Last week, advocates across the nation celebrated “National Voter Registration Day.”  In New York, there was little to celebrate.

According to the U.S. Elections Project, in the 2014 election only the state of Indiana had a lower voter turnout than New York.  That’s right; New York was 49^th in the nation in voter participation.  Unfortunately, New York’s miserable performance is not an aberration; New York has consistently ranked as one of the nation’s worst states for voter participation.

There a many reasons for this sad ranking:  More competitive races tend to lead to higher voter turnout.  The gubernatorial election wasn’t ever tight, and even with the Republican challenger winning most of the counties in the state, Governor Cuomo beat him handily in the overall vote total.  According to the New York State Board of Elections, about 3.8 million people voted in that election. The Board considers nearly 11 million people eligible to vote.  Thus, only about 30 percent of registered voters cast their ballots for the race to determine the most powerful elected official in the state.

Non-competitive elections can smother voter turnout, but there are also barriers to getting registered to vote.

New York State had a “voting eligible population” of about 13.5 million in 2014.  The state Board of Elections reports that nearly 11 million New Yorkers are considered registered to vote.  That means that roughly 2.5 million eligible citizens were not registered to vote.

What are the barriers to voting in New York?

One big obstacle is the registration process itself.  Like much of the rest of the country, New York requires voters to register to vote.  In most of the rest of the democratic world, there’s no separate step called registration. It happens automatically. Thus, registering citizens to vote is the responsibility of the government.  The voter just has to show up.

In the United States, the responsibility is on the citizen to get registered.

New York has taken some steps to make it easier to register.  For example, an eligible voter can go the Board of Elections website (elections.ny.gov) and download a PDF version of the registration form, fill it out and send it in.  While a step forward, in the modern age an online system – in which a voter can register electronically – makes more sense.

New York has moved toward a full online voter registration system.  It began allowing people with driver’s licenses to register to vote online through the Department of Motor Vehicles in 2012.  The governor’s office said last week that more than 195,000 people had registered to vote that way — 53,000 of them for the first time.

While that’s good, it doesn’t make a big dent in the effort to register the millions of New Yorkers not yet registered who wish to do so.  And for those who are not drivers, the DMV program is of little help.

An obvious next step would be to expand that program found in the DMV to all other state agencies.  Those other agencies have databases of people they serve and collect a wealth of information – information that’s relevant to register to vote.  Yet when it’s time to register, it’s back with paper and pen to fill out a hard copy form or a PDF version found online.  The governor can expand the DMV program to all agencies through his budget plan.

In addition, in New York State, voters are typically required to register 25 days before an election – well before most voters tune into the election debates.  The state should allow New Yorkers to register and vote on Election Day.  Each year, just as interest in elections and candidates begins to peak, potential voters find that the deadline for registering to vote has already passed.  Such a system would dramatically increase voting rates.  Voter participation rates in “same-day” states are traditionally among the highest in the country.

New York should allow for full online voter registration, automatic registration of eligible citizens, pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds, party changes later in the election cycle, “same-day” registration, and automatic transfers of registrations for New Yorkers who move within the state.

In taking those steps, New York can start to move from national laggard in voter participation, to national leader.

After a brief hiatus, Albany’s ethics areonce again in the media.  Last week, two Assemblymembers were sentenced to prison for their ethics crimes and Governor Cuomo’s “Buffalo Billion” economic development program was reported to be under scrutiny by federal prosecutors.

First, the convictions.  Former Assemblyman Boyland was sentenced last week to 14 years in federal prison.  The Boyland case was incredible.  The former Assemblyman had earlier been prosecuted for accepting bribes, but was found not guilty.  Within two weeks of his exoneration, undercover federal agents recorded how Boyland accepted $7,000 while he gave them a tour of his district. “Everything we’ve seen here I’m in control of,” Mr. Boyland said in the tapes.

