Lee Zeldin is a Republican congressman who has represented eastern Long Island since 2015.
This interview with Mr. Zeldin was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on Oct. 19.
Read the board’s endorsement for the governor’s race in New York here.
Kathleen Kingsbury: So, as has been reported in our paper and others, the day before the 2020 election was called for Joe Biden, you texted Mark Meadows offering ways to promote allegations of voting irregularities as a fund-raising tool.
Can you talk us through why you did that? Now there have been dozens of courts that have found that there was no actual basis in fact to those allegations. Do you accept that there was no widespread voter fraud?
So, two parts to that.
Kathleen Kingsbury: Yes.
First, as you pointed out, it was the very beginning of November. And the reason why I sent that message was because I was seeing all of the allegations being thrown out as one. There was a vetted, confirmed concern mixed with an unvetted, unconfirmed concern or allegation.
And it was undermining the ability for people to understand everything that was getting thrown at them. Every allegation of wrongdoing on social media was being slapped as absolutely true the moment it was being tweeted out. It’s true. There are some people who claim that, for the first time in the history of our country, we had the first perfect election.
And I was coming out of an election where, even in the 1st Congressional District of New York, we had hundreds of ballots that were thrown out because of the Republican and Democrat election and commissioner agreed that the signatures didn’t match. There are people in our race in 2020 who were arrested for trying to get absentee ballots for dead relatives. There’s a lot of different things that happened just in my own congressional district on the east end of Long Island.
[In 2020, New York State and county officials in Long Island found that there was virtually no evidence of election fraud.]
I thought that it was very important to separate what was true and not true, or what was confirmed and not confirmed, vetted, unvetted. And everything was getting thrown together. And I would say, even still to this day, a lot just kind of got thrown together.
[Dozens of courts across the country found that there was virtually no fraud in the 2020 election.]
And I’m glad that, in your question, you pointed out that this was before the race was even confirmed. I don’t even — I would have to go back and look to see who was even ahead at that moment. I don’t remember. I would have to go back and check that out. With communications —
Jyoti Thottam: But now that the courts have found that there was no basis in fact for any of those allegations?
[In the days after the 2020 election, The New York Times spoke with election officials in every state, who said that no irregularities affected the results: “Top election officials across the country said in interviews and statements that the process had been a remarkable success despite record turnout and the complications of a dangerous pandemic.”]
Well, I don’t think they — so I don’t think that the conclusion is that this was, in fact, the first perfect election in the history of the country. My concerns, what I have stated on the record, what I said on the floor of the House of Representatives —
Jyoti Thottam: What do you believe now?
Well, let me answer. What I stated then is what I still say today. My concern has been about a constitutional question. You have nonstate legislative actors who were, in the name of the pandemic, changing how an election is administered. You can’t do that under the United States Constitution. It’s a constitutional question.
There will be more elections that will come up. There will be more natural disasters. There will be hurricanes. There might be a health emergency. The way the United States Constitution provides this is that the state legislature sets the election, the administration of elections. What you can’t do is, if you’re a governor, you’re a Secretary of State, you’re an elections commissioner, you’re someone else, say that in the name of that hurricane that just hit a week ago, this is how I am going to change the election on my own.
Jyoti Thottam: OK. So you’re talking about the Covid rules for elections.
The elections changes that were made in the name of Covid. That’s how it went.
Patrick Healy: But in terms of the results, do you accept that there was no widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?
Jyoti Thottam: Now. Do you accept that now?
Well, as I pointed out, in my own congressional district, there were all sorts of issues.
Patrick Healy: The widespread, national —
Well, you can multi —
Patrick Healy: — voter fraud.
See, you can multiply what happened in my district times whatever. I’m one of 435 congressional districts. If you’re asking me to quantify exactly how much of that happened across the country, none of us at this table know.
Patrick Healy: But there have been repeated court cases that people have brought to bear making allegations of voter fraud, and courts have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud there across the board. So that’s what we’re trying to understand, is your view now in alignment with the courts.
Listen, I really appreciate you asking, and I know that it’s important, and it’s important to all of you. I don’t know how to quantify nationwide what happened. All I know from the most personal of experiences was what we went through in the 1st Congressional District in New York. At no point have I ever called, have you ever heard the word come out of my mouth, have I ever said that the election of Joe Biden is illegitimate.
