Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Iowa Democrat Drops House Election Appeal, Sparing Her Party a Messy Fight

      by

      Rita Hart withdrew her request to have Congress overturn one of the closest elections in American history, after politically vulnerable Democrats came under attack by Republicans over the review.WASHINGTON — Rita Hart, a Democrat who ran for Congress in 2020 in southeastern Iowa and lost by only six votes, withdrew her request on Wednesday to have the House overturn the election results, ending a bitter dispute that had threatened to become a political liability for her party.The decision cemented Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a Republican doctor, as the winner of one of the closest House contests in American history. It also spared Democratic leaders from having to weigh in on whether to throw out the results of a contested vote months after President Donald J. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election fueled a partisan clash and a deadly riot at the Capitol.Republicans had signaled that they were ready to turn the dispute into a political cudgel against the majority party, and some vulnerable Democrats who had come under attack on the issue in their districts were deeply uncomfortable with the prospect of intervening.In a statement on Wednesday, Ms. Hart repeated her claim that voters had been “silenced” but acknowledged that the contest had become politically contentious.“Despite our best efforts to have every vote counted, the reality is that the toxic campaign of political disinformation to attack this constitutional review of the closest congressional contest in 100 years has effectively silenced the voices of Iowans,” she said. “It is a stain on our democracy that the truth has not prevailed, and my hope for the future is a return to decency and civility.”Ms. Hart’s campaign had identified 22 ballots that they believed were legally cast but “wrongfully” uncounted by state election officials during a districtwide recount in the fall. Rather than taking her case to court in Iowa before the election was certified, Ms. Hart opted to wait and appeal the results to the House Administration Committee, invoking a 1960s law.With Democrats in control of the chamber, they would have run the review and had the power to order their own recount and a vote by the full House on whether to unseat Ms. Miller-Meeks in favor of their own candidate, which would have added to their eight-seat majority.“I’m deeply appreciative that we’re ending this now,” Ms. Miller-Meeks said in a recorded statement on Wednesday evening. “It’s time to move forward, to unite as one group of people supporting Iowa’s Second Congressional District.”Democratic leaders had argued that they were obliged to take the appeal seriously, but Republicans mobilized, accusing them of hypocrisy and trying to steal an election that had been verified by state officials. To drive home the point, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, flew to Iowa on Wednesday before Ms. Hart’s announcement to rail against what he called an attempted political power grab intended to pad Democrats’ margin of control.“Iowans made a decision,” Mr. McCarthy said. “And it’s their voice, and they have a right to have Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who they elected, to continue to serve them.”The dispute was a particularly tricky issue for politically vulnerable House Democrats, who have become targets of a coordinated pressure campaign on the matter. Republicans’ campaign arm found that the issue polled overwhelmingly favorably for them in the competitive districts they hope to flip in 2022.The National Republican Congressional Committee specifically targeted Representative Cindy Axne, Democrat of Iowa, releasing radio ads in her district accusing her of being complicit in an attempt to overturn the will of the state’s voters.An affiliated political action committee, American Action Network, announced last week that it would “spend mid-five figures on phone calls” in swing districts held by Democrats urging voters to oppose Ms. Hart’s efforts. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Conversation With Senator Raphael Warnock

      by

      Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherRepublican-led legislatures are racing to restrict voting rights, in a broad political effort that began in the state of Georgia. To many Democrats, it’s no coincidence that Georgia — once a Republican stronghold — has just elected its first Black senator: Raphael Warnock. Today, we speak to the senator about his path from pastorship to politics, the fight over voting rights and his faith that the old political order is fading away.On today’s episodeAstead W. Herndon, a national political reporter for The New York Times.Mr. Warnock was previously a pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached.Getty ImagesBackground readingGeorgia Republicans passed a sweeping law to restrict voting access in the state, making it the first major battleground to overhaul its election system since the turmoil of the 2020 presidential contest.Last year, Mr. Warnock ran for office in a state where people in predominantly Black neighborhoods waited in disproportionately long lines. Several Black leaders have said Georgia’s new law clearly puts a target on Black and brown voters.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.Transcripts of each episode are available by the next workday. You can find them at the top of the page.Astead W. Herndon contributed reporting.The Daily is made by Theo Balcomb, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Neena Pathak, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillemette, Hans Buetow, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Bianca Giaever, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Alix Spiegel, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano and Soraya Shockley.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Nora Keller, Sofia Milan, Desiree Ibekwe, Laura Kim, Erica Futterman and Shreeya Sinha. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Fate of Biden’s Agenda Hangs in the Balance

