NYC Ballot Initiative Update

[LashL]

This would mean that if the signer changed addresses, the signature would no longer be valid the following year because the registered voter list would no longer show that name at the address filled in on the petition.

Not necessarily. There is case law that says otherwise. For instance:

Respondent finally argues that Supreme Court improperly validated signatures where the address listed on the petition did not match the address on file with the Board of Elections. In this regard, our review of the record confirms that each of these signers is a registered voter in the City of Albany, and although each address on the voter registration record provided by the Board of Elections differs from that on the petition for each signer, both are City of Albany addresses. In these circumstances, Supreme Court did not err in finding these signatures valid (see Matter of Robelotto v Burch, 242 AD2d 397 [1997]).

Bray v. Albany

The published laws don't cover every detail; that's one reason the courts are so busy.

Thank goodness.

 

[LashL]

Take another look. I definitely saw a space for the date for both the signer and the witness.

My apologies - I missed it in my haste to surf away from that site.

 

[Alt+F4]

My apologies - I missed it in my haste to surf away from that site.

I would think the City Council would throw out any signatures gathered before November 4, 2008 since how could a voter be qualified in the last general election if they signed before the election even took place!

Of course these are just my observations as a civilian. What do you think LashL?

 

[Myriad]

Not necessarily. There is case law that says otherwise. For instance:

Bray v. Albany

Ah, an excellent example of what I was saying before. The law stipulates something, the bureaucracy creates procedures for putting the law into effect (in this case, comparing the signed address with certain voter registration records), but the procedure is not equal to the law and any differences are challenged and resolved in court.

There appear to be two different time-related issues regarding 2008 signatures on ballot initiative petitions filed in 2009.

1. If the signer was not an NYC registered voter at the time of signing, then he or she has made a false assertion in signing the petition and the signature can be discarded on that basis.

2. If the signer was not an NYC registered voter in the last general election prior to the petitions' filing, then that person is not a qualified elector as defined by the law on ballot initiative petitions and the signature can be discarded on that basis.

I doubt the city council will be very concerned about possibility number 1, as the number of signatures that would fail #1 while passing #2 would be relatively small. But if necessary, both possibilities can be checked. Or if the first one can't be checked because previous years' voter registration lists get shredded for some reason, then it would still be the city's burden of proof to show that a signed and witnessed petition from a person who's been proven to have met the test specified by law (that is, was an NYC registered voter in the last general election) for being a qualified elector should be discarded based on a mere unverified possibility that they might have signed falsely.

I'm no fan of the truthers' cause, but I'm even less fond of disenfranchising voters for bureaucratic convenience.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

I think I see Alt-F4's point about the word "qualified" on the petition language, though I'm still uncertain about the interpretation of it.

I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of and a registered and qualified voter in New York City, that my
present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby sign this Petition..

If you read the word "qualified" as meaning "qualified to endorse this particular petition under the terms of SS37 for the date that this petition will eventually be filed," then no signer could ever be certain the statement was true, as it's contingent on future events. But if "qualified" just means qualified to be a registered voter, as in, not fraudulently or mistakenly registered, then it's not an issue.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[LashL]

I would think the City Council would throw out any signatures gathered before November 4, 2008 since how could a voter be qualified in the last general election if they signed before the election even took place!

Of course these are just my observations as a civilian. What do you think LashL?

I do not agree, for the reasons set out in my previous post (except for my error about the date of the signatures not being on the petition).

The signatories are asserting that they are qualified voters at the time they signed the petition, but they are not asserting that they will still be so at some future date (e.g. the date that the petition gets filed - since they have no idea when the petition will be filed, and there are numerous reasons why they may not be qualified voters at that future date such as death, move out of state, incarceration, etc.) and the statute makes no reference to a time period in which the signatures must be gathered.

It is the statute that sets out the "deeming provisions" for purposes of establishing whether the signatories are "qualified electors" at the first stage of the authentication process and it is the statute that uses an arbitrary date (the last general election prior to the filing) to do so.

These are two separate matters and, as I read it, the date of signing is not relevant to the deeming provisions. (Although, as Myriad pointed out above, there could conceivably be highly unusual circumstances that could make the signing date relevant.)

The law stipulates something, the bureaucracy creates procedures for putting the law into effect (in this case, comparing the signed address with certain voter registration records), but the procedure is not equal to the law and any differences are challenged and resolved in court.

Exactly. It's all about judicial interpretation of the statutes.

There appear to be two different time-related issues regarding 2008 signatures on ballot initiative petitions filed in 2009.

