Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Voter Notices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate elections panel advances bill on voter notices after debate over wording and recipients
Summary
The Senate Elections Committee on May 28 advanced a bill by Senator Rivera that would require additional notices related to voter status and polling-place changes in New York City; committee members raised concerns about wording on closed primaries, whether challengers would receive notices, and the cost of multiple mailings and calls.
The Senate Elections Committee, chaired by Senator Christine Gonzalez, on May 28 voted to report a bill by Senator Rivera to the Senate with one recorded no vote after members debated how the measure describes closed primaries and which people and offices should receive notice of polling-place and voter-status changes.
Senator Wilson read the measure into the record as "Senate bill 3 5 9 6 8 acts to amend the election law in relation to notifying voters" and committee members then discussed the bill's text and operational impacts. Senator Gonzalez presided over the hearing.
A committee member objected to the bill's current language describing a "closed primary," saying the phrasing is redundant with existing law and may not make the practical effect clear to an average voter. "I'm not sure that the average voter knows what that directly translates to," the member said, recommending clearer language such as stating that a voter must be enrolled in a party to vote in that party's primary unless the party permits otherwise.
Other senators raised concerns that the bill as drafted would require notices only to incumbent senators and assembly members, creating an uneven advantage over challengers. The senator who raised that point recommended expanding required notifications to party chairs so campaigns and non-incumbent candidates could be informed by those offices; committee discussion noted that public postings and local board of elections notices already exist but said the bill aims to ensure elected officials also receive direct notice.
Committee members also queried how the bill would handle voters who are deceased, inactive, or have mail forwarding in place. One senator described a scenario where a voter who has moved but is still eligible might be treated as inactive and could be removed from the rolls unless multiple notices reach them. Committee members noted the bill proposes multiple forms of contact — mailings and phone calls — and expressed concern about the financial and operational burden on local boards of elections of sending up to four notices and making outreach phone calls.
After discussion, the committee voted to report the bill to the Senate for reading. The committee recorded one "no" vote and the motion carried.
The committee directed staff and interested senators to follow up with the bill's prime sponsor for possible clarifying language and to consider expanding the list of required notice recipients.
The panel concluded the item and moved on to other bills on the agenda.