There’s a reason why I don’t say that. I love our country. OK? I’m in my 20th year in the Army. I had Reserve duty this past Saturday. I was wearing that uniform, which is a lot better than wearing this uniform. What I saw in the Capitol that day, on Jan. 6, I was on the floor of the House of Representatives, the moment that I learned what happened, I instantly condemned it.
I put out a statement. I wanted them out of the Capitol. We have a House of Representatives. You elect people to represent you. You have an objection that you want to have debated, you do that through your representatives. There’s no room for violence inside of that Capitol. Breaking windows, stealing things, absolutely none of it was welcome. I didn’t want to see it in the past. I don’t want to ever see it in a future for any purpose, red, blue, left, right, and whatever the year.
Patrick Healy: But in terms of responsibility, that night, you — it’s been reported you made an equivocal statement saying, this isn’t just about President Trump. This is also about the left and about activists. Who do you see as to blame for that event?
[On the night of the Capitol riot, Mr. Zeldin appeared on Fox News and suggested that Democrats and “rogue state actors” were to blame for undermining election integrity.]
Well, you’re referring to a statement that I was making referring to what was being debated on the floor of the House of Representatives, which is different than asking me to comment on someone breaking into the Capitol, breaking things and stealing things. My comment as far as violence and breaking things and stealing things has — from the very first moment that I learned of it — has always been condemning that.
Now, every single time a Republican has won the presidency for the last few decades, on Jan. 6, people have stated objections. And that’s part of the constitutional process. If it’s Jan. 6 of 2025 and — well, listen, I was on the floor of the House of Representatives Jan. 6 of 2017. And there were debates that were had.
There were objections being filed claiming that Russia decided this election, that it was because of Russian influence that Trump won. That was an objection that was filed. If on Jan. 6 of 2025, regardless of whether a Republican wins or a Democrat wins, if any member of Congress wants to stand on the floor of the United States Congress and submit an objection that they believe that Martians decided the November 2024 election, you can do that. That’s fine. Whatever —
Kathleen Kingsbury: If you lose this race, will you concede?
If I lose?
Kathleen Kingsbury: Yes.
Of course.
Alex Kingsbury: Have you watched any of the Jan. 6 commission hearings?
Very little.
Alex Kingsbury: Very little? Do you think, given all that we know now, that what happened on Jan. 6 meets the definition of an insurrection?
Well, legally? Well, as an attorney, no. If you were to get — if you were to look at an individual case with facts that — maybe you know more than I do — and there was evidence to meet the elements, then I might give you a different answer.
As far as the event goes, the use of the word insurrection has been an evolution of the legal term into one that’s been perceived to be an insurrection. But if you’re asking me if it meets the legal definition of what an insurrection is, there’s a reason why the D.O.J. has not charged it.
Kathleen Kingsbury: I want to move on to your role as, potentially, as governor. You’ve said that, if elected, you would declare a state of emergency and refuse to enforce criminal justice laws passed by the Legislature. How do you justify refusing to enforce the laws of the state that you want to lead?
A few things. One is I come from a legislature. My Plan A is I want to work with anyone of any party. Georgetown University and the Lugar Center ranked — they have an annual bipartisan index. The last year that they ranked, I was 19 out of 435. Year before that, I was 12. We can debate. We can disagree. You all have strong opinions. You’re The New York Times editorial board. At the end of the day, there’s a job to try to find common ground however possible to move a state forward, a city forward, a country forward.
My Plan A is I would love to be able to sit down with the New York State Legislature to try to figure this out. And this is not a Republican versus Democrat issue. The mayor of the City of New York says that judges should have discretion to weigh dangerousness. He wants to amend, raise the age, and he’s right. As far as a state of emergency goes, this isn’t anything that’s unprecedented. Right now there’s a gun violence state of emergency in the State of New York. It was declared by Andrew Cuomo. It was continued by Kathy Hochul.
[Mr. Zeldin’s proposals to declare a state of emergency over crime and remove D.A. Alvin Bragg would almost certainly be challenged in the courts.]
Governor after governor after governor have submitted these or declared these emergencies. Kathy Hochul declared a Covid emergency and utilized that power to suspend New York’s competitive bidding laws. And that’s a whole other question and a whole other conversation of what she did with that. I do not have the power to repeal a law by myself. But the way the law works — this is something that is a product of a process in the past, has given the governor the ability to suspend a law for 30 days.
