The Empire Page

This summer's conflict in the Senate has pundits warning of big changes the next election.  To assess the potential for electoral change, we thought it important to focus on the present state of political parties in New York in a series of interviews with party leaders and activists.  To start off the series, we talked to Judith H. Hope, former chairperson of the NYS Democratic Party.

 

Q: It's my impression that the general public doesn't understand how political parties operate in the 21st century.  Is there something about today's parties that you wish the public understood better?

A: I wish the public understood that the state party belongs to them.  State law gives state parties the responsibility to designate nominees for all state-wide offices, including federal office such as the US Senate.  Most political activists consider it an honor to be elected to serve on the State Committee. In New York, a state party is a relatively small institution (the Democratic State Committee has 446 voting members), which represents the top of a pyramid-structure organization.

 It works like this:  candidates for State Committee (two from each Assembly District) appear on the ballot of the party's primary election every two years.  To be nominated for State Committee, a person needs to become active in his or her local political organization to build support and credibility.  In suburban counties and some Upstate counties, that means calling the Chair of the Town Democratic Committee and letting them know you are interested in becoming a committee person.  In other Upstate counties, where town committees may not be active, you will need to contact the Chair of the County Democratic Committee. Often, vacancies exist on these political committees and the Chair, after getting to know you a bit,  may decide to just appoint you to fill a vacancy, or will tell you how to run for the committee at the proper time.  As a member of a Town Democratic Committee, you are automatically a member of the larger group, the County Democratic Committee.  And, the County Democratic Committee nominates candidates to run for the State Committee on the primary ballot.  In most areas of the state, nominations are tantamount to election.  In other areas, particularly in New York City, these races for State Committee can be hotly contested and highly competitive.  In the City, the 'power base' for a State Committee election is often a neighborhood Democratic Club.  If this is the case, a phone call to the County Committee can point you to the appropriate club in your neighborhood.

I know this process sounds difficult and complicated, but it's simpler than it appears.  These jobs (club member, town committee person, county committee person, state committee member) are all voluntary public service and there are very real responsibilities required such as recruiting candidates, carrying petitions, leafleting, GOTV, and numerous meetings.  But it can be very personally rewarding.  The job of a Town Committee member is a real "Norman Rockwell" experience in grass roots American politics.  And, it's inspiring to learn how big a difference you can make by working in the political process in your own community.  Many people feel powerless to affect the political process in their locality and in the state.  But, the fact is that these decisions are all being made by human beings just like you, and you might as well be one of them!  Who knows?  You might do a better job!

 

Q: It is well documented that the role of party organizations in chosing candidates for statewide office has been diminished by the role of the mass media and by primaries.  Recently some people have advanced the idea that people should be allowed to vote in primaries even when they are not enrolled members of that party.  Do you favor that concept?

A: There's no question that the role of party organizations has been diminished in virtually every aspect of politics, for many reasons.  But the parties still play a powerful role in granting access to the ballot through the state committee's weighted vote.  That's why candidates still fight so hard to win the parties official designations.  Those who do not win access to the primary ballot through the state party process (a threshold of 25% of the democratic state committee vote, allowing multiple candidates to run in a primary with party approval) still have the option to independently carry petitions and to secure ballot position totally outside the party's sanction.  I think it works pretty well because it provides a strong party role in the process while still providing party outsiders to successfully challenge the party's decisions.

I grew up in a state that had "open primaries" where Republicans could vote in Democratic primaries, and vice versa. There were occasions when the outcome of primary contests were distorted because of bullet-voting by voters of another party for the sole purpose of sabotaging the results.  This was rare, but it did happen.  I can imagine that, in smaller jurisdictions, say a City Council race, it could actually be a devastating opposition tool.  I'm also of the Eleanor Roosevelt school of partisan politics.  She once admonished her grandson  to choose a political party and stick with it!  "If you are unhappy about the direction your party is taking, get busy and do something about it."  She felt that party loyalty was a good thing if a person's intention was, in fact, to create an honest political process and better government.  So, basically, no.  I think voters should choose a political party and be rewarded by the honor and responsibility of choosing their party's nominee.  That's the procedure in New York, and, most of the time, it works well.

I believe that a party is an association of people who share some common principles and they are entitled to choose the candidate to represent them in the general election. Given that anyone can join the party and vote in its primary to select the party's candidate, I don't see any need for open primaries and the potential mischief they can produce.

