Prohibits deceptive practices and the suppression of voters, and increases penalties for violations of the elective franchise

20 Co-sponsors

• Eric Adams
• Joseph P. Addabbo Jr.
• Neil D. Breslin
• Ruben Diaz
• Thomas K. Duane
• Pedro Espada Jr.
• Ruth Hassell-Thompson
• Craig M. Johnson
• Jeffrey D. Klein
• Liz Krueger
• Velmanette Montgomery
• George Onorato
• José Peralta
• Bill Perkins
• John L. Sampson
• Eric T. Schneiderman
• Daniel L. Squadron
• William T. Stachowski
• Toby Ann Stavisky
• Antoine M. Thompson

Purpose

This bill would create a new electoral crime of voter suppression, punishable as a misdemeanor.

Summary of provisions

Section one amends article seventeen of the election law by adding a new section 17-153, creating the crime of voter suppression and providing penalties therefore.

Existing law

Article seventeen of the election law contains several statutes addressing the issues of voter coercion and intimidation, however there is no specific statute that deals with the actual suppression of voters.

Justification

Unfortunately, even in the twenty first century voter suppression is an all too real reality in this state. While sometimes it occurs subtly, oftentimes the effort is much more pronounced and widespread.

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 tlle 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.