I want to bring the State Legislature to the table. Plan A is that they come to the table. Plan B is that I bring them to the table. And I would also add, with a very high level of confidence, that if you all did your own single issue survey right now of New Yorkers and you ask them what they think of what I’m saying that we need to do, you will find that the will of the people is that they want this to happen. What they want is Plan A, and what I say they want is Plan B.
Jyoti Thottam: OK. So again, to the will of the people, you said that if elected governor, you would fire the Manhattan D.A., Alvin Bragg. How do you justify removing a public servant who’s been elected by the people of New York?
The New York State Constitution. The New York State Constitution, we know in New York, we don’t have recall elections. But when they crafted the New York State Constitution, they specifically gave the governor the authority to remove a district attorney who refuses to enforce the law.
[The New York State constitution gives the governor authority to initiate proceedings to remove some officials, with due process.]
Alvin Bragg has chosen, from Day 1 that he’s been in office, to refuse all sorts of laws across the board and all sorts of other laws he wants to treat as lesser included offenses. He’s not doing his job. Now, will of the people, what I would do is go to the people of Manhattan, the mayor of the City of New York, the borough president. I’m not trying to make some power move where you’re replacing Alvin Bragg with some Republican or some conservative. This is Manhattan Borough.
Jyoti Thottam: Why not let the people of Manhattan —
100 percent. Yes.
Jyoti Thottam: — another D.A. wins.
They should. That would be —
Jyoti Thottam: So isn’t it anti-democratic to just replace —
I have a job to keep the people in New York safe as the governor of the State of New York. I would say, it’s not just a constitutional authority. It’s a constitutional duty. And it’s the first action the first day that I’m in office that I would do, would be telling Alvin Bragg that he’s being removed. He is refusing to do his job.
I get an experience as a member of Congress or as just, you could say some average or random New Yorker or maybe as a candidate for governor, I spend a lot of time with the people of this state. I spent a lot of time in blue counties and red counties, Republicans, Democrats and independents. And if this editorial board took a field trip with me — by the way, this is total man on the street, man, woman on the street. We’ll see how it goes.
But if we were talking to people out on the street right now, what is their top issue? What is most important to you? What do you want to — why does this race matter? Why does this moment matter? What do you want to see have happen? You’ll find that the issues that I talk about, the positions that I have, are more in tune to what the New Yorkers on the street are asking for. And if our field trip never made it outside, if we only spoke to your security guards on the first floor here, I would imagine that they passionately, passionately agree with me on these topics. And that’s without even talking to them about the topics.
Eleanor Randolph: So your first day in office, you’re going to get rid of Alvin Bragg. Who are you going to replace him with? Do you know?
I would be asking — there’s only one thing that’s absolutely necessary about who he gets replaced with. The person needs to do the job. Now, what I would do is go to the mayor of the City of New York, and this would start after the election. I would go to the mayor. I’ll go to the borough president. I’ll go to the local elected officials and community leaders. Give me names. The only thing that I care about is that they will do the job.
Kathleen Kingsbury: And doing the job is bringing the crime rate down?
Doing the job is enforcing the law. Enforcing the law, you work as a prosecutor. There’s a role working with a judge. There’s a role in working with defense counsel. If there’s a law on the books that you don’t agree with, you advocate to change the law. So the problem with Alvin Bragg, for example, is right now, there’s a debate over, how do you help the M.T.A.’s finances?
I would offer that, if the M.T.A. was enforcing fare jumping, that there would be hundreds of millions of dollars more that the M.T.A. would have than they have right now. Now, the district attorney comes in and says, you know what? On Day 1, I’m just not going to enforce that fare jumping. And there’s all sorts of other crimes, by the way. We’ve seen the videos where that 16-year-old who gets released on a violent robbery then is trying to jump a fare. The officer tries stopping, and there’s a sense of entitlement now. You can’t.
By the way, the sense of entitlement led to the fact that, when he got into the fight with the officer and he went in front of the judge, he asked whether or not he could press charges against the officer. And then he gets instantly released. So there’s all sorts of laws like this, where I believe that the D.A. wants to change a law. You don’t just say, across the board, I’m not going enforce it.
What you do is you make your case to whoever set the law. Maybe it’s the New York City Council. Maybe it’s at the State Legislature, depends on the law. And you maybe can bring a few friends, other D. A.s who are like minded and others, and you advocate for that change. But what Alvin Bragg does is he comes in on Day 1 and he says, all across the board with all these different offenses, I’m just not even going to charge them. You don’t have that power. You do not have the right to do that.