      by

      And it isn’t all about the filibuster.Every 10 years, after the collection of census data, states are required to redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts to ensure that they remain equal in population.The process — as readers of this newspaper know — is vulnerable to gerrymandering, in which districts are redrawn to give favored parties, office holders or constituencies an advantage in elections.At the moment, Democrats control the House by a slim 219-211 majority, with five seats vacant. The loss of just five seats in 2022 would flip control to the Republican Party, which would then be empowered to block President Biden’s agenda.Both geographically and politically, the deck is stacked against Democrats, forcing the party and its leader to adjust election strategies every 10 years.This time around, states with Republican governors and Republican legislative majorities contain more than twice as many congressional districts as states under full Democratic control.Further compounding Democratic difficulties, Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden, political scientists at the University of Michigan and Stanford, write in the 2013 paper “Unintentional Gerrymandering”:In many urbanized states, Democrats are highly clustered in dense central city areas, while Republicans are scattered more evenly through the suburban, exurban, and rural periphery.As a result, according to Chen and Rodden, “when districting plans are completed, Democrats tend to be inefficiently packed in homogeneous districts.”Despite winning the White House and the Senate, Democrats suffered a major setback in 2020 as their plans to wrest control of one or both branches of key state legislatures fell short. Democrats failed to take control of the statehouses in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Texas, and of both branches in North Carolina — all states with large congressional delegations.Still, there is hope.First and foremost, Democrats have become competitive in many of the high-growth areas that benefit from redistricting; they have done so by pulling ahead of Republicans among voters with college degrees, who make up a disproportionate share of these prosperous communities.In addition, a total of 18 states have switched from partisan to independent redistricting. And finally, Republican attempts at voter suppression have proven at times to backfire, prompting higher turnout among minorities and increased Democratic Party mobilization.“One might be tempted to think that seat gains largely driven by economic prosperity favor Republicans while seat losses are found in impoverished and declining Democratic areas,” SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor and James G. Gimpel, political scientists at the University of Maryland, write in their Feb. 21 article “Reapportioning the U.S. Congress: The shifting geography of political influence.”In practice, Gaynor and Gimpel argue, Democrats have “adapted most impressively to compete and win in the newly emergent districts in Florida and the Far West,” narrowly eking out victories for control of Congress.As states await census data to guide redistricting, there is one wild card in the mix: the possible enactment of voting rights reform, HR 1 or the For the People Act of 2021 — the measure that passed the House on March 3 on a 220-210 vote, but faces the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.I asked Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard whose specialties include election law, about the bill. He emailed me to say thatThe voting legislation currently before Congress would revolutionize the redistricting process if it passed. It would require all states to use truly independent commissions, effective immediately. Separate from this structural reform, the bill would also include quantitative partisan bias thresholds that maps wouldn’t be allowed to exceed. These thresholds would have real teeth.At the same time, Stephanopoulos continued, the legislation would put the brakes on voter suppression laws:The bill affirmatively requires a series of participation-enhancing policies for congressional elections: automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, at least 15 days of early voting, expanded mail-in voting, restrictions on voter purges, restrictions on photo ID requirements, etc.David Lublin, a political scientist at American University, similarly described the transformative potential of HR1 in an email:The proposed legislation before Congress could have a huge effect in two ways. First, by putting in place a new trigger for the Voting Rights Act, Section 5 would become operative again and the Biden administration could use it to block discriminatory maps as well as an array of laws designed to suppress voting.Second, Lublin continued, by preventingmembers of either party from using district boundaries to entrench their advantage through redistricting. Even though Republicans would undoubtedly benefit from the geographic concentration of Democrats and racial redistricting, it would prevent egregious abuses.In the case of Republican voter suppression laws, Nicholas Valentino and Fabian G. Neuner, political scientists at Michigan and Arizona State Universities, found in their February 2016 paper “Why the Sky Didn’t Fall: Mobilizing Anger in Reaction to Voter ID Laws” thatSurprisingly, empirical evidence for significant demobilization, either in the aggregate or among Democrats specifically, has thus far failed to materialize. We suspect strong emotional reactions to the public debate about these laws may mobilize Democrats, counterbalancing the disenfranchising effect.In an email, Neuner cautioned that “our research is about short-term evocations of anger that may spur mobilization and it is not clear how long such anger can be sustained.”Black voters have proven exceptionally determined in the face of electoral adversity, including Supreme Court rulings weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and voter suppression legislation.Kyle Raze, a graduate student in economics at the University of Oregon, studied turnout patterns in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. The court declared Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get preclearance from the Justice Department for any change in election law, unconstitutional. Shelby opened the door to the enactment of voter suppression measures.Raze, in his February 2021 paper, “Voting Rights and the Resilience of Black Turnout,” writes thatDespite well-founded fears to the contrary, the Shelby decision does not appear to have widened the turnout gap between Black and White voters in previously covered states.Instead, Raze foundan accumulating body of evidence that suggests that voters mobilize in response to increases in the cost of voting when those increases are perceived as threats to the franchise.While 2020 census data is not yet complete, it will determine the specific allocation of House seats to each state. Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, provided The Times with estimates of the number of House seats over which each party will exercise redistricting control. Levitt wrote in an email:It looks like Democrats will control 73 congressional seats this cycle, Republicans will control 188, and 167 will be under split partisan control, plus 7 in states with one district.These numbers represent a considerable improvement for Democrats compared with a decade ago, Levitt observes, when the party “controlled 44 seats, with Republicans controlling 213.”The Gaynor-Gimpel article I discussed earlier describes the shape of old and new districts in past decennial redistricting. In the two most recent reapportionments, based on the 2000 and 2010 census results, clear patterns emerge. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Here's How Democrats' Voting Rights Law Would Work