According to prosecutors, the relationship with the agents continued.  Later, Boyland suggested that the agents buy a derelict hospital in New Jersey for $8 million. He then told them that they should apply for grants to use public money for its renovation and resell it for $15 million to a nonprofit he said he controlled. He said he would arrange the deal in exchange for a bribe of $250,000.

Boyland was also convicted of lying about tens of thousands of dollars in expenses to the government, including travel payments, claiming falsely he was at work in Albany. While collecting those reimbursements for being in Albany, he was in fact enjoying personal trips in locations like North Carolina, Virginia and Istanbul. He even filed expenses for the meetings with the undercover agents.

The case of former Assemblyman Scarborough followed that pattern.  Last week, Scarborough was sentenced to 13 months in prison after he admitted submitting at least $40,000 in false expense vouchers for days he did not actually travel to Albany.  Prosecutors found that  of Scarborough’s 198 expense vouchers they reviewed, 174 were found to contain false information. The vouchers included claims for some overnight stays in Albany when the lawmaker was actually in Georgia and at home in Queens.

While those sentences closed the books on those two cases, the most intriguing ethics story resulted from media reports that the “Buffalo Billion” program – an economic development effort advanced by Governor Cuomo – was under scrutiny by federal prosecutors.  Reportedly, the investigation is focused on the multimillion-dollar contracts awarded to build facilities for high-tech businesses.

The “Buffalo Billion” program has been criticized for the secrecy in which it operates, and recent media reports have disclosed that a large campaign contributor to the governor was awarded a lucrative contract under circumstances that have raised concerns.

Of course, there is no way to know what the U.S. Attorney is doing, or whether he will identify any suspicious behavior.  But it was reported that the U.S. Attorney was conducting “a comprehensive look at the bidding process,” and that his office is “looking at communications between contractors and state officials.”

If those media reports are true, it means a significant change in the activities of the U.S. Attorney’s office and its examination of the governor.  It would be the first evidence that the U.S. Attorney has broadened his investigation beyond his current review of the actions of the Administration in shutting down the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption.  Reportedly, the U.S. Attorney is looking into whether laws were broken when the governor pulled the plug on the Moreland Commission as part of a deal to close down the budget negotiations in 2014.

While we can’t be sure what will happen next, Albany seems to be plagued with unrelenting controversies and scandals.  Inexplicably, so far the governor and the state’s political leadership seem to have decided to ignore the scandals.  90 percent of New Yorkers think Albany’s ethics are a problem.  Federal prosecutors seem to be continuing the hunt.  All incumbent state legislators face the voters in one year.

Ignoring the mounting political threat seems like a huge political mistake.  New Yorkers should demand action, not a head-in-the-sand approach.  And if they don’t get it, lawmakers will face an angry electorate.

Recently the Obama Administration took a step to try to deal with one of the nation’s most intractable problems: how to reduce the recidivism rate of those released from prisons.  There are approximately 1.5 million people in state or federal prisons.  Those prisoners are serving time because they have been convicted of a serious crime.  But the question is – what happens when their time is up and they are released back into our communities?

The statistics are grim:  Despite prisons being called “correctional facilities,” they do a dismal job in turning lives around.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, nationwide about two-thirds of released state prisoners were re-arrested within three years and three-quarters within five.  Prison is a revolving door.

And it’s a revolving door that impacts certain communities worse than others.  According to the Cuomo Administration, nearly half of New York inmate population is African American, nearly one quarter is Hispanic, and nearly one quarter is white.

The revolving door too often sends recently-discharged inmates into communities in which they will commit a future crime.  As a result, neighborhoods are less safe and people’s lives are too often ruined.  The currently high recidivism rate helps no one, so what should be done?

The Obama Administration recently unveiled a pilot program that will allow Pell Grants (the federal college subsidy program for the poor) to be issued to a small number of colleges to offer college courses to eligible inmates.  While prisoners can sometimes get access to educational courses now, they are ineligible for the federal Pell Grant program as well as the New York State Tuition Assistance Program (TAP).  Since the vast majority of inmates are low income, they usually cannot afford college courses while in prison.

