How will NY gov candidates vote on state's three ballot propositions?

Post Standard ^ | November 2 2014 | Teri Weaver

[NYer]

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Tuesday's elections will decide the future of political redistricting, cutting down on paper in Albany and rewiring schools for better Internet service.

These issues -- propositions 1, 2 and 3 -- will be on your ballots Nov. 4. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Here's a short summary on each proposition, followed by views of three gubernatorial candidates: Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat; Rob Astorino, a Republican; and Howie Hawkins, of the Green Party.

The answers are based on comments from the candidates through their campaign staffs and from past interviews.

Proposition 1 -- Redistricting
If approved, the vote would change how New York redraws state and congressional political boundaries every 10 years. Since 1978, the Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment has helped state lawmakers redraw the lines. That task force is controlled by the lawmakers, who ultimately approve the new political maps. Generally, the boundaries have been drawn to give incumbent legislators an advantage and help them win elections.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo campaigned four years ago for a more independent system. What state lawmakers agreed to was this: ask voters to approve a new system with a 10-member commission to draw the lines, which lawmakers could, in the end, reject entirely.

One difference between the old task force and this proposed commission is that two members of the 10 must be people not enrolled in the two major political parties. Another difference? The state Legislature must vote to reject two versions of the commission's maps before taking the process out of its hands. Lawmakers could feel more political pressure to accept maps they don't like rather than take two public stands against the commission's recommendations. Right now, most of those rejections happen behind closed doors.

Cuomo supports the change, he said Friday at a press conference in Syracuse.

Astorino plans to vote no, saying the changes don't go far enough.

Hawkins also plans to vote no. It'd be better to start over with redistricting and do it right, he says.

Proposition 2 -- Paperless Albany
At some point each March in recent years, Assemblyman Jim Tedisco has built a fort of voluminous budget bills around his desk on the Assembly floor. Yes, lawmakers need to read the various versions of the bills. But, in the 21st century, do the members and the public really need pieces of paper to access all that information?

Prop 2, if passed, would change state law to allow for a paperless system. Bills would still need to "age" three days -- thus exist in public, written form -- before votes could be cast. But the change would allow that aging to happen in electronic form. Yes, this could mean that lawmakers might use their office funds to invest in laptops and computer tablets, if they haven't already. Overall, the savings could add up to more than $300,000 a year. And it would also mean a savings in time. During budget time, lawmakers sometimes wait hours for new versions of the hefty legislation to print before that three-day clock begins.

Cuomo supports the change.

Astorino plans to vote yes.

Hawkins is a no, in part because he is worried that lawmakers might be less inclined to read the electronic versions of the bills.

Proposition 3 -- $2 billion for school technology
A yes vote here would allow the state to borrow $2 billion to improve technology access in the nearly 700 school districts across the state. It would be like taking out a mortgage to help schools go wireless, buy tablets and install smart boards in classrooms. The money also could go to outfit new rooms for pre-Kindergarten classes and replace temporary classrooms with permanent ones.

Yearly payments on that mortgage? Perhaps $130 million, according to the Empire Center. That borrowing would pay for construction and equipment -- not upkeep or staffing that might be required to keep everything running. The state's debt load is at about $63 billion.

Cuomo is voting yes. This was his proposal from this year's State of the State address.

Astorino plans to vote no.

Hawkins, too, plans to vote no.

[NYer]

HOW THE PROPOSITIONS READ

Westerlo

None Notice is hereby given, that at the General Election to be held in this State on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, the following proposals will be submitted to the people for approval:

PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE, AN AMENDMENT
Revising State’s Redistricting Procedure
The proposed amendment to sections 4 and 5 and addition of new section 5-b to Article 3 of the State Constitution revises the redistricting procedure for state legislative and congressional districts. The proposed amendment establishes a redistricting commission every 10 years beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees; prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission’s redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission’s plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
YES NO

PROPOSAL NUMBER TWO, AN AMENDEMENT
Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
The proposed amendment to section 14 of Article 3 of the State Constitution would allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. It would establish the following requirements for electronic distribution: first, legislators must be able to review the electronically-sent bill at their desks; second, legislators must be able to print the bill if they choose; and third, the bill cannot be changed electronically without leaving a record of the changes. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
YES NO

PROPOSAL NUMBER THREE, A PROPOSITION
Smart Schools Bond Act of 2014
The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014, as set forth in section one of part B of chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide access to classroom technology and high-speed internet connectivity to equalize opportunities for children to learn, to add classroom space to expand high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, to replace classroom trailers with permanent instructional space, and to install high-tech smart security features in schools. Shall the SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014 be approved?
YES NO

---

ATTENTION VOTERS:

Full text of the proposals can be obtained at Albany Board of Elections at 32 North Russell Road, Albany, NY

A sample ballot may be obtained by calling (518) 487-5060 or by stopping Into our offices located at 32 North Russell Road, Albany, NY.