Mara Gay: Congressman, you’ve said that you would suspend New York’s no cash bail laws —
Yes.
Mara Gay: — in response to concerns about crime. There is no established and clear connection between bail reform and crime. So why do you believe that this will improve public safety?
So two weeks ago today, Keaira Hudson just outside of the Buffalo area was with her three kids, fearing for her life. The day before, she had told everybody who would listen, you cannot release my husband from custody, Adam Bennefield.
He was charged with a slew of domestic violence offenses, and the judge ended up releasing Adam Bennefield. And what’s been said is that the judge did not have the ability to keep Adam detained. Wednesday, the next day, two weeks ago today, Keaira Hudson was murdered in front of her three kids, and she was wearing a bulletproof vest.
Now, just before that, someone named Scott Saracina was rearrested for another rape. He had been released for a prior rape, served a long prison sentence. He was out on parole. He was arrested this past February, released, rearrested in March, released. He was out on the street, and in August, he allegedly raped someone else.
Jyoti Thottam: Those are terrible crimes. I think we all agree, but what Mara is talking about is an established connection between the overall rate of crime and that particular bail reform law.
Yeah. I just answered. That is answering the question. That’s direct causality. But anyway —
Mara Gay: I’m sorry —
Here’s the other —
Mara Gay: I’m sorry —
Here’s the —
Mara Gay: I just —
Here’s the issue too is the way they do the law, and one of the issues with the law that — so Eric Adams says we need to overhaul cashless bail and give judges discretion to weigh dangerousness. Even if it’s a bail-eligible offense, the judge has to — is required by the law to — establish the least restrictive means to get that person to return to court. So you can’t weigh dangerousness, even if it is a bail-eligible offense.
So the problem is it’s not — there’s a very simple view of, is it bail-eligible or is it not bail- eligible? And if it is bail-eligible, what the governor says is that the judge doesn’t know the law, that the D.A. doesn’t know the law, that the judge isn’t doing their job and they need some remedial training. And the judges out there are being — they’re pretty offended by what the governor is saying. The D.A. is out there being — they’re offended by what the governor is saying, because there is a job to set bail in the least restrictive means to get them to return to court. You’re not allowed to weigh dangerousness. So that’s the overhaul that we’ve been advocating for.
Now, one other thing I would say about cashless bail, the argument in favor of cashless bail, that you commit a low-level offense, you have a clean record, you’re not a flight risk, you’re not a danger. The only reason why you would stay behind bars is because you cannot afford $100. Fantastic argument. That is the best argument you can make in favor of it, and everybody agrees.
But if you’re two Mexican cartel drug smugglers busted in Inwood with $1.2 million worth of crystal meth and you don’t have enough money for bail, you’re a bad drug dealer. You’re a bad criminal. You’re a bad businessman.
So there’s a need to overhaul cashless bail for — I can give a very long list of where the decisions are made. I’m just giving you two recent examples. Actually, those were three recent examples — of where if the law was overhauled, judges have discretion to weigh dangerousness, that you would have a different reality on the ground as far as who is getting released, who is put back out, and who’s being detained.
Eleanor Randolph: Congressman, we only have a few more minutes here, and we wanted to talk to you about Roe v. Wade. It appeared that you had cheered the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and you’ve said it would be a “great idea” to appoint an anti-abortion health commissioner.
You’ve said recently that you would not change abortion laws, and I think a majority of people in the state would agree with that. There’s strong protections for abortion rights. Will you commit now to, if elected, to preserve the state’s really strong protections for abortion rights?
Yes.
Mara Gay: You focused a lot on inflation —
And I have, by the way. That’s not a new position. That’s —
Eleanor Randolph: OK. What about the health commissioner? Sorry.
So the heart of my statements — it’s on video — was —
Eleanor Randolph: This is NY1?
Well, NY1 pulled part — I’m talking about the actual video that NY1 pulled from — is that I made a comment about how it’d be great to have a health commissioner in New York who respects life. And I was taking a shot at what’s also been part of this campaign and what’s been part of this conversation. It’s connected to what was a — I believe that the health commissioner did not handle the nursing home order and the subsequent investigation correctly.
It was a shot that I took with a group saying that it would be great for New York to have a health commissioner who respects life. Now, I want the best qualified person to serve as the health commissioner and all state agencies. I want somebody who is experienced, who is a good leader, who has good work ethic. They’re not going to be picking political favorites and it’s all based on connections to —
Eleanor Randolph: Well, do you want a health commissioner who is anti-abortion?