      by

      The expansive measure would set a nationwide floor on ballot access, nullify many voting restrictions, change the way political districts are drawn and rein in campaign donations.The far-reaching voting rights measure that Democrats are pressing to enact, known as the For the People Act, was more a political statement than serious legislation when lawmakers first proposed it in 2019.The bill, clocking in at 818 pages, includes a laundry list of Democratic priorities like expanded ballot access, tighter controls on political money and support for District of Columbia statehood. It had no chance of becoming law when Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House.But with Democrats in power, the wish list has become a potentially historic law and the most pervasive overhaul of federal election rules in recent memory. Republicans have assailed it as a Democratic effort to rig the political system in their favor, even as some privately acknowledge that the bill’s broad aims are overwhelmingly popular, even among conservatives.President Biden and Democrats portray the bill as the civil rights imperative of modern times and call it essential to shoring up a shaky democracy. But many of them privately concede that some of its provisions, like restrictions on political money, have opponents in their own ranks.Here is a summary of some of the central elements of the measure:The bill would set a national floor for ballot access.Should it become law, the legislation would effectively set a national floor on ballot access, requiring all federal elections to start with an identical set of rules. States and other federal jurisdictions could tweak them to provide more access, but not less. Some states like Colorado and Minnesota have rules that are more generous that the bill mandates; others, like Texas and Tennessee, make it much harder to register and vote than the bill envisions.Jurisdictions could ignore the rules for state and local elections, but as a practical matter, the new requirements would most likely apply to all voting.Some Republicans charge that the bill would rig the voting rules in favor of Democrats. But Republican officials have been working for the past decade to restrict ballot access in ways that make it harder to vote for minority groups that traditionally favor Democrats.Beyond the civic benefits of greater participation in elections, it is clear that expanding voting to more people would benefit both parties. Indeed, as Republicans have increasingly appealed to lower-income and less-educated voters, some experts say the restrictions that they have imposed may actually be cutting into turnout by the party’s loyalists.Many Republican states have had one or more of the voting provisions for years with no indication that they disproportionately favor one party.The measure makes it much easier to register to vote.All voters would be able to register, designate party affiliations, change addresses and de-register online; 40 states and the District of Columbia offer some or all of those options. Voters would also be automatically registered when visiting state or federal agencies unless they explicitly decline, similar to what has been required of most states — but not always carried out — by the federal “motor-voter law” that passed in 1993. Voters could also register when they cast a ballot, either on Election Day or during early voting, as is already the case in 21 states.Early voting would be expanded nationwide, with all jurisdictions offering it for 15 days, for 10 hours daily, at easily accessible polling places. All but a handful of states allow early voting; the average early-ballot period is 19 days, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bill would also require jurisdictions to provide at least one secure ballot drop box for every 20,000 voters.Mail voting would be extended nationwide, and states would have to prepay postage and electronically track ballots so voters know when their ballots arrive and whether they have mistakes that need to be fixed.It would defang many voting restrictions imposed by Republicans.Republicans have won enactment of voter-ID laws in most states by arguing that they are needed to combat fraud, even though the sort of in-person fraud that such rules would discourage is all but nonexistent. The bill would effectively nullify such laws, allowing voters to sign affidavits swearing to their identities rather than showing ID.The measure would also require that voters be notified at least a week before an election if their polling places have changed, and order steps to reduce long lines. Voting rights activists and specialists argue that turnout falls when polling locations are closed or changed.The legislation also tries to beat back rules adopted by some states, including Texas and New Hampshire, that make it more difficult for college students to vote. It would designate universities as voter-registration agencies and offer nonpartisan assistance to students who cast absentee ballots.Under the bill, states would be barred from taking voters off the rolls because they had not participated in recent elections, a practice that the Supreme Court upheld in 2018. Critics argue that