October 30, 2003

Open Letter on the New York State November 4 General Election

Dear Friends,

The big news of the 2003 electoral season to date is the Terminator’s takeover in California. Does Arnold’s election as governor herald the delivery of the nation’s most populous state to Bush in 2004 and a countrywide political shift to the right? We don’t think so. Despite drives to get out the Democratic vote, working people refused to throng to the polls to keep an anti-union governor. Who could be worse, many thought, than Gray Davis, who presided over the biggest consumer energy rip-off in human history?

The real message of the California recall is that people are fed up with incumbents, ready for change, and desperate to break out of the status quo. When there’s a vacuum of leadership from labor and the left, the door is open to rightwingers and pop icons like Schwartzenegger.

It’s time for us to start serious strategizing for 2004. The Republicans and Democrats are already on the move. Even as Bush’s approval ratings are plummeting, his party is on overdrive to amass the largest campaign war chest in history. In our age of 100 million dollar media campaigns, the big money usually wins.

So what can we expect from the Democrats, corporate America’s choice of second resort for the presidency? Not much. They haven’t shown ANY significant resistance to Bush’s patriotic war hysteria. The Democrats’ current leading contender is a "peace candidate" in the form of a four-star general. Clark, according to his own new book, knew that the invasion of Iraq was in the works several years prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, yet somehow failed to mention this fact during his many appearances on TV in the lead up to the invasion. His candidacy is proof in itself that the "anyone but Bush" strategy of electoral lesser-evilism is a dead end defeat for working people.

The partisan line between Democrats and Republicans is blurred to the point of non-existence. Both are beholden to Big Business. What we need are candidates who place the blame for the major problems of the day—unemployment, poverty, racism and sexism—squarely on the ruthlessly exploitative nature of the for-profit system.

Those eager for real change and real peace need to start working together now to develop anti-capitalist platforms for local, state and national campaigns in 2004. We need to be ready with a pro-humanity alternative—a united left electoral slate with candidates from city to national levels. Now more than ever we need to provide a way for ballot-casters to say "No more!" to both "business-as-usual" parties, express clear opposition to the capitalist system, and vote Socialist. Only by endorsing a clearly anti-capitalist program can we truly register our disapproval with the candidates of both incumbent parties.

This year in New York, unfortunately, we have no socialist options on the ballot. There are two Green Party candidates running for city council in NYC who raise many good issues: attacks on civil liberties, electoral reform, the costs of war, universal health care, and the threat of global warming. But they don’t link these issues to the fabric of U.S. capitalism. We need much more than what the Green Party is offering. We need bold leadership willing to make a total break with the system run by Wall Street and Washington, D.C.

Despite the absence of left candidates, there are several proposals on the ballot that deserve attention. Voters will have their say on two state-wide issues and four New York City Charter revisions: two in particular are hotly contested and well worth a trip to the ballot box.

 

Statewide Ballot Issues

State Proposal #1—Constitutional Amendment extending for 10 years

the authority of communities to exclude construction/reconstruction

of sewage facilities from their constitutional limits of indebtedness NO POSITION

This action would allow communities in New York to go more deeply into debt if voters decide to build new or better sewer systems. In New York, debt limits are set by the constitution, so the proposals take the form of constitutional amendments. In general, we support voters being able to extend debt as needed on a case-by-case basis, but we’ve found it impossible, as of this date, to get enough information on the background to know what’s behind this particular proposal. No doubt new construction is needed in some areas, but rather than local government going deeper in debt, how about making Big Business pay its share to support the infrastructure? For decades, corporate taxes have been making a shrinking contribution to the state budget. Without more information, we can’t give you a solid steer on Proposal #1.

State Proposal #2—Constitutional Amendment to allow school

districts in cities under 125,000 inhabitants to be eliminated from

general constitutional debt limitation VOTE YES

New York State United Teachers and other unions back this constitutional amendment to allow small city school districts to raise their debt limit from 5% to 10% (which is what larger districts are allowed). Increased borrowing will be referred to local voters by referendum. We believe this could help improve quality of public schools, so urge a YES vote. At the same time, we call for adequate income from the regular budget and increased state and federal support to fully fund education without driving local communities into deeper debt.