 

Q: Some people argue that New York election law is too restrictive in terms of enabling would-be candidates to gain access to the ballot.  They site examples of candidates being thrown off the ballot due to arcane issues with nominating petitions and the like.  Do you feel New York's election laws should be reformed to make it easier for people to run for office?

A: The requirements that must be met by statewide candidates to gain ballot access were relaxed in 1992.  It is now 15,000 signatures (or, for the smaller parties, 5% of the enrolled voters in the party) with at least 100 signatures from each of one-half of the congressional districts.  This applies to all statewide candidates who do not get 25% of the vote at a state convention.  It used to be 20,000 signatures.  (There are separate rules for Presidential candidates set by the different parties.  For the Democrats, the number of qualified signatures for presidential candidates is only 5,000.)  And, of course, the number of signatures required, such as for the state legislature and for local offices, diminishes as you go lower down the ballot.

In addition, state election law has been amended to eliminate the need for the election district and the assembly district numbers for each petition signer, and requirements for specific-color paper are gone.  Those changes along with cover sheet modifications have all eliminated some of the more arcane requirements.

But candidates can still be thrown off ballots when a sufficient number of petition signatures are successfully challenged by the opposition.  In the past, the reasons could seem trivial.  Sometimes the reasons simply comply with State Election Law (residency, party affiliation in primaries, etc.)  Any candidate who enters a highly competitive race for any office, whether a primary or general election, needs to understand that his/her petitions may be challenged.  Successful candidates always collect far more signatures than the minimum number required, and spend substantial time and/or financial resources to make certain their petitions can prevail over any challenge.  The remarkable number of primary contests throughout New York State every year would suggest that the rules do not need to be reformed.  Nominating petitions require a candidate  to demonstrate a minimum level of grassroots support in order to gain public ballot access.  I think that's a fair process.  Besides, where would the election law lawyers be without it?

 

Q: To run for statewide office these days requires an enormous amount of money -- seemingly reducing the field of potential candidates to those who have money personally or have access to wealth donors.  New York State has less restrictive contribution laws than many other states.  Should New York's laws be changed to reduce the role of large donors?

A: The role of excessive money in politics seems to be one of those problems that elude a neat solution.  Every potential solution triggers another potential injustice.  If New York laws were changed to reduce the role of large donors to candidates of average means, it would only strengthen the hand of the "billionaire candidate" which is not such a rarity these days.  Public financing of elections is the answer, but must include a provision to relax the limits if any well-funded candidate opts out of the program in order to avoid spending limits.  But even that system does not guarantee a level playing field as demonstrated by the experience of New York City.  Public campaign financing was working well until a billionaire candidate came along.  Even a relaxation of the limits cannot produce an equitable situation if one candidate has unlimited personal financial resources.  The good news is the example of the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama who was able to mobilize the "net roots" to raise tens of millions over the internet.  This may ultimately turn out to be the great equalizer in campaign financing in the future.

 

Q: You've done a lot personally to advance the role of women in politics through the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee.  Give us your assessment of where we are in New York in equalizing the opportunities for women to run for office and play key roles in the political process.

A: It's dismaying to me that New York State has such a mediocre record of women in politics and government.  Only 24 per cent of our state legislature are women, putting New York in the rank of 23 among the 50 states.  In 2006, the Susan B. Anthony School at Rochester University surveyed women in local government and found that since 2002, the number of women serving in New York’s 57 county legislatures had increased from 16.6% to 17.4%, just a .8% increase. The average and median number of women serving was 3, a figure unchanged from 2002. Six counties had no women serving. Last year, they updated the survey and found that there was virtually no change since 2006.

The state of New York, long considered a "progressive" state on social and political issues, can do better.  The state that produced such courageous political leaders as Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Eleanor Roosevelt, Shirley Chisholm, Bella Abzug, Geraldine Ferraro,  Hillary Clinton, and now Sonia Sotomayor, ought to lead the nation in the representation of women at all levels of government.  The Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee was created to provide women with some extra encouragement in the form of women's campaign schools and financial grants.  Slowly, I believe, progress is being made.  But clearly, we have a long way to go before we even catch up with other states.  New York State fosters an intensely male political culture.  It's a rough business.  But I feel deeply that women have a valuable contribution to make.  We owe it to the memory of the courageous New York women who went before us, to try our best to make a difference.