Why offer college classes to prisoners?  The connection between higher education and reduced recidivism has been well established.  In one study, individuals who earned an Associate’s degree were 62 percent less likely to return to prison than those who did not.

A study conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles found that “[a] $1 million investment in incarceration will prevent about 350 crimes, while that same investment in education will prevent more than 600 crimes. Correctional education is almost twice as cost effective as incarceration.”

The Cuomo Administration has cited benefits to educating prisoners as well.  The Administration has found that formerly-incarcerated people who did not take classes while in prison were almost four times more likely to be re-arrested than those who did.

Thus, the Obama Administration’s plan.  The reason that it is a pilot program is that under a twenty year old law, the Congress prohibited Pell Grants for prisoners.  The President’s pilot program is allowed, according to the Administration, because of a provision in the Higher Education Act that allows the Education Department to study the effectiveness of a student-aid program without approval from Congress.

Similar efforts have been tried (unsuccessfully) in New York State.  Earlier this year, the Cuomo Administration urged passage of an initiative to give incarcerated individuals the opportunity to earn a college degree through funding college classes in prisons across New York.  That plan failed

Not surprisingly, there has been opposition to these types of reforms.  Some in Congress argue that the Administration is operating outside of the law.  Others – both at the national and statewide levels – argue that it is not right for prisoners to get financial aid, when the cost of going to college is skyrocketing which has led to a trillion dollar college debt.

And they do have a point.  In New York State, while the governor offered his own plan to help incarcerated individuals take college classes, his Administration has been advancing plans to annually hike tuition – thus driving up the cost of going to college for all.

But the debate is not really about how to keep college affordable, it’s about how our society treats those behind bars.  It is obvious that the current approach has not worked.  Punishment alone will not reduce the nation’s recidivism rate.

This week marks the beginning of the semester for most colleges in New York State.  As students begin their next collegiate experience, families tackle how to pay for it.

American higher education has seen a dramatic shift in who pays for public college.  America was once a society that valued college education and put its collective money where its mouth is by funding the bulk of the cost of that education.

But since the 1980s, there has been a shift in the burden of paying for public college from government to the families of those in college.  The clearest evidence of that shift has been the reduction state dollars going to public colleges and the dramatic increase in tuition over the last three decades.

While state funding for the State University of New York (SUNY) has remained largely flat over the last few years, the total cost to maintain SUNY’s and the City University of New York’sexisting services has increased by nearly $200 million. The state made up the difference using hikes in public college tuition. Stagnant state support coupled with rising tuition has had an impact: Prior to the 2008 recession, tuition covered about half of SUNY’s budget.Now, tuition covers more than 60% of SUNY’s budget.

These tuition increases are the result of a so-called “rational tuition” policy.  New York’s law, described by proponents as “rational,” hiked public college tuition each year for five years.The only thing rational about it is that it guarantees increases in the cost of attending a public college.  As a result, New York families are paying more – and in some cases adding to an increasing college debt load.

Nationwide, student loan debt is currently over $1 trillion and it is estimated to be $2 trillion by 2025.At New York’s four University Centers 56% of graduates carry debt averaging over $22,000. Studies show that students burdened with student loan debt are less likely to start a business or own a home.This can create a ripple effect where current debt hamstrings future wealth growth—the effect is even greater for low-income students and students of color.

A college-educated workforce is in demand. A Georgetown University study found that, by 2018, nearly two-thirds of New York jobs would require a post-secondary education.Yet, 2013 Census data shows that less than half of New York adults hold an associate’s or bachelor’s degree.Tuition increases outpacing income growth, paired with decreased state investment, have eroded college affordability.

But the New York model is not the only way.

Other states are enacting another form of “rational tuition” – they are either freezing tuition rates, or cutting the cost of attending public colleges and universities.

A growing number of states are trying to rein in the price students and their families pay to attend public colleges and universities. Tuition rose sharply during the Great Recession after states cut higher education funding. Now student loan debt is topping $1 trillion nationally, and even upper-income families are worried about rising college costs. As a result, legislatures are under pressure to bring prices down.