the practice is aimed at reducing turnout.It would also restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, cementing into law a practice that states have increasingly adopted but some, such as Florida, have resisted.Partisan gerrymandering would end.Among other redistricting changes, the bill would mandate that political maps be drawn by nonpartisan commissions, not by state legislatures. If a legislature refused to approve a map, a three-judge federal panel would take over drafting.A number of states have established such commissions in recent years, including Ohio and Colorado, but removing politics from political maps has proved difficult. Critics say Arizona’s Republican governor has stacked the selection process for that state’s commission, and the composition of Colorado’s new commission also has come under fire. The legislation lays out detailed instructions for choosing panel members.Political contributions would be reined in.The legislation tries to stop the flow of money to campaigns from abroad by requiring political committees to report foreign contacts, outlawing the use of shell companies to launder foreign contributions and barring foreigners from advising PACs on contributions and other political efforts. These moves and other requirements are direct responses to Russian efforts to support Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.The most contentious provisions would pull back the veil over so-called dark political money, whose donors are secret, and regulate independent political expenditures — mostly spending that is not expressly coordinated with a candidate — by corporations.Those provisions would counter the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent expenditures are a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively allowed nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money — $750 million in 2020, according to the advocacy group OpenSecrets — to support or oppose candidates or causes while keeping donors anonymous.Public corporations would require approval by boards of directors and shareholders for independent expenditures and some other political spending over $50,000.The bill would also require nonprofit groups spending money on elections or judicial nominations to disclose the donor of any contribution over $10,000 and ban shifting money between groups to disguise a donor’s identity. It would also address the growing use of political advertising on the internet, requiring for the first time that ads disclose their sponsors and that online companies keep a public list of political advertising buyers.Finally, the measure would set up new funds to match small donations to Senate and presidential candidates. The money, raised through fines on corporate lawbreakers and tax cheats, would be available only to candidates who reject political donations of more than $1,000. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A National Campaign to Restrict Voting

      by

      Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherIn the weeks after the 2020 election, Georgia’s Republican leaders emerged as defenders of election integrity, rebuffing demands by former President Trump to overturn the results. But now voting rights in the state are under threat. The Republicans in the state legislature watched as the state flipped for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in decades and two Democrats — Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock — won their Senate runoff elections. Their response was a package of voting restrictions. Today, we look at the measures introduced in Georgia and how similar laws may be passed elsewhere in the country. On today’s episodeNick Corasaniti, a domestic correspondent covering national politics for The New York Times. Three Democratic state representatives, Kim Schofield, second from left, Viola Davis and Sandra Scott, at a protest outside the Georgia Capitol as House members debated a bill on voting restrictions last week.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesBackground reading Georgia Republicans have moved early in a campaign to rewrite voting rules. Republicans in other states are determined to follow them.The country’s most hotly contested state has calmed down after months of drama, court fights and national attention. But new storms are on the horizon.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.Transcripts of each episode are available by the next workday. You can find them at the top of the page.Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting.The Daily is made by Theo Balcomb, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Neena Pathak, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillemette, Hans Buetow, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Bianca Giaever, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Alix Spiegel, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano and Soraya Shockley.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Nora Keller, Sofia Milan, Desiree Ibekwe, Laura Kim, Erica Futterman and Shreeya Sinha. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How a Surprise Candidate Has Shaken Up a Key New York City Election

