as a citizenry must send a
message that actions such as what happened in the situation described
herein will no longer be tolerated and that from now on, under this
statute, those who seek to suppress the vote will be held criminally
accountable.

 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :
New bill.

 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :
None.

 EFFECTIVE DATE :
This act shall take effect immediately.

Section three amends section 17-166 of the election law to clarify and
increase penalties for violations of any statute contained within
Article 17.

Section four provides that the act shall take effect immediately.

 EXISTING LAW :
Article 17 of the election law contains several statutes addressing
voter coercion and intimidation. Currently, there is no specific
statute that deals with the suppression of voters or the dissemination
of false information intended to deceive or intimidate voters.
Moreover, current law does not specify the class of misdemeanor or
felony that should be applied to violations of the election law.

 JUSTIFICATION :
Unfortunately, even in the twenty-first century, efforts to suppress
and intimidate voters-particularly those belonging to certain racial
and ethnic minority groups-are all too real in this state.
Notwithstanding New York's existing laws against the use of
intimidation, threats or coercion in connection with the state
elections, attempts to suppress the vote still occur. In 2006,
examples of such conduct documented by attorneys present at polling
locations included an armed man with police shield escorting alleged
poll watchers to various polling sites during voting hours; repeated
blanket challenges to minority voters at a polling location gluing
down the lever for a candidate on a machine so that no one could vote
for that candidate; people blocking the entryways to select polling
sites in heavily populated minority areas; and a widespread challenge
to nearly 6,000 voters who allegedly did not live where their voter
registration information claimed they did. The New York Times reported
that at one polling place, one party had three times as many poll
watchers present as is permitted by law and that these poll watchers
"were at the sign-up tables, challenging one voter after another,
insisting that their signatures did not match the ones in the
registration books."

In addition to election-day conduct intended to suppress and frustrate
voters at the polls, there exist more subtle but equally harmful ways
in which voters are being dissuaded from exercising their right to
vote in state and national elections. Deceptive practices, including
the dissemination of false information intended to frighten or confuse
people into not registering to vote or not going to the polls, have
been documented in many recent elections, both in New York and across
the country. In November 2008, voters in Shirley, New York received
automated phone calls advising that due to the anticipated high voter
turnout on Election Day, Democratic and Liberal voters should cast
their ballots on Wednesday November 5, the day following Election Day.
On these calls, it was possible to press "0" to speak to a live person
who reiterated this false information. Similar deceptive information
was printed on fliers and distributed in lower income areas near
Riverhead, New York. In Manhattan, it was reported that a sign was
posted near a legitimate polling place that misdirected voters to a
fictional polling place allegedly because the legitimate polling place
was overcrowded. In 2006, voters in New York reported receiving
harassing p hone calls, or "robo calls," sometimes in the middle of
the night, claiming to be from one candidate, when in fact, the calls
were traced to the candidate's opponent. In 2004, a caller to the
Election Protection hotline reported his belief that Spanish-speaking
residents of Port Chester, New York were being told that they could
not vote unless they owned a property in an effort to dissuade them
from going to the polls.

Deceptive practices like these have been reported all over the country
in connection with recent elections. In the 2006 federal election,
deceptive practices were employed in Orange County, California where
14,000 Latino voters received mailings informing them in Spanish that
if they were immigrants and tried to vote, they would be subject to
criminal penalties, including incarceration. Also in 2006, some
Virginia voters received automated phone messages informing them that
they were ineligible to vote and would receive criminal penalties if
they tried to do so, and in Maryland, flyers were distributed in
predominantly African American neighborhoods falsely claiming that
certain candidates for federal office had received endorsements from
their opponents' party.

The dissemination or misleading election information can be especially
harmful because such information has the potential of reaching
hundreds or thousands of eligible voters with minimal effort and can
be done so anonymously, and too, such conduct may go largely
unreported. Not only, therefore, must the district attorneys and
attorney general of this state be given the tools with which to combat
this growing problem, but aggrieved citizens must be given the
opportunity to report and reverse the harmful effects of deceptive
acts before the election day.

Current New York law does not effectively address voter suppression or
deceptive practices conduct intended to create confusion, frustration
and fear that interfere with the electoral franchise, While it is
unfortunate that such a law is even needed, we as a citizenry must
send a message that such conduct will not be tolerated and and that
from now on, under this statute, those who seek to suppress the vote
or deceive voters through the dissemination of false information will
be held criminally accountable.

We must also provide state and local prosecutors with the tools to
combat these and other violations of the election law. Current law
does not specify which class of misdemeanor a person should be charged
under for violation of a statute contained in Article 17 of the
election law. Nor does the law differentiate between different classes
of felonies for those who are found to have repeatedly violated the
electoral franchise, giving law enforcement more power in prosecuting
these important matters.

 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :
2008: S.3930 (Pertaining to the amendments proposed by section three
of this bill) Died in Elections
February 20, 2009: S.2444 (pertaining to the amendments proposed by
section three of this bill)-Referred to Elections. This bill is
intended to replace S.2444.

February 23,2009: S.2554 (pertaining to the amendments proposed by
section two of this bill)Referred to Elections. This bill is intended
to replace S. 2554.

 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :
None.

 EFFECTIVE DATE :
This act shall take effect immediately