BILL NUMBER: S8912

SPONSOR: MAYER
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the election law, in relation to
recounts of election votes

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To provide for recanvassing in close vote elections, candidate initiated
recanvassing and voter-initiated recanvassing of a referendum or propo-
sition to ensure the accuracy of elections.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill amends section 9-208 of the election law by adding
a new subdivision 1-a to provide that subsequent to the recanvass
provided for in subdivision one, and prior to the certification of the
final vote count, an additional recanvass of all votes cast in the
election shall be conducted by the board of elections or bipartisan
committee under any of the following circumstances:

              

1. The difference in ballots cast for the candidates for any position is
ten or less votes or one-half of one percent of the ballots cast for
such position, whichever shall be greater. The cost of the recanvass
shall be paid by the jurisdiction conducting the recanvass.

2. A losing candidate requests a recanvass of the votes cast for the
position he or she ran for. Such recanvass shall be conducted at the
requesting candidate's expense; provided however, that if upon the
recanvass, the requesting candidate is found to be the winner of the
race, the cost of the recanvass shall be paid by the jurisdiction
conducting the recanvass.

3. Upon the original recanvass of the results of a referendum or propo-
sition, and prior to the certification of the final vote, any voter
eligible to vote on the ballot question, in a county, school district or
municipal election may initiate a recanvass of the paper ballots when
(a) the difference between the approval votes and disapproval votes on a
question is less than one-half of one percent of the total number of
votes cast, in which case such recanvass shall be at the expense of the
jurisdiction conducting the recanvass; or (b) the difference between the
approval votes and the disapproval votes on a question is more than
one-half of one percent of the number of votes cast, by submitting a
petition including signatures from twenty-five voters eligible to have
voted on the referendum or proposition, in which case such recanvass
shall be conducted at the requesting voter's expense; provided however,
that if upon the recanvass, the results of the referendum or proposition
is reversed the cost of the recanvass shall be paid by the jurisdiction
conducting the recanvass.

4. A request for a recanvass pursuant to the terms of this subdivision
shall be made within five days of the completion of the original recan-
vass.

Section 2 is the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:


Free and fair elections are the foundation of our democracy. It is
essential the voices of voters be heard above all else and that election
results achieve the goal of electing candidates for office chosen by the
voters.

This legislation will support this goal by providing for automatic
recounts of votes in close elections; candidate initiated recounts; and
voter initiated recounts for referendum and proposition votes.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the fundamental right
to vote includes the right to have votes counted as they were cast, and
correctly reported in the final tally (see e.g., Reynolds v.  Sims, 377
U.S. 533, 554-55 (1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208 (1962); United
States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 (1941); Gray v.  Sanders, 372 U.S.
366, 380 (1963)). Therefore, it is important that the election law be
amended to provide for recounts in the instances set forth in this bill.

The accuracy and integrity of the electoral process is an ever growing
problem. In 2000, the United States struggled with this problem at the
national level. This election, which culminated in the U.S.  Supreme
Court deciding the winner of Florida's electoral votes and thus the
presidency, was a source of great controversy. In its wake, many Ameri-
cans called for election reform.

Close and contested elections have also been a controversial issue in
New York. The State has no current provisions for an automatic hand
recount for close statewide elections or for candidate or voter initi-
ated recounts.

The lack of recount laws in New York State is particularly concerning
considering the problems inherent with electronic voting systems.  This
has been highlighted by the revelation that the Russian government
interfered with our election for President of the United States. The
problem of foreign interference in our nation's elections has undermined
the integrity and confidence in elections.

Under New York State's audit law, after each general or special
election, the State manually - but randomly - audits a mere 3% of the
voting machines or systems (electronic ballot scanners) in each county.
Such an audit is unlikely to discover or correct vote count errors that
could have changed the outcomes of close elections.

Finally, while Election Law 5 16-113 provides for a court ordered hand
count, a requesting candidate is required to show a "likelihood of a
material discrepancy ... which creates a substantial possibility" that
the winner of the contest may change if a full hand count were
conducted. This is a difficult burden to meet and in most cases, the
courts have denied the candidates requests for hand counts of paper
ballots.

We must ensure that elections are fair, free of unlawful influence and
properly reflect the vote of the public. This bill will help achieve
this important goal.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

New bill

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:

To be determined.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to elections
conducted on or after such effective date. Effective immediately, the
addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary
for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized
to be made and completed on or before such effective date.