      by

      The late entry of the City Council speaker, Corey Johnson, inserted tension, money and name recognition into the comptroller’s race. The winner will guide New York’s post-pandemic economic recovery.The phone call came earlier this month, not long after Corey Johnson made his surprise late decision to join the New York City comptroller’s race.It was a message delivered on behalf of Representative Jerrold L. Nadler, New York State’s most senior House member, and it was hardly a welcome-mat rollout: Would Mr. Johnson, the City Council speaker, reconsider his decision to run?Mr. Nadler, whose congressional district overlaps with Mr. Johnson’s, had already given his endorsement to Brad Lander, a progressive councilman from Brooklyn.“Brad really wants the job,” said Mr. Nadler, adding in an interview that he was unaware of the call, which was made by a senior staff member. “It’s not a second job because he dropped out of anything.”For much of last year, Mr. Johnson was considered a leading candidate in the 2021 mayor’s race. He dropped out in September, citing the toll that the isolation of the coronavirus pandemic had taken on his mental health. Doing his job as the leader of the City Council while running for mayor would be too much, he said.But by February, Mr. Johnson said his mental health had significantly improved, and he concluded that he wanted to run for city comptroller, partly because he thought he was best qualified to help guide the city’s recovery from the pandemic.Like the race for mayor, the contest for comptroller may be the city’s most consequential in decades, and the June 22 Democratic primary will most likely decide its winner. One of only three citywide elected positions, the comptroller is the fiduciary for five pension funds that are valued at $248 billion and cover almost 620,000 people. The office is responsible for approving public borrowing, serves as the city’s chief auditor and reviews tens of thousands of contracts.Those roles will be even more important given the financial difficulties caused by the pandemic. The city had a 20 percent unemployment rate, and is still projecting hefty future budget gaps. The comptroller will have an important role in overseeing how $6 billion in federal stimulus is spent.“The next comptroller will be the eyes and ears of how the mayor brings back the economy,” said Scott M. Stringer, the current comptroller, who is running for mayor. “We’re on the edge.”The late entry of a well-known Democratic contender into the comptroller’s race bears similarities to the 2013 contest. Mr. Stringer, then the Manhattan borough president, was the front-runner after he — like Mr. Johnson — dropped out of the race for mayor. The former governor Eliot Spitzer, who had resigned from office after a sex scandal, then entered the contest late — like Mr. Johnson. Mr. Stringer prevailed in a close primary election.This year’s contest had seemed to revolve around four elected Democratic officials: Mr. Lander; Brian Benjamin, a state senator representing Harlem and the Upper West Side; Kevin Parker, a state senator from Brooklyn; and David Weprin, a state assemblyman from Queens. State Senator Brian Benjamin is focusing his campaign for comptroller on communities of color and pension-fund retirees who still live in the city.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesTwo newer candidates, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC anchor who ran in a congressional primary against Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zach Iscol, a nonprofit entrepreneur and former Marine who dropped out of the mayor’s race, recently joined the race. But neither has affected it in the way Mr. Johnson has.“He will have the same disruptive effect on the comptroller’s race that Andrew Yang had on the mayor’s race,” said Representative Ritchie Torres of the Bronx, who has endorsed both men. “Corey’s a juggernaut given his overwhelming name recognition and fund-raising.”Upon entering the race, Mr. Johnson immediately announced the endorsements of three fellow Council members, and the head of the Hotel Trades Council showed up at Madison Square Park, where Mr. Johnson announced his bid, to endorse him in person. District Council 37, New York City’s largest public sector union, recently gave Mr. Johnson its endorsement, which would otherwise have gone to Mr. Benjamin, according to multiple sources.