In July, the state of Washington enacted a new law that cut in-state tuition. The state of Minnesota passed legislation that freezes tuition at two-year colleges this fall and will cut tuition next year.  The state of Ohio froze in-state tuition for two- and four-year institutions. Wisconsin froze in-state tuition across the 26 campuses in its university system. The University of Maine System kept tuition flat for the fourth year in a row.

New York’s law, described as “rational,” hiked public college tuition.  At the end of the Spring, 2016, New York’s law will expire.  The debate on what to do about that law is heating up.  What is the best way for New York to define rational from a student’s perspective – rationally jacking up tuition or rationally keeping it at the same rate?  This year’s college students will soon know.

As the nation begins to cram in its end of summer vacationing, many Americans head to the beach, particularly those on the ocean.  Little do they see the increasing reality: the oceans are choking on garbage, particularly plastic waste.

According to a recent report, experts estimate that over eight million tons of plastic waste ends up in the world’s oceans each year, and that amount is likely to increase dramatically over the next decade unless nations act.

The amount of plastics waste found in the ocean is the equivalent of “five plastic grocery bags filled with plastic for every foot of coastline in the world.”  Experts estimate that by 2025, the amount of plastic waste entering the oceans would double, or the equivalent of 10 bags per foot of coastline.

While the United States is not the world’s worst offender – that distinction goes to China – the U.S. generates an estimated 110,000 metric tons of marine debris a year.

Plastics have been spotted in the oceans since the 1970s.  Since then, masses of plastic waste have been observed floating where ocean currents come together and plastics can be found on the world’s most remote beaches and in arctic sea ice.

Exposed to saltwater and sun, coupled with the effects of wave action, the plastics break up into tiny pieces that can become coated with toxic substances like PCBs and other pollutants.

Research into the marine food chain suggests that fish and other organisms consume the bite-size particles and may reabsorb the toxic substances. Those fish are eaten by other fish, and by people.  It has been estimated that roughly 20 percent of small fish have plastic in their bellies.

Cleaning up the plastic once it is in the oceans is impractical; only a portion of it floats, while most disappears, and what does not wash ashore settles to the bottom.  For example, plastic beverage bottles, immediately sink. Studies suggest the seafloor–typically 2½ to 3¾ miles down–may hold far more than surface waters.

So what can be done?  Some researchers are looking into trying to collect much of the floating plastics.  For example, nonprofit tech developer The Ocean Cleanup wants to use ocean currents to corral plastics into an array of anchored booms to concentrate and remove them.

Easier than trying to recover these practically irretrievable bits of broken-down plastic is keeping plastic stuff out of the water in the first place. In 2013, volunteers with the Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup collected more than 12.3 million pounds of beach trash around the globe, including more than 940,000 plastic bottles.

Better yet, the nation should curb plastic use altogether. The average American throws out 185 pounds of plastic every year. Cutting plastic bag use can dramatically reduce waste.  After San Jose, California banned plastic bags in 2012, plastic bag litter dropped by almost 90 percent; it fell by 60 per­cent in creeks and rivers.

And San Jose is not alone:  San Francisco passed a ban in 2007. A similar law took effect across California this summer.In addition to California, a de facto statewide ban exists in Hawaii as all of the most populous counties in the state prohibit non-biodegradable plastic bags at checkout, as well as paper bags containing less than 40 percent recycled material. Other states, including Delaware, Maine, and North Carolina have also passed laws governing plastic bags.

In addition to the benefits to reducing the amount of garbage in the oceans, plastic bags aren’t biodegradable, and less than one percent of plastic bags are recycled. Even when they are, it costs more than producing a new one.

One staff member from San Francisco’s Department of the Environment, commented, “There’s harsh economics behind bag recycling: It costs $4,000 to process and recycle one ton of plastic bags, which can then be sold on the commodities market for $32.” It is clear that recycling plastic bags makes little economic sense, banning them is best.

New York State should do its part too – by banning plastic bags.  The ocean views will be that much better.