 

New York City Ballot Questions

NYC voters are offered 4 revisions to the City Charter. Mayor Bloomberg’s Charter Commission formulated questions #3, 4 and 5 and the final Question #6 is an initiative won by a coalition spearheaded by the United Federation of Teachers.

Question #3—City Elections VOTE NO

If enacted, this measure would make city offices and council positions "nonpartisan," meaning the candidates wouldn’t have to identify themselves as a member of a particular party. In the current system, only registered Democrats (as an example) vote in the primary for which candidate will represent the Democratic Party in the general election. All parties’ candidates, including independents and minority parties like the FSP, appear on the November ballot.

In the new format, all candidates would be in the primary, and only the top two vote-getters would go on to the general election. Republicans are big supporters because they believe multiple Democratic candidates will split votes, allowing the Republicans more leverage against the dominant Democratic Party machine. To sell this measure to voters, the Charter Commission and its backers are promoting it as a blow for democracy and claim that cities with nonpartisan elections vote in more women and people of color.

Opponents, however, contest this, and we think their argument that the new system would favor wealthy campaigners and disadvantage poor people and ethnic minorities is right. What the new system would mean in practice is that come the general November election, we’d have only two "choices," and in most cases, this would mean the best-funded, big-name candidates. Socialist, anti-capitalist candidates would, at this stage, virtually all be iced out in the primaries and have far less opportunity to reach voters with their messages of a genuine alternative.

Are the Mayor and his commission truly concerned about electoral democracy? Then how about taking some real steps? Make the ballot more accessible to independents and third party candidates. Don’t require parties with minority views, who’ve been subjected to witch hunts in the past, to turn over names of their individual, small contributors while corporations and the wealthy freely finance their agents. Enact proportional representation. Instead of "winner take all," if a minority socialist party wins the support of 10% of the city’s voters, then 10% of the new city council is socialist! These are changes that would make a real difference.

We join with many labor unions and "good government" organizations in recommending a NO vote on Question #3.

Question #4: City Purchasing VOTE NO

This proposal would take controls on city purchasing—which function as an anti-corruption measure and control on the Mayor’s office—and centralize more decision-making power in city government. The Charter Commission has dressed it up a bit by including a component "to provide for citywide coordination to enhance opportunities for small businesses and minority- and women-owned businesses," though it’s not at all clear how or whether it would do so. Further, it allows the city to circumvent usual procedures like competitive bidding in the name of a "security risk." We think this measure puts too much additional power in the hands of the mayor and his appointees. We also agree with other critics it’s had far too little public discussion to understand its full impact, so oppose its implementation.

Question #5: Government Administration VOTE NO

Like the previous item, this measure would give the Mayor more power. In this case, the Mayor would be allowed to determine the regulations for administrative law judges—the people who run hearings on things like unemployment, contested benefits and summonses. It would also replace the current 16-member Voter Assistance Commission with one for which the Mayor appoints 5 of the 7 positions, and eliminate one of the annual reports currently required of the Mayor’s office. Does the Mayor’s Office need more power and less accountability? Vote NO.

Question #6—Limiting Classroom Size VOTE YES

Representing a coalition of educators, parents and community activists, Randi Weingarten of the United Federation of Teachers presented a petition with 115,000 signatures calling for a charter revision aimed at limiting classroom size. If passed, a commission will be set up to study and make recommendations for specific measures and size limits that would be put on the ballot in 2005.

Supporters have had to fight a pitched battle to give us the opportunity to vote for better school conditions. The City Clerk, acting at the behest of self-defined Education Czar Bloomberg, refused to put it on the ballot, citing a rule used to block citizen initiatives in the past that no other proposals can be placed on a ballot that contains a mayor’s proposals for city charter revisions. State Supreme Court Justice Louse Gruner Gans called this "bumping" measure a violation of voters’ constitutional rights, and ordered the question to go the voters on November 4. We support this hard-won grassroots initiative as a significant and much-needed step toward improving NYC public schools.

* * *

Even with no socialist alternatives on this ballot, the questions referred to voters this year give good reason to go to the polls.

If you’d like to discuss these electoral proposals, brainstorm for action in 2004, or talk about any other issues, call me at 212-222-0633. Or come by Freedom Hall to visit our bookstore or participate in any of our events.

In solidarity

Stephen Durham
NYC Organizer
Freedom Socialist Party