1. If the signer was not an NYC registered voter at the time of signing, then he or she has made a false assertion in signing the petition and the signature can be discarded on that basis.

2. If the signer was not an NYC registered voter in the last general election prior to the petitions' filing, then that person is not a qualified elector as defined by the law on ballot initiative petitions and the signature can be discarded on that basis.

I doubt the city council will be very concerned about possibility number 1, as the number of signatures that would fail #1 while passing #2 would be relatively small. But if necessary, both possibilities can be checked. Or if the first one can't be checked because previous years' voter registration lists get shredded for some reason, then it would still be the city's burden of proof to show that a signed and witnessed petition from a person who's been proven to have met the test specified by law (that is, was an NYC registered voter in the last general election) for being a qualified elector should be discarded based on a mere unverified possibility that they might have signed falsely.

Yes, the way I see it, the statute sets out a process for authenticating signatures, in aid of bureaucratic expedience (i.e. by checking the names against only the voter list from the most recent general election prior to the filing of the petition rather than checking multiple sources, prior lists, etc.), but it is only the first step in the process for validating or rejecting a submitted petition, and the results can be challenged (as demonstrated in the case law cited previously, and there are also other provisions in the statute for other types of challenges).

I'm no fan of the truthers' cause, but I'm even less fond of disenfranchising voters for bureaucratic convenience.

Agreed, entirely.

 

[LashL]

If you read the word "qualified" as meaning "qualified to endorse this particular petition under the terms of SS37 for the date that this petition will eventually be filed," then no signer could ever be certain the statement was true, as it's contingent on future events. But if "qualified" just means qualified to be a registered voter, as in, not fraudulently or mistakenly registered, then it's not an issue.

Agreed. And you said it much more succinctly than I did.

 

[Thunder]

Ok, so it looks like these guys got 30,000 signatures and are going to bring it to the City Council for a vote. Ofcourse the Counsil will vote it down, but then they only need 15,000 more signatures and boom...its on the 2009 ballot!!

This is very concerning. I will be personally very very offended to see anything having to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories on my election ballot next November.

Even more concerning is that if it does get on the ballot it WILL PASS if the majority of people who vote on it....vote for it. If even only 1,000 people vote on the measure, if 501 people say yes..then it becomes law.

Can this ballot initiative force the NYPD or the Manhattan D.A.'s office to open an investigation into 9-11?

 

[jhunter1163]

Ok, so it looks like these guys got 30,000 signatures and are going to bring it to the City Council for a vote. Ofcourse the Counsil will vote it down, but then they only need 15,000 more signatures and boom...its on the 2009 ballot!!

This is very concerning. I will be personally very very offended to see anything having to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories on my election ballot next November.

Even more concerning is that if it does get on the ballot it WILL PASS if the majority of people who vote on it....vote for it. If even only 1,000 people vote on the measure, if 501 people say yes..then it becomes law.

Can this ballot initiative force the NYPD or the Manhattan D.A.'s office to open an investigation into 9-11?

I don't think so. It's my understanding that, even if the signatures are validated and they somehow manage to get this on the ballot, the initiative specifies that no public funding will be involved. Where the money would come from is anyone's guess, but not from NYC taxpayers.

 

[Thunder]

the website claims that they have commitments of several million dollars. whether or not this is true...is anyone's guess.

 

[nicepants]

Ok, so it looks like these guys got 30,000 signatures and are going to bring it to the City Council for a vote. Ofcourse the Counsil will vote it down, but then they only need 15,000 more signatures and boom...its on the 2009 ballot!!

I'm shocked that they actually got 30,000 signatures. I assume these have not yet been verified? I bet most of these people didn't realize what they were signing.

I don't really care if they do another investigation as long as there is no public funding involved. After all...that would mean it's no longer "independent"...wouldn't it? ;-)

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm shocked that they actually got 30,000 signatures. I assume these have not yet been verified? I bet most of these people didn't realize what they were signing.

That's the thing. The petition's wording isn't overtly twoofy.

http://www.nyc911initiative.org/instructions.htm

---

Petition to Create a NYC Independent Commission with Subpoena Power to Conduct a
Comprehensive and Fact-Driven Investigation of All Relevant Aspects of the Tragic Events of
September 11, 2001 And Issue a Report.
WHEREAS, many New York City voters believe that there remain many unanswered questions critical to establishing the truth
about all relevant events leading up to, during and subsequent to the tragic attacks occurring on September 11, 2001 (“9/11”), and
WHEREAS, no prior investigation by any New York City agency or any other governmental entity has resulted in the citizens
being provided with those critical answers or information necessary to establish the truth about those tragic events, and
WHEREAS, New York City and its citizens, residents, workers, homeowners and businesses have been injured far greater than
any other city or area in the United States.