It’s not a litmus test for me.
Mara Gay: All right. You focused on inflation, Congressman, before. In New York, housing is actually one of the biggest drivers of cost of living increases for New Yorkers. I don’t see that you’ve offered any plan, a comprehensive plan, to deal with those costs. Do you have a plan? Can you tell us about that?
And by the way, just so you understand my last statement, when I say it’s not a litmus test, it’s not a litmus test that they have to be — their position on it doesn’t just qualify them or disqualify them. You have a law in New York. And if they are exceptionally well qualified, that’s what I’m asking them about.
Mara Gay: I’d like you to answer my question please. Do you mind? Do you want me to ask it again?
Yeah, sorry. I was —
Mara Gay: It’s OK.
I got — what’s the very end?
Mara Gay: Sure. Do you have a housing plan? Since that’s actually the biggest cost of how cost of living increases for New Yorkers or among the biggest costs?
Yeah, we need to build more affordable housing in New York. We have people who have capital they want to spend on the projects, and they’re deciding to spend it in other states. It takes too long to be able to build these projects. The math isn’t working out for people who are investing in these projects, where they’re choosing to invest the dollars elsewhere with a bigger return.
There’s a need for more affordable housing inside of the five boroughs. There’s a need for more affordable housing outside of the five boroughs. Some view success with regard to tackling homelessness that you simply put somebody in a shelter. For me, I believe that success is being able to get somebody out of a shelter, where they’re living independently.
Mara Gay: Do you have a plan to address this?
Yeah. You need to — we need to build more —
Mara Gay: How do you plan to do that as governor?
Well, you have people who want to put their private capital in, but the government is making it — the government has put in restrictions that it takes just too long to build.
Mara Gay: What kind of restrictions would you remove?
Well, I believe let’s just — I mean, I can think of many examples. So one would be you want to do a project. You bring in an Article 78, and you just keep on stalling out a project indefinitely. I believe that if you’re bringing an Article 78 proceeding, that you should be required to post bond. Just giving you an example.
Mara Gay: Go on.
If you want to do a project in a local area, you’re applying for a zoning change, and the local town is requiring you to spend $5 million on some unrelated project nowhere near it in order to get the approval, you just got extorted by the town board. I have a problem with that.
I believe that there are economic challenges that people face with regard to first-time home buyers, young families who want to have their first kid or can either have in the basement of mom and dad’s house or they can go buy their own home in Cary, North Carolina. First-time home buyer tax credits and access is something that needs to be enhanced.
Mara Gay: Thank you.
Eleanor Randolph: So you said that you were going to allow fracking. Where would that be? Where would you allow fracking? And —
The people who — go ahead.
Eleanor Randolph: And aren’t you worried about pollution, water pollution, methane pollution, other problems with fracking?
Everyone wants access to clean air and clean water, regardless of whether you’re Republican, Democrat, Independent. I represent a congressional district almost completely surrounded by water. I have a record —
Eleanor Randolph: I understand.
From the Long Island Sound, the Plum Island to National Estuary, and far more.
Eleanor Randolph: But they’re not going to have fracking.
The area that is begging for it is the Southern Tier of New York. And they want the state to reverse the ban on the safe extraction of natural gas. That is their ask. And they look across their border into Pennsylvania, and they see that those towns on the other side of the border have been able to tap into it. And this isn’t a Republican versus Democrat issue.
This has resulted in economic development, jobs, increased revenue, lower energy costs. But yeah, no, Broome County, go visit Binghamton. Go through the Southern Tier. They’re desperate for it. And by the way, on the other side of the border, they’re tapping into the same resource of the same shales. And what was claimed up in Albany in order to get that ban put in place is not actually happening like they were claiming.
No, it’s not that, on the other side of the border, everyone’s turning on their water faucets and just fires coming out. So now you have research, data, science, of all of these other states tapping into the same resource of the same shales. Now you’re better informed. I don’t believe that we should be the state that is not allowing us to tap into that at all. Now, by the way, the same person who would say, well, you might lean left ideologically, maybe a strong fan of, a passionate fan of President Biden. OK, so we cut off Russian oil imports. What’s the next move?
Do we go to Iran and Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to ramp up their production? Because I guarantee you what we would be doing in the Southern Tier of New York is safer than what we are running off to to get them to rely on us. While we’re here today, we’re tapping, once again, into our oil reserves.
