Subterms
In last year’s governor’s election, voters in Asian neighborhoods across New York City sharply increased their support for Republicans. Though these areas remained blue overall, they shifted to the right by 23 percentage points, compared with 2018, after more than a decade of reliably backing Democrats. Governor’s margin of victory since 2006 Source: New York […] More
Workers at a Trader Joe’s store in Brooklyn have voted against unionizing, handing a union its first loss at the company after two victories this year.The workers voted 94 to 66 against joining Trader Joe’s United, an independent union that represents employees at stores in Western Massachusetts and Minneapolis. Workers at a Trader Joe’s in Colorado filed for an election this summer but withdrew their petition shortly before a scheduled vote.“We are grateful that our crew members trust us to continue to do the work of listening and responding to their needs, as we always have,” Nakia Rohde, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement after the National Labor Relations Board announced the result on Thursday.The result raises questions about whether the uptick in union activity over the past year, in which unions won elections at several previously nonunion companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Apple, may be slowing.Union supporters recently lost an election at an Amazon warehouse near Albany, N.Y., and the pace of unionization at Starbucks has dropped in recent months, though the union has won elections at over 250 of the company’s 9,000 corporate-owned U.S. stores so far.Workers at a second Apple store recently won an election in Oklahoma City, however, and unions have upcoming votes at a Home Depot in Philadelphia and a studio owned by the video game maker Activision Blizzard in upstate New York.As of June, Trader Joe’s had more than 500 locations and 50,000 employees across the country and was not unionized. Early in the pandemic, the company’s chief executive sent a letter to employees complaining of a “current barrage of union activity that has been directed at Trader Joe’s” and arguing that union supporters “clearly believe that now is a moment when they can create some sort of wedge in our company.”The company has said it is prepared to negotiate contracts at its unionized stores. An employee involved in the union, Maeg Yosef, said the two sides were settling on bargaining dates.Union supporters at the Brooklyn store had said they were seeking an increase in wages, improved health care benefits and paid sick leave as well as changes that would make the company’s disciplinary process more fair.Before union supporters had a chance to talk with all their colleagues, management became aware of the campaign and announced it in a note posted in the store’s break room in late September. The company also fired a prominent union supporter a day or two later.Amy Wilson, a leader of the union campaign in the store, said organizing had become more difficult after the firing and the note from management.“The last core of people hadn’t been spoken to directly by their co-workers, and we lost them instantly,” she said, referring to the note. “It undermined the trust, the relationship. They felt excluded and offended.”Ms. Rohde, the Trader Joe’s spokeswoman, did not respond to a question about why management posted the break room note. She said that while she couldn’t comment on the firing of the union supporter, “we have never and would never fire a crew member for organizing.”Trader Joe’s is known for providing relatively good wages and benefits for the industry, though workers have complained that the company has made its health care and retirement benefits less generous over the past decade. More
The results of the Democratic congressional primaries in New York City on Tuesday give us a hint of just how far the working-class liberalism once associated with city politics has declined. The winners of two races in particular, Jerrold Nadler and Daniel Goldman, who will almost surely represent much of Manhattan (and a bit of Brooklyn) in the House, emerged as the victors of complicated congressional primaries in districts that were redrawn to reflect national shifts in population.They represent different kinds of New York City Democrats — Mr. Nadler, a longtime congressman, has deep roots in the old grass-roots liberalism of the Upper West Side, while Mr. Goldman is a political newcomer whose star has risen through his association with opposition to Donald Trump — but their shared success nonetheless highlights socioeconomic divisions in Manhattan that have a long history.The primaries reflected the tensions and divisions within contemporary liberalism itself and raise the question of how (or whether) Democrats can effectively represent such radically different constituencies.The changes in the city districts were a result of math — subtraction, to be specific. New York State lost a seat in the House because its population came up short by 89 people in a census conducted in 2020, at the height of Covid in New York. Indeed, if so many New Yorkers had not died in the early months of the pandemic, these contests — particularly the one that pitted Mr. Nadler against his House colleague Carolyn Maloney — would almost certainly not have taken place.Beyond the numbers, though, the primaries were part of a continuing story of class divisions in New York City. In the mid-1930s, the Columbia University sociologist Caroline Ware wrote a study of Greenwich Village that focused on the Irish and Italian immigrants who moved there in the late 19th century and whose Catholic churches still dot the neighborhood.Some at the time saw the Village as a success story of immigrant assimilation. But Professor Ware had a different interpretation. The people of the Village, she suggested, lived side by side but had little contact with one another. They were left to navigate a complicated city as “isolated individuals rather than as part of coherent social wholes.”The national Democratic Party faces a similar class divide between highly educated urbanites and the working-class voters for whom it often claims to speak. It’s no secret that the party has moved away from the fiercely pro-union New Deal politics of the mid-20th century. For much of the 20th century, New York State’s congressional delegation included more than 40 representatives (compared with 27 today), a voting bloc that generally collaborated in support of an expansive social welfare state and working-class interests. New York representatives included many of the country’s most left-leaning politicians (like the Upper West Side’s Bella Abzug).Mr. Nadler and Mr. Goldman come from different backgrounds, politically and economically. Mr. Nadler grew up in the city and got active in politics opposing the Vietnam War. Mr. Goldman is a Washington native who attended Sidwell Friends, Yale, Stanford; he served as assistant U.S. attorney with Preet Bharara in the Southern District of New York.For Mr. Nadler, despite his victory on Tuesday night, the political world he emerged from no longer exists as a vital force. This is in part because of transformations within Democratic politics.Mr. Nadler’s political career was forged at a pivotal moment in the aftermath of New York’s fiscal crisis of the 1970s. He was first elected to the State Assembly in 1976. In the following years, Democratic city officials were forced to increase subway fares, close public hospitals, charge tuition at CUNY and cease to embrace a politically ambitious role for local government. Mr. Nadler was elected to Congress in the early 1990s, when Democratic leaders like Bill Clinton proclaimed the end of the era of big government and were most optimistic about free trade and deregulation despite its impact on cities like New York.He has supported many measures over his long career that would aid working-class people, but at the same time the Democrats have generally backed away from politics that would more forcefully address inequality and the economic divide.Meanwhile, the economic fortunes of Manhattan were also changing — as part of an effort to secure a steadier tax base in the aftermath of the collapse of manufacturing, the city under Ed Koch began to reorient its economy toward Wall Street and real estate development.As Wall Street became an engine of the city’s economy in the administration of Michael Bloomberg, Manhattan’s demographics began moving in largely the opposite direction from the city as a whole. From 2010 to 2020, the white and Asian share of the borough’s population grew, while the Black and Latino share fell.Today, the institutions that had once helped to stitch together constituencies from different ethnic and racial backgrounds, like unions, are far weaker in the city and nationally than they once were. People confront the problems of living in New York through the lens of personal ambition — as “isolated individuals,” as Professor Ware put it — rather than through collective efforts to improve the city’s life.The narrow victory of Mr. Goldman illustrates even more sharply the political crisis of working-class New York. In addition to being an heir to the Levi-Strauss fortune, Mr. Goldman is a type well known to denizens of Lower Manhattan, a successful lawyer who was able to self-fund his campaign. He is clearly a candidate whose political appeal was strongest for the new leaders of the Village and Lower Manhattan, the professional upper classes who work in law firms and investment banks, who fund their children’s schools’ parent-teacher associations and the park conservancies.This is a social world that has little meaningful overlap with the working-class population, often Asian and Latino, that still dwells here but lacks the confident political organization and alliances with the middle class that it once possessed.Mr. Goldman’s political fortunes rose with his role as lead counsel in the first impeachment suit against Mr. Trump; his path to the House was largely paved by this rather than any deep engagement with the kinds of material issues that affect the lives of working- or even middle-class New Yorkers.Mr. Goldman’s race was very close — he won by roughly 1,300 votes. The runner-up, Yuh-Line Niou, a state assemblywoman, ran a campaign whose rhetoric focused on class appeals, but unions and progressive groups proved unable to act in a coordinated way to support any single candidate in a crowded field.Despite their different backgrounds, both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Nadler embody a Manhattan that has shifted in ways that affect not only its own politics but those of the country at large. Their careers point to the divides that Professor Ware pointed out decades ago.In her account, the Village — and New York, and America as a whole — faced the problem of how to respond to the collective problems of a modern industrial society through the lens of a political culture that had been shaped by ruthless individual acquisition. The particular problems have changed, and yet Lower Manhattan remains home to a population that, as dense as it is, is intensely divided by class and ethnicity, that is characterized (as Professor Ware put it) by “an almost complete lack of community integration.”The bitter politics of the August primaries, which reveal yet again the declining power of New York’s liberalism, are the result.Kim Phillips-Fein, a historian at Columbia University, is the author, most recently, of “Fear City: New York’s Fiscal Crisis and the Rise of Austerity Politics” and “Invisible Hands: The Businessmen’s Crusade Against the New Deal.”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. More