[snip signature/address/witness fields]

[Page 2 of the Petition]
THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY DESIRED AND APPROVED AS AN INITIATIVE FOR ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW
TO AMEND THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER, TO BE PRESENTED TO VOTERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AT
A GENERAL ELECTION OF VOTERS:
1. The title of this local law is “Act to Create a Temporary Independent Commission to Investigate 9/11”.
2. An independent, temporary New York City commission (the “Commission”) is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, factdriven
investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the
attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following
wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings.
3. The Commission shall include Dr. William Pepper (international attorney and author), Lorie Van Auken (9/11 widow,
representative of 9/11 victims families), Dr. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut), Lincoln Chafee (former U.S. Senator), Mike
Gravel (former U.S. Senator), Ed Asner (actor/activist), Ralph Schoenman (political scientist), Thomas Gumbleton (Roman Catholic
Bishop), and others to be appointed by majority vote of the Commission members to bring the Commission up to as many as 15
members, and to fill any vacancies thereafter from nominees proposed by any member of the Commission. The Commission shall
have a duty to maintain the number of Commissioners at no less than nine and to fill vacancies promptly.
4. The Commission shall act by majority vote, adopt its own Rules of Procedure and shall choose its Chairman, Vice Chairman,
Treasurer and Secretary.
5. The Commission shall have the power to place witnesses under oath, issue subpoenas for documents and testimony, take and record
testimony, and to apply to the appropriate federal, state, out-of-state or foreign courts for the issuance of subpoenas, Letters Rogatory,
or Applications for Mutual Assistance, for service upon persons, corporations, agencies or other entities beyond the subpoena power
granted to the Commission.
6. The Commission shall have authority to act up to a maximum period of 5 years from the date of their creation by the voters of New
York City unless delayed by legal or administrative procedure, in which case the investigation shall continue until matters are
resolved.
7. The Commission shall have a budget not to exceed $10,000,000 per year for the conduct of its investigation and related activities.
Financing shall be entirely drawn from private contributions. No public funds shall be requested or accepted. Four prominent citizens
have pledged substantial matching fund contributions. In addition, pledges of specific contributions from wealthy private individuals
are being obtained with payment subject to enactment of the Initiative by the voters of New York City. A substantial five figure seed
money fund has been established as of January 2008, and a world wide internet fund raising campaign has been launched. Celebrity
parties, concerts and other fund raising events and activities are also being planned to take place throughout the months of the Petition
drive. Cumulatively, these sources will provide for the funding of the investigation. The work of the Commission will commence upon
the expected realization of the full funds specified in our anticipated budget.
8. Commission disbursements shall require the signatures of at least two Commissioners serving under the Treasurer on the
Commission’s Finance Committee which shall consist of a total of three Commissioners appointed by the Commission. The
Commission’s finances and accounts shall be audited each year by an independent public accounting firm appointed by the
Commission.
9. The Commission will also endeavor to consider the effects of the 9/11 attacks on the health and well being of police, firefighters,
the enormous numbers of other first responders, local residents and others affected, and examine ways and means of alleviating the
health care crisis which afflicts many of the above through the enforcement of their right to health care services and compensation.
10. As a law-enforcement agency, the Commission shall have the right not to publicly disclose activities of a secret or confidential
nature and shall have the duty of recording the taking of testimony by film or video, and the duty of providing an opportunity for CSPAN
and other television networks, stations and programs to broadcast Commission proceedings on a live or other basis.
11. Each Commissioner shall be paid a base annual salary of $100,000, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses actually
incurred on behalf of the Commission, lodging, and transportation expenses to and from a Commissioner’s residence outside of New
York City.
12. Commissioners may come from any part of the world and shall not be required to maintain a residence in New York State.
13. The Commissioners are not required to devote 100% or substantially all of their time to the work of the Commission and it is
expected that Commissioners will be able to continue with non-conflicting activities.
14. The Commission by a majority vote shall have the right, to seek indictments in any relevant Court located in the City of New
York, or elsewhere and, at its discretion, to work with existing prosecutorial agencies or to seek the appointment of a special
prosecutor under Section 701 of the New York County Law.
15. The Commission as a temporary investigative office of New York City shall during its lifetime enjoy the same immunities,
privileges and prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors.
16. No New York City employee, past or present, shall have the right to avoid testifying before the Commission based on any prior
agreements not to disclose or testify with any officials or agencies of New York City or other governmental agency; the Commission
has the power to maintain secrecy and confidentiality of testimony or other disclosures where appropriate.
_____________________________________
(Name)