“No disrespect to Brian because he is a rising star within the party, but Corey’s experience, having led the City Council and having worked with us, changed the dynamics of this race,” said Henry Garrido, the executive director of D.C. 37.And yet, Mr. Lander may be the candidate with the most to lose from Mr. Johnson’s entry.Mr. Lander has been planning a run for comptroller since shortly after he was re-elected to the City Council in 2017. He is a co-founder of the City Council’s progressive caucus who wrote of his privilege as a white man. He was recently endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and he might be the only person in New York City who speaks gleefully of having met recently with every living former city comptroller.His plans to use the office to address climate change and ensure an equitable recovery from the pandemic earned him early endorsements from unions, progressive groups and politicians such as Representative Jamaal Bowman and Tiffany Cabán, a candidate for the City Council who nearly pulled off a long-shot campaign for Queens district attorney.But at least two endorsements that Mr. Lander was expecting were withheld after Mr. Johnson’s announcement.Mr. Lander has responded with an aggressive effort to counter Mr. Johnson. His campaign released a list of endorsements from transportation advocates, some of whom had previously supported Mr. Johnson for mayor. One of Mr. Johnson’s signature proposals as speaker was a master plan to upgrade city streets, bike lanes and pedestrian spaces, which the City Council approved in 2019. In early March, Mr. Lander unveiled a list of endorsements from leaders in the L.G.B.T.Q. community. Mr. Johnson is openly gay.The day after Mr. Johnson announced his candidacy, Mr. Lander campaigned in Mr. Johnson’s Council district in Hell’s Kitchen.“Attention to the race is good,” Mr. Lander said, while soliciting petitions to get on the ballot. “This is a very high-stakes moment for the city. We need leaders who have shown up for this crisis and are prepared for the job.”Part of Mr. Johnson’s difficulties last summer followed the City Council’s failure to cut $1 billion from the Police Department budget and shift the money toward social services, as he had promised to do in the wake of the protests spurred by the killing of George Floyd.“When the chips were on the table, he folded,” said Jonathan Westin, director of New York Communities for Change, a progressive advocacy group for low- and moderate-income New Yorkers that has endorsed Mr. Lander. “It leads to the question of how capable he will be in standing up to those massive forces pushing back against progressive change as comptroller.”The anger among advocates of the police budget cuts was palpable: Protesters gathered outside Mr. Johnson’s boyfriend’s apartment building, and it was vandalized.Brad Lander, center, has been planning a run for comptroller since shorty after he was re-elected to the City Council in 2017.Victor J. Blue for The New York Times“It was hard last spring and last summer and early fall,” Mr. Johnson said. “But I don’t feel like I’m anywhere near the place I was because I took the time to focus on myself and my well-being and my recovery.”Mr. Johnson said he had been feeling healthy for months when in February colleagues and union leaders began encouraging him to enter the race.“I know the city’s finances better than anyone after negotiating multiple budgets and serving as speaker,” Mr. Johnson said. “I feel ready to be the city’s chief financial officer.”As of the most recent filing period, Mr. Lander had $3.4 million on hand, double the $1.7 million Mr. Benjamin had in his account, and was on his way to reaching the $4.5 million spending cap. Mr. Johnson, based on his fund-raising from the mayoral race, will most likely receive the maximum $4 million matching-funds payment, automatically placing him at the spending cap without his having to make a single fund-raising call. Mr. Lander is also likely to raise the maximum allowed.Helen Rosenthal, a Manhattan councilwoman who dropped out of the race for comptroller and endorsed Mr. Johnson, noted that he had negotiated three budgets while prioritizing reserves that the city was able to use during the pandemic-induced economic downturn.“When he was negotiating the budget, everything was coming at him,” Ms. Rosenthal said. “People were throwing paint at his boyfriend’s door. It was too much.” She added, “If any of the candidates want to say, ‘I know this budget inside and out,’ it’s Corey who actually does.”Mr. Benjamin, who earned degrees from Brown University and Harvard University, and worked as an investment adviser at Morgan Stanley, may benefit if the battle between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lander turns off voters, or compels some to list only one of them in ranked-choice ballots. His campaign is focusing on communities of color and the thousands of pension-fund retirees who still live in the city.“In 2013, Christine Quinn had the most name recognition in the mayor’s race and she didn’t make it,” Mr. Benjamin said. “Eliot Spitzer had significantly more name recognition than Scott Stringer. He didn’t make it either.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Yang and Adams Clash, Councilman Exits: 5 Takeaways From N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race