So I understand the goal. We want to be leaders with climate change. We care about our environment. That’s something that is very important. I’m a member of the Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. I am all for having a conversation with anyone. I’m an all-of-the-above energy guy. I’ve helped lead the fight to get ARPA-E funding for Brookhaven National Lab.
If Anne’s Pancakes on the Southern Tier wants to have access to gas because, when their electric goes out, they’re still able to make their pancakes, I am all in favor of Anne’s Pancakes doing that. If someone else wants to put solar panels on their home, God bless them. If they have a farm and they want to put up a windmill, go for it. But the idea that people who favor wind and solar are saying that Anne’s Pancakes can’t hook up into gas, I have a problem.
Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask you about guns. You said that you’re in favor of repealing the SAFE Act, you’re against red flag laws and for concealed carry. I want to know where you draw the line. Would you like to see open carry? Would you like to see the AR-15s in Times Square? Where — in a state that is very pro-gun control — where do you personally go?
So for example, you said red flag laws. The person who shot up Tops supermarket in Buffalo should have not had access to any firearm. The red flag was clear as day. The person shouldn’t have access to any weapon at all. He threatened to shoot up a school. The system needs to work that whoever becomes aware of that input is part of the process of making sure that law enforcement at every level, federal, state, local, local school district if they’re the ones coming in contact with the threat.
That person should have not had access to any weapon. Now, two changes that can also be made at the same time to make sure you’re implementing a red flag law correctly is that, if you want to try to remove somebody else’s firearm, I believe that they have a right to be represented and that hearing has a place. And that when the appeal is done, that the burden should be clear and convincing evidence, which is a very high legal bar to be met, in order to prove that you’re worthy of getting it back when you weren’t even represented in the original proceeding.
Secondly, is if someone is making up a fictitious claim just to try to get back at somebody, there’s no consequences in New York, and there should be. So what I have stated as it relates to red flag laws has been consistent with everything that I just told you. Now, New York’s concealed carry law that was recently enacted is going to be overturned by the federal courts. It was — everyone woke up on a Friday morning. It was the week after the Bruen decision. There was no bill. By that afternoon, there was a bill signing.
Now, people who are politicians here in New York City, they’re used to having 1,700 amazing parks all throughout the city. You have a small little park on your street corner. Well, there’s this place called the Adirondack, and it’s a whole bunch of different counties and different regions. Now, you all know this. But there are state legislators who wrote their bill and included that. Now, they said, well no, it doesn’t include that. Well, that’s the problem with rushing a bill.
I happen to believe that the best way to do a bill is not just talking to the people who you’re relying on to get their vote but also talking to other people who you’ll never get their vote. Because if you ask them, why do you oppose a bill, they’ll give you a good reason. So with the SAFE Act, for example, if I wanted to, if I was a gun manufacturer, I can create a SAFE Act compliant rifle that includes a whole bunch of features where, under the SAFE act, if you have a single one of those features, it’s illegal. Because it makes it look scary.
So you take a rifle, and you add a single feature to it, a pistol grip, a thumb grip, a flash suppressor, a muzzle compressor, a collapsible butt stock. You add a single feature, and you say, OK, now it’s an assault rifle. But there are other firearms that are more lethal, but they don’t look as scary. And I can manufacture for you a firearm that includes a whole bunch of the features I just told you, and it’s perfectly legal the way that they wrote it. And that’s not the only piece of this effect. There are other problems with it as well.
The new concealed carry law tramples all over First Amendment rights to trample all over Second Amendment rights. It might actually end up getting overturned first on just having to provide your social media accounts to prove to the government your good moral character or whatever they very vaguely defined it. They didn’t even say what they meant. They wrote the law without even saying what you have to prove to the government. So what? One county to the next is who’s a good person and who’s a bad person?
So there was a problem with how they drafted the new law. They went even further than the past law, and it’s going to get overturned by the courts. And can I — one other thing too is there’s two different things between the law-abiding gun owner who wants to safely and securely carry a firearm solely for self-defense. And there are people with illegal firearms committing crime after crime after crime, and the system still has them on the street. So when Governor Hochul, a few day — a few weeks ago, she put out her tweet. She says that she demands that American Express and Mastercard and Visa flag every attempted purchase as a suspicious purchase.
[An approved state measure would standardize credit or debit card transactions for gun stores and help credit card companies to flag suspicious activity.]