[Page 3 of the Petition]
17. The Commission shall have the power to hire and fire clerical and other employees, attorneys, accountants, paralegals, experts,
consultants and others in performance of their respective duties.
18. The Commission shall have the power to enter into contracts; and to create and enforce its rules.
19. This law shall be construed liberally to enable the Commission to conduct an independent investigation into 9/11, and issue one or
more reports on the Commission’s investigation, and create one or more websites to provide public information about the work of the
Commission.
20. If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner
affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.

Additional information about this Petition, the Initiative Process, the individuals involved, and copies for download are available at
www.nyc911initiative.org.


--------------------

 

[PhantomWolf]

I really have no issue with another investigation. I believe it is a waste of time and money, but as long as those investigating the matter are actually trained in the areas they are investigating rather than in philosphy or religon, the result is going to be the same as the last investigations.

eta: I would point out that while I don't think the US Taxpayer should pay for any more investigations, of course I'm not one, so doesn't bother me one way or the other to be honest

 

[Baylor]

I really have no issue with another investigation. I believe it is a waste of time and money, but as long as those investigating the matter are actually trained in the areas they are investigating rather than in philosphy or religon, the result is going to be the same as the last investigations.

eta: I would point out that while I don't think the US Taxpayer should pay for any more investigations, of course I'm not one, so doesn't bother me one way or the other to be honest

I have to ask you this question, since I get no response when I ask truthers: An investigation of what? What made the towers collapse? What hit the twin towers? What hit the pentagon? If the 9/11 footage was photoshopped?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have to ask you this question, since I get no response when I ask truthers: An investigation of what? What made the towers collapse? What hit the twin towers? What hit the pentagon? If the 9/11 footage was photoshopped?

Well the problem here is what I'd do and what a Truther would want are too different things. I'd pretty much follow along the lines of the original Commission, but instead of focusing on how it happened and how to change things to prevent another one, focus more on what actually happened. Of course it's a little like the HSCA investigation repeating the Warren Commission, but hey.....

 

[johnny karate]

I have no problem with a new investigation either. However, I really don't believe the Truth Movement will actually get one off the ground. And if they do, it will end in one of two ways: Either confirming previous investigations, in which case nothing constructive will be achieved, or confirming the beliefs of the Truth Movement that the world is already ignoring, in which case nothing constructive will be achieved.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I have no problem with a new investigation either. However, I really don't believe the Truth Movement will actually get one off the ground. And if they do, it will end in one of two ways: Either confirming previous investigations, in which case nothing constructive will be achieved, or confirming the beliefs of the Truth Movement that the world is already ignoring, in which case nothing constructive will be achieved.

Or maybe the commission will be a whitewash due to typical twoofer infighting.

 

[Hokulele]

I have to ask you this question, since I get no response when I ask truthers: An investigation of what? What made the towers collapse? What hit the twin towers? What hit the pentagon? If the 9/11 footage was photoshopped?

I agree with what has been said already, especially the bit about the funds not coming from the taxpayers, but if I were in charge of setting up a new investigation (perish the thought!), I would be looking into lapses on the side of INS as well as the communication breakdown during the events. Of course, much of that has already been documented and revisions suggested, but a single, cohesive, emergency response procedure is still a bit of a fantasy. See the Katrina response for a post-9/11 example. I do believe there are still lessons to be learned, especially for domestic threats with overseas roots, but not much from a physical sciences perspective (tower collapse, etc.). There are enough other engineering schools and organizations focusing on those issues.

[/$0.02]

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

One of (many) problems with the first 9/11 commission investigation was that they seemed more focused on who was not responsible or liable for letting the 9/11 attacks happen in the first place then they were with how they happened and who was ultimately responsible other then 19 individuals that have still not been positively identified supposedly following a leader who is still at large.

It was setup to get people off the hook not on it.

 

[johnny karate]

One of (many) problems with the first 9/11 commission investigation was that they seemed more focused on who was not responsible or liable for letting the 9/11 attacks happen in the first place then they were with how they happened and who was ultimately responsible other then 19 individuals that have still not been positively identified supposedly following a leader who is still at large.

It was setup to get people off the hook not on it.

Awesome. Then you better get crackin' on that new investigation so we can find out what really happened.

We're all anxiously waiting.