Dan Goldman, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, was the chief investigator in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.This interview with Mr. Goldman was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 27.Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: What would you be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress? If you could, be as specific as possible.Sure.Kathleen Kingsbury: But also, is there one big idea that you’d pursue with bipartisan support?Yeah. I think in the unlikely event that it will be a Republican Congress, I actually think that my skills and experience are going to be even more valuable to the caucus. Because we can fully expect a Biden impeachment. We can expect a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.The Republicans are out for blood and out for revenge. And so my experience, having led the impeachment investigation and being right in the throes of that kind of complex and high-stakes investigation, will be even more valuable, I think, to the Democratic caucus than reasonably a first-year Congress person would be even in the majority without any seniority.As for what I think we can achieve in a bipartisan way, look, my approach to this is sort of twofold. I think on the one hand, we need to be really aggressive in attacking the Republicans and attacking our policy prerogatives. We need to defend our democracy, which is under attack. We need to defend and protect our fundamental rights.We are dealing with a very different Republican Party today than even 10 years ago. And so what we have to recognize is there are bad-faith actors, in my view, who are trying to sabotage anything the Democrats do in order to acquire power of their own. So the old traditional way of negotiating with them or going directly to them and begging them or having a meal with them or whatever, it’s not working. What we are going to have to do is convince them that it is in their self-interest to do something.And I think there are two ways of doing that. One is aggressively investigating, and using the investigative and oversight powers to change the hearts and minds of the public, as we’ve seen a little bit with the Jan. 6 committee, or to expose their special interests or their — the folks, the lobbyists or the other special interest group that control them. And the other way is to figure out a way of reframing an issue so that they can recognize that it is in their self-interest to do it.And I’ll give you an example of each real quick. Actually, it happened today. A few weeks ago I called for an investigation into gun manufacturers and gun dealers, so that we can know what they’re marketing and advertising, whether it is they knowingly were targeting young adults with radicalizing on social media and trying to sell a AR-15s. There’s, I think, a lot there not dissimilar to the tobacco companies or the opioid companies who knew what they were selling was addictive.There is a path there to expose the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers, which is really the only way to impact the Republicans. Because 70 percent, 80 percent of the country believes in much stricter gun legislation than we have. So that’s a way, I think, we can use investigations and oversight.[In a recent Gallup poll, 66 percent of people said gun-control laws “should be made more strict.”]On the other hand, I look at renewable energy as one thing that we might be able to figure out a creative compromise for — not dissimilar to mass incarceration, where Democrats pushed for it for a long time, Republicans resisted it because of their tough-on-crime stance. Ultimately, Republicans got onboard with decarceration because of the fiscal benefits. And so you first started seeing it in states, and then you saw it with the First Step Act.I think we can do something similar with renewable energy, which Democrats — we want for climate purposes, for job purposes. But we hear a lot from Republicans about energy independence now, with gas prices going up and with the issues in Russia and Ukraine in terms of oil and natural gas and our dependence on the Middle East. The best way to be energy independent is to invest in renewable energy that we create here. And so I think there’s an avenue that, in the minority even, I think we could pursue some sort of climate legislation that would be — we could agree on for very different reasons.Mara Gay: OK, thank you. What would you do in Congress to help build more new housing in New York so that New Yorkers can stay in the city that they love?I think we need to do two things in terms of housing. One is we need more money for NYCHA so that we can fix these dreadfully maintained buildings. I met with the tenants association at the Jacob Riis Houses a couple of weeks ago and it was really, really unacceptable conditions. So we have to figure out a way to repair that.I am open — I support the preservation trust. I am open to creative ways of providing some sort of funding streams so that we can fix NYCHA. But the bigger issue I think you’re hitting on is we need more and we need better housing. I would work very hard to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers, especially for the homeless, which are often — it’s often undesirable for some of the affordable housing or transitional housing places to take the homeless. But I think we need to be pushing for more Section 8 vouchers.I think we need to be funding nonprofits that focus on this, on homelessness and housing, much, much more. Because they’re really in the sort of nexus between some of the for-profit real estate developers and the city. And so what is starting to happen more, and I’m a big fan of, is that you have for-profit companies that are providing some capital for more housing. But they can’t really get that last 25 percent of the way.And then you have the nonprofits who are ready and expert at managing the housing and providing the services that in permanent sustained housing, that the residents and the tenants need. And then you have the city that’s often providing the land. But it’s often that last bit of money that is needed in order to push the project over the top.And so it’s not necessarily a lot of money, but it is something that the federal government can do to help provide that last bit of capital, help to provide grants to nonprofits. And, by the way, I think that providing grants to nonprofits is something I’m going to push across the board. Because what you see with nonprofits is they are expert in their area and they are closest to the community. They’re closest to the ground, and they know what the communities need.A couple of weeks ago, I went down to the Lower East Side and met with some of the settlement houses executives. And the programs they have are fantastic, but they just don’t have the scale that can serve enough people. And so, to my mind, that is an avenue that we need to fund more from Congress to provide the services that the community needs, and to provide them in a high-quality way.Mara Gay: Thank you.Jyoti Thottam: Just stepping back a minute — what do you think Democrats can do at this point to protect American democracy, which, as you sort of alluded to, is under threat from various places?Yeah. Well, this is a huge thrust of my campaign and my experience in leading the impeachment investigation and trying to protect and defend our democracy at that point, which seems somewhat quaint now, where we are now. But even before I left the House Intelligence Committee, I helped Adam Schiff draft the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which at the time, those provisions also seemed somewhat quaint, pre-Jan. 6.But I actually released a five-point plan to protect and defend democracy. Because I think it is, first of all, the No. 1 issue. We have so many policy objectives that we want to do, whether that’s protecting the right to choose, gun control legislation, as we’ve talked about, climate change, immigration, infrastructure, housing. All of these are incredibly important things that I would very much like to tackle.But our first priority has to be to protect and defend our democracy. Because Donald Trump still controls the Republican Party, he still is the front-runner to become the 2024 nominee. And he is still pushing the Big Lie, and he has his acolytes in the states around the country and some of the swing states — in Pennsylvania in particular, which is very scary — of trying to change the laws so that partisan elected officials can overturn the will of the people in a way that they failed in 2020.So this is the unprecedented existential threat that we are facing, and it frankly is why I’m running. Because I was on the front lines, I have dealt with Donald Trump before, and I am very, very concerned about our democracy. We need to do a couple of things I’ll just briefly summarize.We need to maintain free and fair elections, where not only do the voters decide but that everyone can vote and gets access to the ballot with Election Day as a holiday and other ways of making voting easier. Registration should be a lot easier. We need to make voting as easy as possible. It is the right in our Constitution from which all other rights flow.And so that is a significant thing. And there are lots of ways that we need to do that, whether it’s the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or banning gerrymandering or getting rid of the Electoral College altogether. There are a lot of ways, I think, that we can make voting free, fair and consistent with one person, one vote.The other thing that we need to do is combat disinformation. When I was on the House Intelligence Committee, that was the House committee that had the Russia investigation. And a lot of what we were focusing on — because Mueller had taken over a lot of the criminal investigation — we were focusing a lot on the disinformation. We got a tremendous amount of intelligence that was classified on this issue. And so I’m familiar with a lot of the foreign efforts to use disinformation and misinformation.But it happens here at home, too. And in fact, it affects not only our democracy and our elections. It affects climate denialism. It affected Covid. So one of the things that I have been pushing for is we need to regulate social media companies more, but we also need to expand the public broadcasting media arm to include independent online media platforms.Jyoti Thottam: OK. I’m just conscious of time. We have a lot of things to cover.I’m sorry. I go on too long.Jyoti Thottam: That’s all right. Patrick, are you going next?Patrick Healy: Yeah, thank you. Do you think Democratic elected officials are out of step with Democratic voters on immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on any particular issue, just as you hear kind of the messaging and the Democratic Party priorities with where voters are at, as you talk to them?It’s a good question. I think the biggest disconnect is that there are a number of Democratic representatives who are very ideologically strident and uncompromising, if it gets down to it. And I think what Democratic voters — at least what I hear — what Democratic voters want more than ideological purity is results and solutions. And I think I, and others, were very frustrated in the fall that the $1.5 trillion or $1.75 trillion reconciliation package didn’t get through not because of the Republicans, but because the Democrats couldn’t come together and figure it out.[Last fall, divisions in the Democratic Party stalled the $3.5 trillion domestic agenda.]I blame Joe Manchin for a lot of it. But, at the end of the day, he did seem willing to agree to a significant package that would have provided universal child care, that would have provided climate change and renewable energy incentive legislation — many things that now, as we look back, we’re not going to get. And that’s a wasted opportunity. And I think part of it is because there were some folks in Congress who felt stuck to their sort of perfect view of what it should be and were uncompromising.[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]So I’m not sure, to answer your question directly, that it is that there’s a particular policy that is out of step. I think it is more what’s out of step is a little bit what the objective is. And, for me, I’m going down there to get results and to find solutions.Kathleen Kingsbury: Eleanor? We lost Eleanor.