---

PERSONAL NOTE - PROP 2:

Assemblyman Jim Tedisco

Having worked at the State Capitol for more than a decade, I have watched the pallets of paper trucked to the Capitol as they are unloaded and repacked with bags of shredded bills and wondered why this could not be done electronically. Each time a bill is modified, all copies must be shredded and a new bill reissued. Multiply that by the number of seats (150) and the number of bills that pass through the Assembly.

It is a massive waste of taxpayer money. Just something to consider before casting your vote.

[NYer]

Not sure which members of the group reside in NY. If this does not apply to you, please disregard.

[NYer]

Please share this with other NY freepers. Thanks!

[Paulie]

Regarding Prop 3 - NYS is offering 10 yrs of tax free operation if a business will relocate there. I don’t know how that’s going, but between that and DeBlasio’s Pre-K for all nonsense, where will NYS get the money? Maybe they’re banking on QE IV.

Better put up the ‘for sale’ sign now, homeowners.

[cripplecreek]

We have 2 proposals in Michigan and I'm still undecided.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE, AN AMENDMENT
Revising State’s Redistricting Procedure
VOTE NO : an unelected board setting up voting distrcts is that is unresponsive to the voters, with no accountability. Voter input is good when listened to.

PROPOSAL NUMBER TWO, AN AMENDEMENT
Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
VOTE NO : By waving the printing and reading of the bill is how the Democrats rammed the "SAFE ACT" and "Sexual Equaltiy" bills through
without legislative thought or voter voices heard.
Saving paper is a good thing , but not at the expense of voter consideration and legilative reflection;
sometimes slowing down legislation without thought of logical consequence can be a good thing. See the two bills listed above as examples.

PROPOSAL NUMBER THREE, A PROPOSITION : Smart Schools Bond Act of 2014 -..authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000).
VOTE NO This would authorize 2 billion dollars of STATE DEBT to be repaid over 15 years on electronic materials/equipment (iPads) that break easily,
and become outmoded in 2-3 years, resulting in payment for an additional 12 - 13 years for an outdated system.
School taxes are already too high,having numerous State mandated reforms while not providing the funding.

[The Mayor]

Exactly what I have been telling all our people NO-YES-NO

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

NYer:" It is a massive waste of taxpayer money.
Just something to consider before casting your vote. "

Saving money is good, saving paper is good, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF BAD LEGISLATION .
The "SAFE ACT" is an example of bad legislation rammed through without printing/reading; there was no discussion in the NYS Democrat Senate.
The bill passed the State Senate without being read/printed as soon as it was determined they had quorum; passed in less than 10 minutes (no Republican votes).
The only time there was discussion on this Bill was in the State House where there was Republican resisitance and questions asked.
The original "Safe Act" Bill, as proposed by Gov. Cuomo called for the confiscation of all firearms , with no comphensation to the owners,
a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution protections.
Subsequently, an Amenmdment to the "Safe Act" had to be made to accomodate police officers being able to carry firearms
This is an example of what happens when logical consequence or legislative meditation is overlooked for the sake of expediency,
and Gov. Cuomo wanting to look more Progressive than OBama, since Cuomo wants to run for the Presidency in 2016. IDIOTS all !!
Sometimes slowing down the legislative process is a smart thing to do .

[Ouderkirk]

for the Sub-Standard.

[NYer]

Do wolves pose a big threat in MI?

With no definition of "certain other animals", I'd be a 'no' on 14-2, especially without legislative action.

[cripplecreek]

There are enough to nearly wipe out the deer herd in the western UP.

As it stands there’s no regular hunt or season but the DNR issues permits when they feel the population needs to be culled. Last year they issued 48 permits and something like 38 wolves were taken.

I’m guessing that “Certain other animals” are mountain lions that they claim don’t exist here despite multiple trail cam pics of them.

[NYer]

There are enough to nearly wipe out the deer herd in the western UP.

