Opinion

In New York, low voter turnout is by design

ALBANY, N.Y. _ There's a line from the 1990 movie "Slacker" that often returns to me on Election Day: "Withdrawing in disgust is not the same thing as apathy."

Posted Updated

By
CHRIS CHURCHILL
, Albany Times

ALBANY, N.Y. _ There's a line from the 1990 movie "Slacker" that often returns to me on Election Day: "Withdrawing in disgust is not the same thing as apathy."

It is a reminder that it isn't always disinterest that keeps people from voting. Many are convinced, with good reason, that their votes change nothing and that the process is rigged to the benefit of those who hold power.

Infrequent voters are often made to feel guilty, but the blame for paltry turnout shouldn't be directed at their choice. It is much more the fault of a broken system that convinces people the fix is in.

Nowhere is that more true than in New York.

Election rules in this supposedly progressive and forward-thinking state remain among the most restrictive and regressive in the country. As much of the rest of the country has advanced reforms designed to increase participation, the rules here are designed to reward banal insiders, incumbents especially, and discourage fresh-thinking outsiders and voter enthusiasm.

Consider that a voter who wasn't already a registered Democrat needed to change their registration last October to vote in Thursday's party primary. That means unaffiliated voters inspired by Cynthia Nixon's challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo would have needed to change their registration long before Nixon was even a candidate.

You can bet the governor prefers it that way.

The deadline _ by far the nation's earliest _ will keep Nixon's wife, education activist Christine Marinoni, from voting in the primary. Two years ago, it similarly kept Eric and Ivanka Trump from registering as Republicans to cast primary votes for their father.

Want more? Consider that New York is one of just 14 states that entirely closes its primaries to nonparty members. There is no same-day registration here, unlike in many states. Nor is it one of the states with automatic registration.

New York is among 13 states without early voting. It is also the only state to hold two primaries this year _ one for federal races, another for state contests _ instead of making things easier for voters by combining them into a single day. "If you wanted to design a system whose goal was to decrease voter participation, insulate incumbents and encourage corruption and nepotism, you could not design a better system that what New York has," said John Opdycke, president of Open Primaries, a New York City-based advocacy group.

Lo and behold, New York has grim and declining rates of voter participation.

In 2012, no state had less voter participation among qualified (but not necessarily registered) voters in the primary, and only six states had less in the general election, according to data from the United States Election Project.

In 2014, 29 percent of qualified New Yorkers participated in the general election. Only Indiana had a lower percentage.

In 2016, 21 percent voted in the primaries, again among the nation's worst, and 57 percent came out for the general election, the sixth-lowest percentage.

And corruption, you say? It isn't necessary to spend time detailing the long list of scandals and convictions that have tarnished Albany in recent years. We all understand that corruption is a devastating stain on state government.

What's interesting about New York's voter restrictions is that hardly anybody tries to defend them. Everybody with even half a brain realizes they are not only archaic, but detrimental to democracy. And yet, despite call after call for reform _ including changes proposed by the governor _ nothing ever changes.

Now why could that be?

"It's all about what's best for the two political parties," said Susan Lerner, executive director of the watchdog group Common Cause New York. "They have no concern for the voter."

I asked Lerner if the parties aren't ultimately hurting themselves by limiting the number of people who enroll in them. After all, ahead of the presidential primary, many independent voters would have joined to vote for Trump or Bernie Sanders, had they been allowed.

"What makes you think they want to get bigger?" Lerner asked. "The parties function as aggregators of money for the protection of incumbents. They don't need a lot of people for that; they just need to control how many people have access to the vote."

In other words, the people who don't vote because they think the system is rigged to protect the powerful are not wrong. Their decision can be justified.

The problem, though, is that when too many people withdraw in disgust, the rules that protect the status quo are guaranteed to remain in place.

Nothing changes, which causes other potential voters to give up and walk away.

It's a vicious cycle, really, that incumbents have no reason to break.

Contact columnist Chris Churchill at 518-454-5442 or email cchurchill(at)timesunion.com

Copyright 2024 Albany Times Union. All rights reserved