[Eleanor rejoined this interview via Google Meet after getting a stable internet connection.]Kathleen Kingsbury: OK. We have a series of questions that are yes or no questions. If you could stick to yes or no, we’d appreciate it. Do you support expanding the Supreme Court?No. It’s anti-democratic.Kathleen Kingsbury: Do you support ending the filibuster?Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: Should there be a term limit for members of Congress?I would support a term for members of Congress. Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: How about an age limit for members of Congress?I actually would support an age limit for every federal government employee.Kathleen Kingsbury: So that’s a yes, basically.Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: Should Joe Biden run for a second term?Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: Alex?Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask you about Ukraine. I know you support the war there. What I’d like to know is should there be an upper limit on the amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars that gets spent in that conflict? And how should we think about conditions that are attached to that money, if any?I would not put a limit on it because this, to me, is purely a fight between a democracy and an authoritarian regime. And we cannot give up on a Democratic nation that is a bulwark against an authoritarian regime. That has to be the central part of our foreign policy. It has been for a long time. And I think that in this particular case, where Ukraine became a democracy on its own, we need to support them.I think what we really need to do as well, which President Biden has done a really good job, is rally allies around the country to also pay into it, and to also help Ukraine so that the financial burden is not all on us.Nick Fox: What do you think are specific measures on climate change that Democrats should be prioritizing right now?Well, we talked about renewable energy. I strongly believe in incentives and subsidies to encourage private corporations to invest in renewable energy. I think our climate change issue is so significant that the government cannot solve it by itself. And so what the government should be doing is using its funding for incentivizing and subsidizing private corporations to also spend their own money. That’s one.Two is I think we need a lot more funding for electrification of mass transit. I support congestion pricing in New York City, and I would hope that the money that’s derived from that will go to electrifying buses and other transportation. And then, here in New York City, resiliency is a huge issue and making sure that we don’t suffer from another superstorm Sandy.Mara Gay: Yeah. I’m just going to shorten this question. Can you just name one further action that Congress can take to protect abortion rights?I have several. Now, other than repealing the Hyde Amendment and codifying Roe — which I of course support, but I think it’s not going to happen tomorrow — I’ll list them quickly for you since I know we’re trying to move. One is to pass a law preventing prosecution or other prohibition for anyone receiving medication abortion across state lines. Two is expanding funding to veterans hospitals and military bases to provide medical care, such as for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies or even I.V.F., which some state doctors will be concerned about.And three is to lease federal lands to medical providers or others that can provide services to women in the states where abortion is banned.Mara Gay: Thank you.Kathleen Kingsbury: I’m curious, given your experience as prosecutor, what you think Congress should be doing to address the increasing threat of domestic terrorism.We need to make it very clear that domestic terrorism is terrorism. We need to redefine it as terrorism. And I know there are free speech issues on that, and I get and I understand both sides of it. But when the F.B.I. director says that domestic violent extremism is the No. 1 threat to our country, we have to take action.The other thing that I would do is — that I think in some ways is even more important — the most commonly charged international terrorism charge is material support of a terrorist organization. If we were able to declare the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys or some of these domestic groups as domestic terrorist organizations and we prohibited material support to them, we’d avoid a lot of the free speech issues.Mara Gay: Thank you. Quick pop quiz for you — how does Plan B work?Plan B is a over-the-counter medication that you would take to sort of prevent —Kathleen Kingsbury: Do you know how it medically works? How does it work in your body, in one’s body?How does it work in one’s body? I don’t … I don’t know.Mara Gay: It prevents ovulation.OK.Mara Gay: Do you own a gun?No.Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?I have — no, only at riflery at camp [chuckles].Mara Gay: OK. What is the average age of a member of Congress?Oh, man. Congress or Senate?Mara Gay: Congress.I would say the average age of a member of Congress is … 52!Mara Gay: Fifty-eight. What’s the average age of a senator?I would say that is 68.Mara Gay: Sixty-four. Please name a member of Congress, dead or alive, who you most admire and would emulate if elected to serve.Well, it’s got to be Adam Schiff, who I worked hand-in-hand with and admire tremendously.Mara Gay: Thank you. And finally, what is your favorite restaurant in the district?Well, my favorite restaurant has morphed into my kids’ favorite restaurant, which is Bubby’s in TriBeCa. Somehow the mac and cheese with extra crusty topping is the dish that they need frequently.Mara Gay: I like the biscuits.The biscuits are amazing, too.Kathleen Kingsbury: You’re a former prosecutor and have never held elected office. You live in Manhattan, but the majority of the voters in this district are in Brooklyn. Can you talk a little bit about why you think you’re the best person to represent the district, and what your path to victory is?Sure. I have lived in the district for 16 years. I’m raising my five children in the district, a couple of whom have or still do go to school both in Brooklyn Heights and others in TriBeCa. So I’m very familiar with the entire district. I also worked in the district as a prosecutor in the Southern District, protecting the communities, supporting victims’ rights, and protecting and trying to make the community safe.But ultimately, I’m running for Congress because I think I have a unique set of skills and experience that meet the moment that we’re in. And I think we’re in a really different moment than we’ve been in with these threats to democracy that, you know, even under the George W. Bush administration we would have never imagined. I long for the days when we get back to arguing about policy and we’re not actually arguing about what the facts are or whether we have a democracy.But because I have been on the front lines leading the fight in Congress against Donald Trump and his Republican Party and trying to protect and defend our democracy and our institutions and our rule of law, I think that is a set of skills and experience right now that is really needed. In addition, I think my experience as an investigator in Congress is more uncommon than some other people’s experiences. And I think that both the New York delegation — which has some wonderful firebrands that are pushing that Overton window on policy — I think we in the New York delegation, but also around the country, could use someone who’s very experienced in the investigations and oversight role. And part of it is because I think we’re going to have to be creative and use investigations and oversight in order to get results.Patrick Healy: I mean, building on that, given that background and that role, though, how would you approach the challenge that some voters may see you as kind of narrow, as essentially an investigator going after Trump yet again, or that you wouldn’t necessarily be seen as someone advocating for the policy needs or the community needs in the district? That you’d be kind of a committee person driving at another prosecution of Trump or dealing with the Biden issues?Yeah. No, I understand the question. And I think part of the reason why I was framing it a little bit more broadly than Trump is because it wasn’t by accident that we proved the case against Trump. And we used different strategies, rather than going directly at them, to get the whistle-blower complaint and to get the July 25 transcript. We went around and had applied indirect pressure through other people in the administration.And the reason I cite that is that those same kind of strategies apply to all of these policy prerogatives and priorities that we have. We need to use that same kind of creative strategy, not necessarily to go after Trump, but to get the Republicans to come to the table. And so it is an attribute that I can bring that I think will help move the conversation forward.Another quick example — I want to investigate voter fraud. It doesn’t exist. And the Republicans have claimed to investigate it, but I want to expose the fact that it doesn’t exist with hearings. Because all of these state laws are based on the fiction that voter fraud exists. So I think it’s not just that I have a narrow view of investigations as to Trump. I actually want to expand the purpose of investigations and oversight into policy areas that we want to push forward.And I will say I have been, I’ve been a public servant my whole life. I have been committed to social justice, to criminal justice reform. I worked with Michelle Alexander on her book “The New Jim Crow.” That long precedes my role as a prosecutor or my role in impeachment. These are issues that I feel very passionate about. And I am really eager to represent the district and to push them forward and get results.Nick Fox: You haven’t used your wealth to your advantage in your campaign yet. But you’ve used the wealth of other people, particularly from real estate executives, including Steve Ross, a major Trump donor. These are the type of donors who’ve had an outsized influence in New York politics, often to the detriment of New York tenants. Is there no problem with taking that much money from real estate interests?I think there would only be a problem if for some reason I catered to anyone’s special interests. I think that is anathema to me. I will not do that. And I have had conversations with real estate developers where I have told them that I support real estate development but I think that developers themselves need to give back a lot more to the community.I’ll give you an example — 5 World Trade Center. I have come out very strongly in favor of it being 100 percent affordable housing, and not because the city should pay $500 million or $900 million to subsidize it. But the real estate company should be paying their fair share for the affordable housing, that some of this money should come off of all of the profits that they made from the entire World Trade Center. We can’t just look at it as one building. It’s an entire development.And that is one of the ways that I want to increase affordable housing — provide encouragement and incentives for developers to make enough money, but also require them to give a lot back. So I can assure you — look, the campaign finance system needs dramatic overhaul. We need public financing. I fully support that.Even in this race, we’ve got someone coming from another district with a war chest running here. We’ve got someone in the City Council who’s taking money from lobbyists and special interests before the city. The whole thing needs to just be revamped, and we need public financing. But I can assure you that a $2,900 or a $5,800 donation from any one individual is not going to influence anything that I do.Eleanor Randolph: We are sort of up against our time limit. But you told a local news outlet that you would not object to a state law banning abortion after the point of fetal viability, and in cases where there was no threat