Here in NY, it is deer hunting season. Their population needs to be kept in check and hunting is the solution. We have plenty of coyote but, in my neck of the woods, there are no wolves. Perhaps they prowl the Adirondack's. I recently watched a video that showed how nature balances out any over population, without human intervention. But, when the wolves can take out the deer herd, it's time to thin their ranks.

I’m guessing that “Certain other animals” are mountain lions that they claim don’t exist here despite multiple trail cam pics of them.

Your guess may be correct ... however, others may interpret it otherwise and THAT poses a problem. I'm a "city mouse" (grew up downstate NY) and now have one foot in a city and the other in the open country surrounding it. About 10 years ago, a pair of beaver constructed an amazing dam on the "kill" which is downslope from our housing community. The beaver did not interfere in any way; if anything, their dam resulted in a beaver pond that helped to reinforce ground shift, which posed a big problem. Moreover, the dam attracted fowl which devoured mosquito larvae. It was a wonderful summer without the need to apply mosquito repellant. That Autumn, I heard a series of shots early one morning. Someone killed the beaver and cut a hole in the dam. When I called NYS EnCon, they explained that beaver were not endangered and allowed to be hunted. Since then, the ground has continued to shift, resulting in damage to my home.

I don't trust any proposition that is not clearly spelled out.

[Impy]

“Independent redistricting” is always a scam.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE, AN AMENDMENT
Revising State’s Redistricting Procedure
VOTE NO : an unelected board setting up voting distrcts is that is unresponsive to the voters, with no accountability. Voter input is good when listened to. “

---

Agreed, “independent” redistricting commissions are the worst of all worlds, and, as Impy pointed out, they *always* end up being lackeys for the Democrats.

Moreover, I would argue that having voters take the right to redistrict away from the state legislature violates the U.S. Constitution, and I’m not the only person to feel that way. Here’s a description of a case for which SCOTUS already has granted certiorari:

“Consider a challenge by Arizona Republicans to the state’s congressional districting map. Arizona voters created an independent redistricting commission in 2000 in an effort to take politics out of the process. But the GOP-led state legislature complained in a lawsuit that the Constitution exclusively gives power to draw maps for congressional districts to elected state lawmakers. A divided panel of federal judges dismissed the lawsuit, but justices said Thursday they will review the lower court ruling.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-bypasses-same-sex-marriage-cases-for-now/2014/10/02/1d2747b0-4a39-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html?hpid=z4

The issue here isn’t whether redistricting commissions are permissible—many states have had them for years, albeit as creatures of the legislature, with the legislature presumably being able to get rid of them—but whether the state legislature can be kept completely out of the process by a voter initiative. This is similar to the argument that, had Colorado voters approved a referendum to amend the state constitution in order to allocate EVs proportionally instead of winner-takes-all (it was voted down in 2004), it would have violated the U.S. Constitution’s empowering of state legislatures to direct the manner in which electors are appointed (Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2). While the argument for prohibiting voter initiatives to override the legislature is less directly textual in the case of redistricting than in the case of appointing electors, Art. 1, sec. 4, cl. 1 does give the state legislature the power to establish the time, place and manner of electing Representatives, which presumably is from where state legislatures obtain their power to draw districts in the first place.

If the AZ commission is declared unconstitutional, it would permit the GOP legislature to undo the Democrat gerrymander that the “independent” commission created and redraw the map so that AZ elects 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats instead of its current 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans (although if Republicans have a good election in AZ tomorrow they may get a 7-2 advantage anyhow). Moreover, it could lead the Florida legislature to challenge the “Fair Districts” constitutional amendment approved by FL voters in 2010 (via initiative) that required the legislature to draw geographically compact districts, without which the GOP would have a firmer supermajority of the congressional delegation.

So, no, don’t let NY fall into the same trap. Let the legislature continue to redistrict; just make sure that the GOP controls at least the state senate after the 2020 elections.

[Sun]

Thanks for the info.. Hubby and I will vote NO for 1 and 3 (still studying 2).

Also, tell your friends (who might not always vote) that Astorino’s chances are increasing because very LIGHT turnout is expected in NYC. Even in Queens, someone said there are only Astorino lawn signs noticed.

[Sun]

I think I’ll vote No for all three, and DEFINTELY No for 1 and 3.

[NYer]

Astorino’s chances are increasing because very LIGHT turnout is expected in NYC. Even in Queens, someone said there are only Astorino lawn signs noticed.

Hoping tomorrow's headlines resemble those of 1994 when George Pataki beat Mario Cuomo.