92AD: Absentee Ballots and a possible State Assembly rule violation

I.  Absentee Ballot Applications in 92AD

The absentee ballot applications for the June 28th Democratic Primary of the 92nd Assembly District are final now and are as follows, broken down by town/city: 

The absentee ballot application distribution is the same as the total registered Democratic voter percentages among the three town/cities of 92AD.  Among the Mount Pleasant applications, 108 of 311 (35%) originate from the Kendal on Hudson senior living facility. From Greenburgh, 74 come from the Grasslands Roads senior facilities (The Knolls and The Grove).  So good job by whichever campaign (almost certainly Abinanti) worked those facilities to get those applications sent. 

Because the 92AD borders are new, and the last assembly primary in 2020 was unique with extraordinarily high turnout, we don't have a direct comparison from previous years to measure the absentee ballot "turnout"  in this campaign.   We do have a roughly comparable local race, however, with last year's Greenburgh town supervisor primary (taking out Edgemont which is no longer part of 92AD).  Here are the comparisons listed by zip code for Greenburgh for absentee applications in 2021 for Town Supervisor and 2022 for 92AD.   

Overall absentee ballot applications for the upcoming primary (both assembly and governor) are down 21% in Greenburgh (non-Edgemont) from the 2021 Supervisor primary. Some of this drop can be attributed to receding concerns about COVID as in impediment to in-person voting along with growing awareness of early voting.  We can also see variations among the town zip codes reflected above with the biggest drop (-28%) in absentee applications in the White Plains 10603 and 10607 zip codes, which is double the decrease in Hastings-on-Hudson (-14%).  Valhalla (10595) had the smallest decrease at just -5%, but as nearly all the Valhalla applications come from the Grasslands Road senior facilities, that number could be expected to be reasonably consistent.   

Note in the 2021 town Supervisor primary only 445 of 1120 (40%) of Greenburgh absentee applicants actually returned their absentee ballots.

II. The Abinanti Robocal that likely violated State Assembly rules for members.

Some 92AD residents received a robocall from Tom Abinanti at 6:00pm (dinnertime!)  on June. 14th.  The originating number, identified on my landline as "Bedford," came from 914-867-3846. You can hear the call at this link..  Introducing himself three times as "your state Assemblyman Tom Abinanti" over the course of the 50 second call, Abinanti made no reference to his campaign and spoke only about an upcoming meeting in Tarrytown addressing Medicare rights.  

If this robocall was in fact not campaign related, but instead an assembly-office funded constituent communication, the call almost certainly violated Assembly members rules.   First, read the following New York State Assembly Rules of Members Rule V regarding black out rules that apply to assembly-funded communications thirty (30) days prior to a primary.

§ 10. Use of legislative printing, mail and mass communication facilities.

1. The use of legislative printing and mail facilities for newsletters and other forms of mass mailings which bear the name or likeness of a candidate in a local, special, primary or general election shall be prohibited within thirty days of such local, special, or primary election and be prohibited within sixty days of such general election. Members may not utilize other forms of Assembly-funded mass communication media during such thirty day and sixty day periods, respectively.
2. The Assembly shall maintain a file containing a copy of each newsletter provided by Assembly facilities which file shall be available to the public.
3. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to all communications addressed to the geographic area in which the member is running for election.  (emphasis added)

Clearly 10(a) prohibits assembly-funded mailers within 30 days of a primary. While Abinanti has issued numerous assembly office-funded mailers over the previous months, he has not sent any such mailers (that I'm aware of) since the beginning of the black out period on May 28, 2022.  

What about this robocall?  Again, the robocall addressed only a specific issue for the information of constituents: a medicare rights meeting that Abinanti (quite strategically) was co-hosting 10 days before the primary.   At no time is the call identified as a coming from Abinanti's campaign or is it described as paid for by his campaign. Until Abinanti informs us otherwise, there is no reason to assume that the robocall was affiliated with his campaign in any way.

So who funded this robocall?  I don't see any expenses listed in Abinanti's campaign financial disclosures itemized through June 13th that are obviously related to robocalls. If it wasn't the Abinanti campaign fund or outside campaign supporters, then the robocall might have funded through assembly funding available mass communications with constituents.  If this conclusion is wrong, I'll be happy to correct it. 

 

Is an assembly office mass communication taking the form of a robocall subject to the same blackout rule as assembly office mailings? The second sentence of 10(a) taken together with 10(c), while not explicitly citing robocalls, clearly states that all "forms of assembly-funded mass communication media" as well as "all communications addressed to the geographic area in which the member is running for election," are prohibited during the 30 day pre-primary black out period.  To me, the conclusion that assembly-funded robocalls are subject to the same prohibition as assembly-funded mailings, is inescapable.  Without evidence to contrary, that this robocall's funding came from a non-assembly funded source, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Abinanti willfully violated this Assembly Rule. 

Next: the last pre-primary financial disclosure reports