to the life of the woman and the fetus is viable. You later said that you misspoke and that you do not support restrictions on abortion. Which is it? And could you clarify your personal views and how you feel you would vote on some of these issues if you were a member of Congress?Absolutely. Thank you for asking the question. I’d love to clarify. I was in an interview where I was getting a series of lengthy hypothetical questions. And, frankly, the lawyer in me felt like I was back in law school with the Socratic method, and I started focusing in my mind on the legal standard that was outlined in Roe and that has been adopted by New York State and their Reproductive Health Act, and is also the standard in the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress.What I realized soon after I answered that question is, wait a minute, I don’t think that’s what he was actually asking me. I think he was asking a much more normative question on what my views are on abortion. And my views on choice and abortion is that it is unequivocally 100 percent a woman’s right to choose. And the decision should be made solely by a woman and her doctor, and the government should have no role in that medical room to make a determination.Before we were talking about some of the different ways that I will fight to expand access to abortion. I listed three that I don’t need to repeat again. But I have been thinking about this intensively since Dobbs, and it is not enough just to say we’ve got to codify Roe, we have to repeal the Hyde Amendment.That’s not going to happen until we elect a lot more Democrats to Congress. So that needs to be an objective. It is to try to figure out a strategy to get more Democrats elected and perhaps to use choice as a wedge in some of these races. But I’ve been thinking very seriously and aggressively about how the federal government can increase access to abortion. So not only will I fight for it, but I will be very thoughtful and creative about it as I already have been.Mara Gay: Thanks. Really quickly — did you spend more than a few weeks outside of the district during the height of Covid in 2020?Yeah.Mara Gay: And if so, where?I was in the Hamptons from — well, I got Covid on March 10, very early. We went to the Hamptons. And then we came back in August, and then we’re in the city the rest of the year.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. More
Yuh-Line Niou is a state assemblywoman in New York’s 65th District, representing parts of Lower Manhattan since 2017.This interview with Ms. Niou was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 28.Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: OK. Well, it’s very nice to meet you. I’m Katie Kingsbury. I’m the Opinion editor. Obviously, you have a range of our colleagues. We don’t have much time together, and we have a lot of questions. So we ask you to keep your answers relatively brief, if possible. And we’re going to dive in.I understand the premise of this question you may reject out of hand. But I hope we could start by talking a little bit about what you think you would be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress, if you could be as specific as possible. But also, is there one big idea that you would want to pursue on a bipartisan basis?I do reject that premise [laughs]. I don’t want us to lose, obviously. And I think that it’s really important for us to always come with preparation that there is going to be some kind of difficulty in negotiating things. As you know, I have represented part of this district for six years now. And when I first came in, I actually was elected the day that Trump got elected. I was also elected into a seat where it was Sheldon Silver’s seat.And then on top of that, we were still in a I.D.C.-controlled Senate situation where, obviously, there were Democrats who were elected as Democrats but voted with the Republicans, gave the power to the Republicans. And we were still able to get things moving. And I think that the reasons why we were still able to get certain things moving was because we had folks who were going to be moving on the ground, and we had outside influences, and we also had inside forces, like me, pushing for certain things.[The Independent Democratic Conference, or I.D.C., was a group of Democratic state senators who in 2011 broke with their caucus to work with the Senate’s Republican majority. It has been defunct since 2018.]I think that in the six years that I’ve been an elected official, I’ve definitely changed a number of ways that Albany moves and works. And I think that I would do the same here as well. And I think that it’s really about political courage. It’s about making sure that you’re standing up, giving transparency to how things are working, making sure that you have a communication with your constituents, fighting for the things that we care about.And obviously, I believe representation matters. And I believe that we have better government when more voices are involved. I think that — I represented a voice that I think was definitely not seen very often in Albany, if never. And I think that there were a lot of times when we needed to be the first and only, even though it was a difficult first and only.And I am not here to be an agent of the broken status quo. And I want to make government work. And I think that instead of being the status quo and just accepting that the I.D.C. was going to be the I.D.C., and that was going to be the Senate, I went out there. I supported candidates who were running against the I.D.C. I went out there myself to make sure that we were changing the Senate. And then I think that we’ve changed the way that Albany has worked forever.I will, I think, from my end, continue to fight for the things that I’ve always fought for. I’ve always been an anti-poverty advocate. I’ve always tried to make sure that we had a more fair and equitable government in all those things. I think that the way that I look at things is unique in the sense that I think I have lenses that I look through. I look at everything through an economic-justice lens, a racial and social justice lens, an environmental-justice lens and, of course, through a disability lens.[Ms. Niou has talked openly about being autistic.]And I think that it’s really important for us to make sure that every single bill that we do, every single policy that we enact, is seen through those lenses. And I think that’s where we have that change. And that makes that huge difference. So every single thing is interconnected in that way.And so when we’re talking about big legislation, one of the pieces that I’m really, really proud of that I think that I would continue to fight for on the federal level is to make sure that we have a prohibiting of unfair, deceptive, abusive and predatory practices.This was a state bill that I was working on because of the Dodd-Frank decision that people probably are very familiar with — the overturning of Dodd-Frank on the federal level that made it so that certain unfair practices and consumer protections were obviously lifted. So I think that it’s really important for us to continue to fight to make sure that we have an ability to be able to help those who need the most help.Mara Gay: Thank you. What would you do, as a member of Congress, to ease the burden on renters in New York City, in your district, and even on those who would like to own?So one of the biggest things, obviously, that people probably know me for is the fight that I’ve done for affordable housing and also for NYCHA. So folks probably also realize that one third of my assembly district is public housing. And public housing is the only true and deeply affordable housing that we have here in New York. And from my end, in Albany, I have been the leading voice fighting for the state government to actually put funding directly into our public housing’s capital budget.Folks probably know this, but time after time after time, every single year that I was telling them we need to make sure that we are funding our public housing, I was told, it’s a federal issue. It’s HUD. We can’t do this. And I was able to move our speaker, my very first term, to be able to get $250 million directly into public housing for capital dollars. Of course, Cuomo didn’t release it all. But we were able to get it.And in my sixth year now, we finally, in total, have now put over a billion dollars of state dollars into capital fixes for public housing. And obviously, for the federal level, I definitely want to continue to make sure that we are actually fully funding public housing.There are several bills right now that I obviously would support greatly. But Nydia Velázquez has her Public Housing Emergency Response Act, which would allocate $70 billion, I believe, to public-housing capital repairs, which would fully fund public housing, and a large portion would come to New York. A.O.C obviously has her Green New Deal package, which looks at public housing, making sure that there’s climate-change use savings from energy efficiency that would also fund more public-housing construction.And then also, one of the biggest things is — obviously the big piece is — we have to repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which makes it so that we cannot have more public housing. I think that we need more public housing and not less. And it’s really important to make sure to alleviate some of that housing burden. I believe that the Faircloth Amendment makes it so that the amount of public housing that we have to 1991 levels was the highest that we could ever have.Right now, there has been obviously a push on the Assembly side and the Senate side of the state government to make it so that there is a push towards privatization. And I’m very concerned about it. I think that the privatization of public housing is dangerous. But we have to make sure that we’re protecting Section 9.I will say that the plan that we ended up with was a lot better than the plan that I saw six years ago. And I think that our pushback was what made it so much better. I will say that I’m still concerned about some of the obvious election things that they have in there. They did not firm that up. But anyway, sorry. I get really wonky about these policy things.But I will say that if I had been in Congress this session, I would have been a vocal champion for the $350 billion in housing investments that Chairwoman Maxine Waters actually put together into the Build Back Better plan. I was really disappointed to see, of course, that those housing ideas actually seemed to vanish almost without anybody really fighting for it. But I will say that those housing ideas should probably be a stand-alone thing. It would be a really, really excellent thing to see.