I just had — two Sundays ago, I had a gang-related drive by on my front yard with my two girls at home. And I don’t know who the shooters were. I don’t know what the firearm was that they used. I don’t know what their motive is, but I guarantee you that however that person or persons acquired that firearm, it did not start with a swipe of the American Express card. The way that we approach this entire conversation should be one not going after, because too often, we just end up drafting a policy that goes after the law-abiding gun owner. We should be drafting policies going after the criminal committing crime after crime after crime, and they’re still out on the street.
Alex Kingsbury: But actually, the reason New York has such a low gun death rate is because it has strict gun laws compared to states that don’t, both suicides and homicides. Relax the gun laws, you get more gun deaths. Are you content with that?
When was the last time that a concealed carry holder committed any one of the offenses in New York?
Mara Gay: Donald Trump endorsed you. Talk to us about your path to victory in a state that he lost by over 20 percentage points.
I’m here today out of respect to all of you. OK? Listen, the editorial —
If I was doing this based off of maybe like the last time you guys issued an endorsement and I got my feelings hurt, I wouldn’t have walked in the front door. And it is out of respect to you, and you can ask whatever questions you want. I’m happy to answer them. But the reason why we’re going to win this race is because outside on the street, when you go take that field trip and you ask people, what is your top issue? What are your top issues? What are you looking for in the race?
I’m sitting here talking about rising crime and rising costs, and Kathy Hochul is talking about Donald Trump. So that’s — as far as a path to the victory, we are right on the issues that New Yorkers are saying are most important to them. We started 18 months ago. In my first six months, I campaigned at least twice in every county in the entire state. And we just continued campaigning hard, all across the state, to meet as many people as we can.
But the reason why we’re going to win the race is because the people who are actually on the street right now feel like we need to save the state, and they want to restore balance to Albany. And they also realize, with some of the policies that we’re discussing, that there’s going to be a balance of power up in Albany, that we’re not — this isn’t an election of whether or not we’re going to go from one-party Democrat rule to one-party Republican rule. It’s not on the table, and the average person knows that.
Mara Gay: It’s long been the case, unfortunately, that Black communities disproportionately suffer from violent crime. Given that and given your campaign is so focused on it, how do you expect to do with Black voters?
We introduced our pathways plan. Some of the topics we talked about here today have been part of our campaign throughout, whether it’s upward economic mobility. We haven’t even spoken about the quality of education in our schools. I support lifting the cap on charter schools. I support school choice. I believe that we have kids trapped in multigenerational poverty.
We spend two and a half times as much on kids — on education per pupil than you see in places, not just Florida, Mississippi, these other places where the kids who are Black, Hispanic, low income are actually performing at a higher level on the same exact tests than our kids here, even though we spend two and a half times as much. I think education is very important to the Black community. I believe in upward economic mobility. We’re talking housing.
Crime is part of it, and there’s more to that. So all of this is part of it, but it’s important to show up. So when I was elected to the Third Senate District in 2010, I had Brentwood, Central, Islip and North Bellport. People would tell me, don’t go to those areas. They’ll never vote for you. And they’re right, but I still went there anyway, because it’s my job. What I find in going to areas where the Black community is most densely populated is that they’re getting ignored by everybody.
Mara Gay: Why do you think more of them aren’t supporting you since you’re so focused on crime? And that’s something that disproportionately affects them.
I haven’t gotten to everybody.
Mara Gay: You haven’t asked every Black voter?
Oh, I mean, generally, I’m asking every voter in the State of New York of every walk of life and every single background. I’m asking everyone to be supportive of my candidacy, but I’m talking about one on one. That’s why I was there for Harlem Week. I’ll be there for the African American Day.
I met with community leaders multiple times in different community restaurants. I’ve been there for press conferences, whether it’s targeting Jose Alba nearby at his bodega. I remember having one of the primary debates that had took place on Juneteenth, and they asked a question somewhat similar to your question. It was a little bit different. I said, actually, I just came here from lunch in Harlem.
I might spend four years going into Harlem over and over and over and over again. And I might increase my vote share by almost nothing. And I’ll still be proud that I did that, because it’s my job. At the end of the day, people can vote for whoever the heck they want. My message is this, though, to everybody, including right, left, whatever your background is: Don’t let anybody take your vote for granted.
Kathleen Kingsbury: I think we should end there.
Eleanor Randolph: Wow.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