[The House version of Build Back Better passed last year includes a $166 billion investment in affordable housing.]We saw, yesterday, really exciting — well, I guess it’s still happening right now — but really excitingly, some of the climate stuff happening. So we’re in the midst of it. They’re doing these negotiations. I really hope that they also have a housing package that they can do like that.Mara Gay: Thank you.Jyoti Thottam: OK, great. Just going back for a bit, what do you think, in Congress, the Democrats can do to protect democracy and, particularly, secure voting rights?We’ve been going through it. And I think that one of the biggest things that I would say is really important is, obviously, the politicization of our courts has been really awful to see. It’s been really difficult for me to even stomach or swallow some of the things that are coming down the pike. I can only think of horrible things.But the politicization of our courts is a real issue. And I think that there are bills that will expand the [Supreme Court] or put in term limits for the court. I think that we have to really look at them and examine that. I think that right now, we have a couple of bills that are really great. One of them obviously is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. And I think that we have to make that good trouble and protect our voters and protect our voting rights.And I will say that my mom, when she first came to campaign with me for the very first time — she told me something that remains in my heart every single time I take a vote, even. And it’s just that she said that she realized, with my campaign, that to cast a vote was to basically prove that you’re an American. Just, it’s the one act that makes you American.And for her, she never realized that until I was running. And then she saw how important it was to vote. And this is also why I have never missed a vote in Albany, never missed a committee vote or a floor vote. And I think that that’s why it’s so important for us to represent our people in that way.Patrick Healy: Do you think the Democratic elected officials are out of step with Democratic voters on immigration today, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights or on any other issue, as you talk to voters and listen to what party leaders and officials say?Maybe not in my district. In District 10, it’s going to be — it’s probably one of the more progressive districts in the state. So maybe that’s maybe not what I’m hearing as much in the district. I think a lot of people are definitely very much thinking the same when it comes to protecting our bodily autonomy, making sure to restrict — make sure that we have tighter gun laws, making sure that we have L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. protections, rights, making sure that we have a better answer to how we are looking at public safety.I think that my district cares the most about what The New York Times has to say. I think that it’s really about trying to make sure that we have a reason for also standing up for things that we do. And I think that that’s really what it is. I don’t think that Democrats are necessarily out of touch. But I think that what can be difficult for the rest of the state, maybe, and even the rest of America — I think that there are certain messaging pieces that are hitting home for my district, but maybe not necessarily for everyone else.Patrick Healy: Is there just, real quickly, an example of that?For example, I think that in my district, one of the things that we all care about is our bodily autonomy. I saw that almost all of my neighbors came out when Roe was overturned, right? We were all out there on the street. As I was walking through Washington Square Park, I kept on seeing neighbor after neighbor after neighbor. They’re like, ‘Hey, Line, what’s up? We knew you would be out here.’ It was like every single person that I knew was there.But it just seemed, I don’t know, just kind of shocking to me, in some aspects, because I live down here, that there were people who felt differently, obviously, elsewhere in America. And I also hear it sometimes in the very Christian Chinese community. I hear it sometimes in parts of the district.Like, we can talk to them, but it’s really about making sure that we actually answer people’s questions, give transparency and improve that messaging. But yeah, I think that’s one of the biggest things. I’m actually shocked when this has been law for so long.Eleanor Randolph: So we have some yes-or-no questions —OK.Eleanor Randolph: You mentioned —Is this the rapid-fire thing?Eleanor Randolph: No, Mara has that.Oh.[Laughter.]Eleanor Randolph: This is just yes or no. So you mentioned this, but do you favor expanding the Supreme Court?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: And what about ending the filibuster?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: And do you think there should be term limits for members of Congress?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: And what about an age limit?I don’t think that I would actually support ageism in any way, shape or form.Eleanor Randolph: So is that a no?No.Eleanor Randolph: A no. So should Biden run again?I think that it really depends on our party looking to see if there’s somebody who would make it so that we are represented by everyone. And that depends on a primary.Eleanor Randolph: OK, thanks.I obviously had supported the same person that you all supported, so —Alex Kingsbury: Can I ask you about Ukraine? I’m interested if —Sure.Alex Kingsbury: — you think there should be an upper limit on the amount of taxpayer dollars that go to that conflict and if we should ask for some more safeguards or conditions for the aid that we supply.I believe so. I think that — gosh. It’s a really big situation over there right now. And I think that we obviously do need to have transparency over all of the tax dollars that we spend on anything, I think. And so, for example, I would be supportive of the McCollum amendment. I think that there’s a couple of different things that would be good for us to do. And I think that it’s important for everybody to know where our tax dollars are going.We have to be extremely attentive to the possibilities of this conflict escalating and never forget that Russia is a nuclear-armed power. And I think that things have amped up recently, especially in the last couple days — I think this is, what, almost the anniversary of month five. Almost exact, right?I think that most wars ultimately don’t end with total victory and total defeat or anything like that, but with some kind of negotiation of peace. And I think that a real diplomatic solution to the conflict might not be possible at present, in what I’m seeing, anyway. And I don’t have all the information, obviously. I’m not sitting in the seat right now. But I would encourage, obviously, our government to prioritize peace and the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty and hopefully not pursue certain dangerous aims.I think that there needs to be — yeah, there needs to be some point, I think, that we are making sure that national self-defense is appropriate, obviously, and that other things might not be as appropriate. So I will end it at that. It’s a very complex issue right now. I don’t have all of the information at hand. But from what I’m seeing, it’s very scary for us, actually.Alex Kingsbury: Great. Thanks.Jyoti Thottam: OK. So just moving to climate change, I know those congressional negotiations are still going on. But what else specifically do you think Congress could do, particularly given Republican opposition on so many issues, what could Congress do on climate change to meet America’s commitments there?[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]We’re in the middle of a negotiation right now, which is kind of exciting because we have a current plan that is — right now, we’re — yesterday night, I guess, at 6 p.m. or something. Was it 4 or 6? I don’t know. It was happening as we were talking. And so I was like, oh, no.But it was very, very exciting to actually see that we were actually putting together a plan, that there is something that’s going to be pushed forward for climate. And I think that right now, there is, I believe — I was reading about it and writing about it just a little bit earlier. But I think that it’s really great to see that there is going to be some help with making sure that there is some caps to some of the polluters.I think one of the things that I wanted to know — and I wrote this down for myself because it was so important. But obviously, if the legislation passes, it’s a huge victory. But I can’t remember what it was. But it was, I believe — the dollars that they were putting into making sure that there was going to be some money that would come back into $369 billion, I believe, for climate and energy, which is basically, I think, four times bigger than any kind of climate investment that we’ve ever made.I think that there was some kinds of need for — I don’t know. I didn’t like this part about the fossil-fuel subsidies and the new leases and the more pipelines that Manchin wanted, which I think is going to make us more dependent on fossil fuels. But I think that, overwhelmingly, this bill right now would help us to go towards our energy goals. And I think that it would be — experts are saying that it’s about 80 percent — would help us go towards 80 percent of our energy goals right now and climate goals right now.So I think that right now, I like the methane fee. And I think that I’m just hoping that Menendez or Suozzi don’t blow it up or obviously don’t not vote for it or something. So right now, it’s just something that we’re just seeing right now. So I’m trying to paraphrase it all. But I’m not very good at that. I like to dive deep.Kathleen Kingsbury: Mara, why don’t we go to the lightning round?Mara Gay: Great. OK. Here’s the lightning round for you. How does Plan B work?How does Plan B work?Mara Gay: Yes, in the body.It is a — yeah, so it basically helps you to get your period. So it basically forces you to your next period and is an infusion of hormones that will make it so that you are given your period or forced to shed.Mara Gay: It prevents ovulation.Yeah. Mhmm.Mara Gay: Do you own a gun?I do not.Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes.Mara Gay: Where?I was at a training where they — I was at R.A. training, where the police officers on campus took us to learn how to shoot a gun. It was strange.Mara Gay: This was —This was a college thing. I don’t know. It was very strange.Mara Gay: That will suffice. Thank you. What is the average age of a member of Congress?I actually don’t know that.Mara Gay: Take a guess. Any number.Sixty?Mara Gay: Fifty-eight. Pretty close. What about of a U.S. senator?I don’t know that, either. Probably around 70?Mara Gay: Sixty-four. And please name a member of Congress, either dead or living, who you most admire and would emulate if you are elected to serve.Elizabeth Warren, obviously. I think that she’s somebody that I greatly admire. I think that she and I are very alike in the way that we think about policy. I really like, obviously, a lot of her bills, when it comes to making sure that we are holding big corporations accountable, making sure that we are driving towards stopping cycles of debt, making sure that we have anti-poverty pieces into all of our legislation. And I really appreciate the way that she has a good lens on policy.Mara Gay: Thank you. What’s your favorite restaurant in the district?Oh, that’s hard. You know, I have so many lists. I would have to say probably — I’m going to be giving away my dumpling place — but Super Taste on Eldridge is the best dumpling place in all of New York.Mara Gay: Thank you. What is your pathway to victory in this exceptionally crowded race?I think I have a really great path to victory. My whole entire Assembly district is inside of this new New York 10. So I have a very large base. I think that it was really significant when the special master designated both Chinatowns to be inside of this New York 10 District for a reason. I think that I have the support of the Working Families Party. I’m endorsed by the Working Families Party. And a quarter of this district voted on the Working Families Party line in the 2020 election.I think that it’s really important to make sure that we have a lot of people turning out, even though I know this is a turnout election. I think that we excite people. We’ve helped people to come to the doors. And we have an incredible, incredible ground game. We have over 850 volunteers already. I think that it’s been really amazing to see how many doors have been knocked and how many people have been called.But I think that, yes, the turnout has been historically low. Because of the excitement that we generate, we will turn out what it takes to get our campaign the win. I think the other thing is that we have been endorsed by some folks who have already won this district before, multiple times, including Cynthia Nixon. We have an ability to be able to win this race, because —Eleanor Randolph: So can I ask you — you said that you support BDS, this movement to boycott Israel. You have a very large Jewish community in this district. How do you explain that to your Jewish voters?Well, I support the freedom of speech. I think that that’s really my point here, is that I think that people have the right to be able to exercise what we’ve always exercised in our American democracy, whether it’s the Great Boycott or the Montgomery bus boycotts or —I think that it’s really important to be able to exercise that freedom of speech. I think that it’s important to protect it. I think that it’s important to make sure that people have that. I think that the Jewish community is not a monolith, just like the A.A.P.I. community is not a monolith. And I think that there are a lot of people who also believe that Palestinian human rights are important in this moment and in all ways.I think that it’s really important that we are looking at protecting everyone. I think that it’s really about making sure that we have Israeli and Palestinian rights respected. It’s something that I strongly believe, because I think that no matter what I do, I look through a human-rights lens no matter what. That’s where we have to have that political courageous too.Eleanor Randolph: But does that mean you support boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel?I think that it’s important for us to be able to honor the fact that there is a movement of doing that. I think that that part is important.Eleanor Randolph: So you don’t —Kathleen Kingsbury: I have a question —Eleanor Randolph: Do you support it? Sorry. Sorry, Katie —Kathleen Kingsbury: Go ahead, Eleanor.Eleanor Randolph: Well, so you —Kathleen Kingsbury: You support BDS, the —Eleanor Randolph: Yeah.Kathleen Kingsbury: — BDS movement, correct?I support its right to exist. There are currently people all over the country who have put out laws that would prohibit people from doing certain things that are just their First Amendment rights. And I think that that part is really important to make sure that we are not prohibiting people from doing things that are protected by our law, right?We are allowed to criticize our government. We’re allowed to criticize how our government interacts with other governments. And I think that that’s something that must be protected, just like freedom of the press. We should make sure to protect our freedom of the press. We should make sure to protect our freedom of speech.Kathleen Kingsbury: OK. In the past, you’ve supported the movement to defund the police. Do you still? And if so, could you talk a little bit about how you talk about public safety to members of your community who are concerned about it right now?Yeah, and I think that one of the things that we obviously have seen — and I actually really appreciated Mara’s editorial on this. I think that we have to really look at how we are looking at facts, right? Our communities have been overcriminalized and overpoliced because of an obsession with crime, and when we really should have been focused on safety and real community safety.It’s important that we are looking at this problem just like we’re solving all other big problems, right? And we should be looking at what created that inequity and what created that unsafety, such as job insecurity, food insecurity, making sure that people have access to health care, right? We need to make sure that we have more security for people and safety for people, on a broad level.And I tell people this all the time, especially in our community, where we’ve been experiencing so much anti-Asian hate. And the anti-Asian sentiment and the anti-Asian hate is not new. It’s not something that’s new, and it’s not something that can be fixed with a silver bullet or a magic wand or some kind of instant kind of thing.It’s state-sanctioned racism, right? It’s built into our country, from the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment, from the anti-miscegenation laws. It’s built in. We can’t just throw more money or police at the issue. But what we need to do is actually invest in our communities to make sure that we have the language access services that will help people to actually get the services that they need.We need social services. I brought in $30 million last year and this year to our Asian American community organizations. We had never had a line item for Asian American community organizations inside of our state budget ever. And I was the first to bring in some dollars.And it was — it’s embarrassing, really. It’s $300,000, really, actually, the first time that I brought in some dollars for our Asian American communities. Then last year, we were finally able to get $10 million. Then this year, we got another $20 million. But again, it’s not a celebration. It’s money that’s owed to our communities, because it’s money that we should have been getting all along in order to make sure that our community organizations can thrive and grow and be able to get the services that people need every single day —Patrick Healy: Excuse me.Mhmm?Patrick Healy: Oh, yeah. We’re sorry. We’re just almost out of time. We just —Oh, no. I’m sorry.Patrick Healy: You live in Manhattan while most of the district is in Brooklyn. Why are you the best person to represent this district?I think that it’s 40-60, so it’s really even. But I will say that I think that I have the most of the district, more than anyone else. And I’ve represented this district for six years now. I obviously know my policies, city level, state level, federal level.I think that it’s been a really important thing to see that we have political courage in this seat in Congress right now. We are in crisis. We just talked a lot about what’s going on with the courts, gun laws, abortion. We’ve talked a lot about some of the other issues that have been coming down the pike that are really scary.And we need to make sure that we have people who are willing to have the political courage to be able to stand up. I have always had the political courage to do the right thing. And I promised Eleanor when I was first running that I was not going to be furniture ever. And I haven’t been.I think I’ve changed the way that Albany is shaped. And I know that I can change the way that Congress looks and Congress is shaped, because we don’t need people that are going to go along to get along. We need people who are going to fight for the things that we deserve. And right now, this seat is one of the most progressive seats in the state. This is one that we desperately need to be a change-maker seat. We have the ability to be able to make that change now.I have always been the person who stood up against Cuomo. I stood up against my own leadership, even. When it came to the austerity budget, I stood up and was the first to call out any kind of corruption, vetting issues from our own governor. It didn’t matter what it was that my constituents needed from me. I always made sure to be transparent and always led with accessibility and transparency and the ability to make sure that my constituents were heard.It didn’t matter what it was that was going to come down the pike at me, because I will tell you, it’s been scary for me. But I will say that it’s always important for us to have that powerful leadership in order to make sure to have the best representation. I think that this is an opportunity for us to weigh in in a way that will make change in history.I will be the first Asian American to represent this district. And I think that that’s a really big deal. We will be doubling the amount of Asian American representation that we have in Congress from New York, because it’s the first time that our two Chinatowns will be able to vote together. We are the most underrepresented racial and ethnic group inside of Congress right now. And I think that it’s important for us to be able to have representation.[After this interview took place, Ms. Niou’s campaign clarified her comment that this will be the first time Manhattan’s Chinatown and Sunset Park’s Chinatown in Brooklyn will vote together in an open-seat election.]I think that I come with a different kind of lens that looks at disability issues in a real way. I will be the first openly autistic legislator in Congress. And I think that it’s important that we are constantly centering our disability communities as well, because it’s actually every issue. Every issue is a disability issue. And if you’re lucky enough to go into a ripe old age, you’ll also have to — if you’re able-bodied now, you’ll have to have help sometime.So I think that it’s really important that we are centering all of our communities in that way. And I think that we have the ability to win, and we have the ability to make sure that we make that change for everyone.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. More
Mondaire Jones has represented Rockland County and parts of Westchester County in New York’s 17th Congressional District since 2021.This interview with Mr. Jones was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 25.Read the board’s endorsements for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: We only have a short period of time, so I hope you don’t mind if I just jump in —I don’t mind at all.Kathleen Kingsbury: Most polls indicate that the Democrats are going to have a hard time holding on to Congress in the midterms. Can you talk a little bit about, if that scenario plays out, what you think could get done in a Republican-controlled Congress, but also maybe one idea that gets at the way you work in a bipartisan manner.So of course, I don’t buy the idea that we’re going to lose the House or the Senate.Kathleen Kingsbury: Of course.In fact I think polling shows we’ve got a really good chance of keeping the Senate. But I would start from the perspective that I already have, which is that of someone who has been a change agent in an already gridlocked Washington.Last fall, when few people thought we could get Build Back Better passed through the House, or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed through the House and enacted into law, I brought progressives and our conservative Democratic colleagues and, yes, ultimately, a few Republicans — 13, to be precise — even voted for that Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.Infrastructure is just one example of the kind of thing that we can do in a bipartisan way. And as someone who has been more focused than probably anyone else in Congress on democracy these days, I understand that we are in a very, very polarized environment. But there are other areas.I think you’ll see this week, for example, once the Senate hopefully passes the CHIPS bill, you’ll see bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. I will vote for that bill.[The Senate passed the CHIPS and Science Act on July 27, after this interview was done, and President Biden signed it into law on Aug. 9.]Kathleen Kingsbury: OK.Mara Gay: OK, great. Thanks. So inflation is hitting Americans hard, but especially in New York, where the cost of living, particularly housing, is soaring. What would you do to ease those concerns for voters in the district, particularly on housing, as a member of Congress?Absolutely. So starting with the cost of housing, I recognize that when health care is very expensive in America, that means that people are less able to afford housing, and the cost of groceries, and yes, paying for the cost of gas at the pump. And so I want to start by just framing it in those terms, because they’re all inextricably linked.Housing in particular — I support building as many more units as possible. Because when we expand our housing stock, the cost of housing will go down. And we’ve seen that happen sometimes. It’s sort of a first principle of economics, I guess.It is also the case that we need to pass Build Back Better. I mean, we are talking about tens of billions of dollars for NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority] in particular, and — you know, which is going to be felt in the district and places like Campos Plaza, where I visited, and Red Hook House — it’s the single, or the second largest, NYCHA housing development in all of New York City, and obviously the largest in the borough of Brooklyn.We also, through Build Back Better, are going to create 300,000 additional Section 8 housing vouchers. That’s deeply personal for me, as someone who grew up in Section 8 housing, and who’s housing insecure. I’m also proud to co-sponsor a bill called the Homes for All Act.It’s ambitious. It would create an additional $9.5 million in affordable housing units throughout the country. And I’m running to fight to bring as many of those units to Lower Manhattan and to Brooklyn.[The Homes for All Act would invest $800 billion to build 8.5 million new public housing units, and $200 billion for 3.5 million permanent affordable housing projects.]Jyoti Thottam: Thanks. So on democracy, which you mentioned, what do you think Democrats should be doing to protect democracy and secure voting rights?I think they should pass a bill that I co-authored. And we did pass it through the House, where we do the lion’s share of the people’s work in Congress. It’s a bill called the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.I’ve authored key provisions of that legislation, from the Right to Vote Act, which would finally enshrine the right to vote under federal statutory law — right now, it’s just been interpreted narrowly by an increasingly right-wing Supreme Court. It also contains my bill called the Inclusive Elections Act, which responds to a Supreme Court decision issued in July of last year, called Brnovich v. D.N.C., which guts the clear intent of Congress, the original meaning of Section 2, which we amended to further clarify, even in the early 1980s.We also have to pick up, I would submit — and I think, as everyone understands — just two more Democratic senators. We came just two votes shy of strengthening our democracy through passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. We couldn’t get those two to support an exception to the filibuster, simply to save American democracy.It’s an embarrassment. And if that were happening in any other country, we would look very unfavorably on that. That is what I think history will record, more than anything this year, how we responded to the threat of fascism, which is represented by the modern-day Republican Party.Can I also say something else on democracy? And I know that there are plenty of other questions. The Supreme Court has been an accomplice this entire time. The wave of racist voter suppression that we are currently experiencing has been unleashed in decision after decision, starting with Shelby v. Holder in 2013.That’s how you get state laws in places like Georgia and Arizona and Texas and Florida, long before it became popular. And certainly, my colleagues on the Democratic side scoffed at me. I introduced legislation to add four seats to the Supreme Court.The size of the court has changed seven times before in our nation’s history. More recently, I have led the effort to limit the jurisdiction of the court to review certain statutes, whether it’s with the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is intended to codify Roe v. Wade, or a bill that I just introduced with [Representative]Jerry Nadler, called the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify the right to marry in this country, regardless of who you love.Patrick Healy: Just to step back a bit, do you think the Democratic elected officials are out of step at all with Democratic voters on any issues that are urgent now, like immigration, like L.G.B.T.Q. issues, or even some language, like fascism and the Republican Party, that some Democrats may not —I’ve got a long list. You’re talking to a guy who, as much as he does battle with Republicans and gets attacked on Tucker Carlson’s stupid show, I am engaged in argument after argument with my Democratic colleagues who, for the most part, do not fully appreciate the threats to our democracy in this moment, and who do not fully appreciate that we’ve got precious little time left before it is too late.It is unconscionable to me — and this is not the only solution, but it is one that I think is very important — that only one additional Democratic House member, Bill Pascrell, from the state of New Jersey, signed on to my bill called the Judiciary Act of 2001 to expand the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a real challenge within the House, as also evidenced by when we were trying to pass H.R. 1.[The Judiciary Act of 2021 has 59 Democratic co-sponsors in the House, including Representatives Pascrell, James McGovern and Madeleine Dean, all of whom have signed on since the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade. Ms. Dean became a co-sponsor on Aug. 8, after this interview took place.]You had half of the Congressional Black Caucus saying they weren’t going to support it, because they didn’t agree with ending partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. I whipped votes like mad. And I worked closely with Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to make sure we passed H.R. 1. Eventually, it evolved into the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.Patrick Healy: So you think in that sort of framework that the voters are more, in some ways, more progressive than where Democratic elected officials are now —I don’t think it’s a progressive position to say we have to reform the filibuster to save American democracy. On another issue — oh, sorry.Jyoti Thottam: Yeah, I think we’re going to — yeah, we have a lot of questions.Sorry.Jyoti Thottam: OK, Eleanor has some questions.Eleanor Randolph: So Congressman, these are yes-or-no questions, but I think you’ve already answered a couple of them. One, do you support expanding the Supreme Court? I think the answer to that is obviously yes.I do, yeah.Eleanor Randolph: Do you support ending the filibuster?I do.Eleanor Randolph: I thought so. Now, should there be term limits for members of Congress?Yes, there should be.Eleanor Randolph: How about an age limit?No.Eleanor Randolph: And should Joe Biden run for a second term?Joe Biden should do what he thinks he should do in the year 2024. And I very much look forward to seeing if anyone else is going to run. But I’ve got to tell you, I realize that a lot of folks, including myself, have a number, or a litany, of criticisms of the president, but he’s done some really good things, and I’m really proud that he’s my president, and that he’s our president.Eleanor Randolph: So is that a yes or a no?Should he run? I think — I think I can’t answer that question, because I don’t know what his situation is going to be in the year 2024. And I don’t know what the state of the world will be. And I certainly hope we still have a democracy in 2024. I’m fighting like hell to make sure that happens.Nick Fox: Do you want him to run right now?I’m very focused on what happens in 2022. And I think it has been to the detriment of the work that we still have to do in Congress this year that so much attention has been on the year 2024.Jyoti Thottam: OK. Alex?Alex Kingsbury: You’ve already noted some of the needs we have here at home for building various things, and I’m wondering if you think we should still continue to spend billions of dollars to support the war in Ukraine. If so, what should the upper limit of that spending be, and should we attach conditions to the taxpayers’ money that’s going in?Alex, it is in our strategic interest to continue to support the free people of Ukraine. I was the only House member to go on a congressional delegation with a bunch of senators a couple of months ago. And our allies, whether it is in Eastern Europe, in Western Europe, or in the Middle East, they want to see American leadership.As a baseline strategic matter, we want to make sure that China doesn’t see what’s happening and thinks that it, too, can do the same, like it, too, for example, could go into Taiwan and invade Taiwan. China is an even bigger threat — China is an even bigger threat to the United States than Russia. And it will be far more difficult to impose economic sanctions on China, because its economy is larger, and it is inextricably bound up with economies elsewhere in the world.So I think we have to send a message. I obviously do not support putting troops, American troops, on the ground in Ukraine. And we’ve not done that, and I’m proud that this president has not done that.I don’t want to arbitrarily impose some upper limit on the kind of financial support that we should be providing Ukraine or our allies who are helping us in this effort. And I think doing so would be irresponsible, frankly. I will say I think we’re doing a heck of a lot already, whether it’s providing military equipment or sharing intelligence or training — training other or training with other troops from other countries. I’ve been to those military facilities, and I’ve seen the important work that we are doing abroad.Jyoti Thottam: OK. Nick?Nick Fox: Yeah, I was wondering what you thought Democrats could do about climate change in the face of continued opposition from Republicans and intransigence from the Supreme Court.I am not giving up on passing some climate provisions in a scaled-down Build Back Better. Nick, you know that we had $555 billion in the version of Build Back Better that passed the House. I realize that Joe Manchin, on any given day, will say something negative about the prospects of passing climate action.[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]In the meantime, we should not be waiting on him. The president should be using his executive authority, including in the form of declaring a climate emergency, which would unlock federal resources. We also should not be granting additional oil and gas leases.We’ve got existing leases, properties associated with which are not even being drilled right now. And, of course, this is an opportunity, both from a national security standpoint and from an economic standpoint, to make sure that we are transitioning to clean, renewable sources of energy.Mara Gay: What further action can Congress take on guns?So much more. We have to pass, over in the Senate, a bill that we passed through the House Judiciary Committee and through the House of Representatives, called the Protecting Our Kids Act. Among other things, it would enact universal background checks. It would raise the age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle to 21 years old.It would ban ghost guns. It would ban high-capacity magazines. Of course, the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, just passed the first assault weapons ban in 30 years last week. We need to pass that through the House, and we need to send it to the Senate.[On July 29, after this interview took place, the House passed an assault weapons ban.]I’m under no illusion that the Senate is going to pass an assault weapons ban this year, but we need to get those people on the record. And we need to message that in this election.Mara Gay: What about on abortion rights or L.G.B.T.Q. rights, both, if you don’t mind?Whether it is the Women’s Health Protection Act, which we passed for the second time this year, or the Respect for Marriage Act, my bill with Jerry Nadler that we just passed in the House, we have to be responding to the threats posed by the far-right majority on the Supreme Court to fundamental rights.And by the way, we need to go further. We need to pass a bill to codify the right to contraception — in fact, we did pass a bill to codify the right to contraception last week. Interracial marriage — I think we need to pass legislation to codify that, regardless of whether Justice [Clarence] Thomas gave us a heads-up on that particular case — Loving v. Virginia.We have to make sure that we are responding legislatively. And it’s not just codifying this into law. It is understanding that this Supreme Court has gutted a Voting Rights Act that Congress reauthorized nearly unanimously in 2006.And so it’s not enough to just pass laws. We have to restrain the power. We have to limit the power of the Supreme Court majority. It’s why my project has been not just court expansion, but to deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to even review categories of cases.Most of the cases that the Supreme Court adjudicates are cases for which it has jurisdiction that Congress has explicitly legislated. The Constitution is relatively narrow in the kinds of cases that it gives the Supreme Court. And I’m also really proud on this subject to have done one of the first cases of jurisdiction channeling successfully in the House.In H.R. 1, I was able to get a provision that channeled all challenges to H.R. 1 to the district court in D.C., and then to the D.C. circuit, rather than allowing some judge in the Fifth Circuit to strike down H.R. 1. Obviously, we passed H.R. 1. in the House. We still need to do it in the Senate.Kathleen Kingsbury: What should Congress do to address the increasing threat of domestic extremism or terrorism?So in the House, we passed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which would provide additional resources to the F.B.I., D.H.S., and the Department of Justice. This is personal to me, as someone who is both Black and gay. I look at what happened in Buffalo, and it’s horrific.I have currently — I’m representing a community in Monsey, where we saw an anti-Semitic hate crime committed. And so we have to make sure that we are responding in terms of providing resources to law enforcement to address the uptick in white-supremacist domestic terrorism.I am acutely empathetic towards my A.A.P.I. brothers and sisters in Lower Manhattan and in Brooklyn who, as of late, had been bearing the brunt of white-supremacist domestic terrorism. And the same is true for our Jewish brothers and sisters, whether in Pittsburgh or elsewhere in this country, like in Texas.Jyoti Thottam: OK. We’re going to go to the lightning round, little quiz. Mara, would you please?Mara Gay: Yeah, thanks. How does Plan B work?[chuckles] Plan B is — it is a pill that you take following intercourse to prevent a pregnancy.Mara Gay: How does it work?It … it is an oral medication that prevents … I think, um [chuckles]. It is an oral — that destroys an embryo.Mara Gay: It prevents ovulation, or delays ovulation —Ovulation — got it, got it.Mara Gay: It’s OK. You’re in the hot seat. Do you own a gun?I do not.Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?I have not.Mara Gay: What’s the average age of a member of Congress?The average age of a member of Congress — I should know this as one of the younger — youngest members of Congress. I believe it’s in the late 50s. [Long pause.]Um …[Everyone laughs.]Kathleen Kingsbury: Choose one number in that category.[Everyone laughs again.]59.Mara Gay: 58. Very close. What about among senators?Golly. Um … 68?Mara Gay: 64. Please name a member of Congress, dead or living, who you most admire and would emulate, if re-elected to serve.Jamie Raskin.Mara Gay: What is your favorite restaurant in the new district?So I’ve got a few because of their special meaning to me, but probably Yuca.Eleanor Randolph: Well, speaking about your new district, Congressman, you lived outside New York City until you decided to run for Congress in this district, instead of running against Congressman Maloney. Why are you the right person to represent this district?Voters in New York’s 10th Congressional District deserve a progressive champion with a track record of actually delivering results, and that’s what they want. I’m proud to be someone who was ranked the most legislatively active freshman member of Congress last year.And to have, just days after getting elected in November 2020, to have been voted unanimously by my colleagues as their freshman representative to House Democratic leadership — as I mentioned earlier, at a time when few people thought we could get either the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or Build Back Better passed through the House, I was the person who bridged that divide. And we got that done.I’m also really proud to have already delivered billions of dollars for New York City — for schools, health care and housing through helping to pass the American Rescue Plan. And this is at a time, of course, when the New York City Council just voted to cut New York City’s public school budget by hundreds of millions of dollars.And by the way, as I fight now to represent this district, I’m also fighting to bring as many millions of those billions of dollars in infrastructure dollars to New York City to fund resiliency projects, like in Lower East Side along the East River Park, or to clean up the Gowanus Canal and to repair the B.Q.E., and of course, to make sure that environmental justice communities in Sunset Park and in Red Hook are climate-resilient. And we can do that while creating millions of good-paying jobs, including thousands right here in Lower Manhattan and in Brooklyn. When I say right here, I mean, obviously, in New York’s 10th Congressional District.I’m also really proud, from a legislative perspective, to be leading the charge to defend our democracy and to protect the right to vote. Because I understand that if we don’t have a true multiracial democracy in this country, if we don’t have true representative government, then the work that I am doing to make historic investments in housing, to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drugs and to enact humane immigration policy — none of that stuff is possible.Kathleen Kingsbury: In 2020, you said you supported the movement to defund the police. I’m curious if you still hold that view. And if so, what do you say to voters who are concerned about rising crime right now?It’s a terrible slogan. But the premise of making sure that we have smart policing that keeps people safe, but that doesn’t brutalize Black and brown communities — that still holds today. That’s still something that I very much support.You know, my dad — he’s a tough guy. He grew up in the South Bronx. He lives in the Heights. I’ve never heard him talk about crime the way he talks about crime right now, and I realize that it’s not nearly as bad as you’ll hear on Tucker Carlson. It’s not anything like what we had in the early 1990s.But New Yorkers deserve to feel and to actually be safe. That means not being reactionary, but rather addressing the drivers of crime that we are seeing in this city. It means investing to make sure that we have high-quality schools for every public school student in this city, making sure that every kid has a roof over their head, rather than the fact that currently exists — 110,000 public school students homeless. It’s an abomination. It’s not a civilized society.[During the last school year more than 101,000 public school students lack permanent housing, according to 2021 city data.]Jyoti Thottam: So I know you’ve talked about your legislative record already, so — but can you just choose one — one bill or one thing that you think is your greatest accomplishment in Congress?Bringing billions of dollars to New York City under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. That took bringing progressives and our conservative Democratic colleagues together in a way that was not going to happen until I got involved with a couple of my other colleagues.Mara Gay: What is your pathway to victory in this very crowded race? Talk about the neighborhoods.I’m really proud to be running a truly grass-roots campaign. I mentioned that this is a district that wants and deserves a progressive champion. I’m proud to be knocking on doors. And my team and I, we’re knocking tens of thousands of doors in Lower Manhattan and in Brooklyn.We are reaching people on television and digitally. We are phone banking, and we are texting. We are having — and by “we,” I mean myself — dozens of meet-and-greets. I was just in Park Slope yesterday for yet another meet-and-greet.And folks are responding to the work that I’ve been doing in Congress. They’re not focused on how long I’ve lived in the district, versus how long other candidates have. They want to know what I’m delivering and what I’m fighting for, and whether I understand what is at stake in this election.And I’m really proud of that. And I realize that I don’t have as much money as one of my other opponents, who was up on broadcast with $1 million last week. But I’ve faced longer odds before.The last time I met with this editorial board, you took a chance on a guy who grew up poor, Black and closeted, and who never imagined that someone like him could run for Congress, let alone get elected. And I have hit the ground running.Patrick Healy: We’re almost out of time. Two questions — one, a quick follow-up on the Respect for Marriage vote recently. Was there a Republican whose mind you changed during the course of that, and who you spoke to — not for bragging rights, but just how you talk to your Republican colleagues.I like to think that a conversation that I had with a colleague from Long Island around the Equality Act helped get him a year later to a point where he was willing to support the Respect for Marriage Act. Now, I can’t tell you of a recent conversation that I had with a Republican to get them to support this legislation.Patrick Healy: And then, you’re a progressive, but the Working Families Party has endorsed a rival of yours, Assemblywoman [Yuh-Line] Niou. What should voters make of that?Voters should know that most people abstained or voted no endorsement in that vote, and that the abstentions didn’t count. And so as a result, you had less than a real majority voting. Voters should also know that I’ve been endorsed [in a previous election] by the Working Families Party, and that I’ve been a Working Families Party champion in Congress.Last August, when most of Congress went home on recess, I stayed behind, and I rallied alongside A.O.C. and Cori Bush, and we got the White House to reverse its position on the C.D.C.’s national eviction moratorium. And the president extended that eviction moratorium after he said he didn’t have the ability to do so.And I was wearing my Working Families Party shirt in a photo that went viral. And when I completed the questionnaire, I was answering questions about whether I would support legislation that I myself have introduced — whether it’s the Judiciary Act or something else.Kathleen Kingsbury: Why did you choose to move into District 10, as opposed to, you know, 12?Thank you for that. So we also had a Republican-acting Supreme Court judge adopt what is a Republican gerrymander in New York City. And that was intended to reduce the number of Democrats in New York’s delegation and, I believe, the number of Black progressives or progressives of color in New York’s congressional delegation.I had a choice. My residents have been drawn into a district where Jamaal Bowman announced his candidacy. My alternative was to run against a guy whose primary job responsibility is to help us keep our majority and defeat fascism in America.I didn’t want to run against a Black progressive who’s one of the few people who actually gets what’s at stake in this moment, or the guy whose job responsibility it is to help us defeat fascism. And so I ran to represent a district that means a lot to me, because when I was growing up closeted, it was the time I spent in the Village, seeing queer people, including queer people of color, live authentically, that helped me summon the courage to live my own authentic life and to make that history back in 2020 that people like to talk about.I’ve also worked in this district, and I have been a champion for the communities that comprise this district, whether it is getting billions of dollars for New York City infrastructure, or delivering billions for New York City schools, health care and housing, or leading the fight to end gun violence, to the point where Tucker Carlson has been attacking me on his show, and I’m getting death threats from all across the country.I am proud to also have been fighting in the form of getting Build Back Better passed through the House for tens of billions of dollars in investments in NYCHA, and, as I mentioned, I think, earlier, to create hundreds of thousands of additional Section 8 housing vouchers. I’ve been doing the work. And when I talk to people on the ground, they’re appreciative of that.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. More