      by

      The campaigns of Andrew Yang and Eric Adams exchanged harsh attacks, and Carlos Menchaca, a city councilman from Brooklyn, dropped out of the race.For much of the 2021 New York City mayoral campaign, the major Democratic candidates have been polite and collegial, with few flash points of tension.Those days are over.The two leading candidates, Andrew Yang and Eric Adams, have gone from the occasional tepid squabble to a full boil.In recent days, Mr. Adams inaccurately said “people like Andrew Yang,” the former presidential hopeful, have never held a job. Mr. Yang’s campaign responded by accusing Mr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, of making “false and reprehensible attacks.”The Adams campaign shot back with a statement claiming the Yang campaign was “attempting to mislead people of color.”The attacks were a reflection of how the race seemed to be narrowing as the June 22 primary draws closer; indeed, the field grew thinner last week, as a council member from Brooklyn dropped out of the race.Here is what you need to know:The Adams-Yang rivalry comes into focusAlthough many voters are still undecided in the mayor’s race, one dynamic in the contest has become increasingly clear: the growing tension between Mr. Adams and Mr. Yang.Mr. Yang, with his high name recognition, celebrity status and intense in-person campaign schedule, has topped the sparse public polling, as well as some private polling; even detractors privately acknowledge he has injected energy into the race.Mr. Adams, with a Brooklyn base, several major union endorsements and strong ties to a range of key constituencies, has come in second — by varying margins — in several surveys.In the last week, the two campaigns engaged in their most significant clashes to date.The Eric Adams camp accused Mr. Yang of abandoning the city at “its darkest moment” during the pandemic.John Minchillo/Associated PressMr. Adams and his campaign ripped into Mr. Yang’s résumé and accused him of abandoning the city at “its darkest moment” during the pandemic, referring to Mr. Yang’s decision to relocate his family to the Hudson Valley for long stretches of last year.Mr. Yang’s campaign accused the Adams camp of launching attacks laced with “hate-filled vitriol” and sought to elevate Mr. Adams’s record on stop-and-frisk policing tactics as an issue in the race. Both campaigns suggested the other was acting in bad faith.The exchanges signaled just how personal, and ugly, the race could become — and offered a clear sign that the competition is intensifying.“I think it’s too early to say it’s a two-person race,” said Chris Coffey, a co-campaign manager for Mr. Yang, in a briefing with reporters on Friday. But, he went on, “Right now, I’d rather be Andrew and then I’d rather be Eric than anyone else.”Who has the most signatures to get on the ballot?Polls and fund-raising are not the only indicators of enthusiasm for candidates — there are also petition hauls required to get on the ballot.A mayoral candidate only needs 2,250 signatures to be on the ballot, but most garner far more, as a cushion to guard against invalidated signatures and for bragging rights.Mr. Yang arrived at the Board of Elections office in Lower Manhattan last week to file his 9,000 signatures, belting out his own petition-themed lyrics to the song “Seasons of Love” from the Broadway musical “Rent.”“How many signatures could you get in a year? Through Covid and clipboards and winter and cups of coffee,” he sang before trailing off.Mr. Adams’s campaign said it filed more than 20,000 signatures. Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, claimed 25,000.Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, said she had collected 13,000 signatures. In an email, her campaign thanked her purple-clad volunteers, including some who created colorful shoes in her honor reading “Mayorales” and “DM4NYC.”Menchaca exits the raceCarlos Menchaca’s moment of truth came in mid-March, when he looked at his comparatively meager fund-raising numbers and realized he would not become New York City’s next mayor after all.Mr. Menchaca, a councilman from Brooklyn, had by that point raised just $87,000 in a race featuring several multimillion-dollar campaign war chests and two super PACs dedicated to other candidates.And so on Wednesday, he announced on Twitter his decision to suspend his campaign.In an interview, Mr. Menchaca said he would rededicate himself to serving out his final year in the City Council, focusing on the same New Yorkers who were at the center of his campaign: essential workers, many of them immigrants.In particular, he wants to give noncitizens the power to vote in municipal elections, a position embraced by several of his competitors.Mr. Menchaca also plans to endorse a candidate in the mayoral race but has not identified his choice. At this point, he believes the race is wide open.“New Yorkers have yet to truly engage,” Mr. Menchaca said. That belief is supported by a recent poll finding half of likely Democratic voters have yet to decide on a mayoral candidate.Nor, he noted, have his allies in the progressive world coalesced behind a particular candidate. By not doing so, they have lost an opportunity to wield influence in city government, in his view.“The more time goes by, the less ability the noncandidate energy is going to have to impact the race,” he said.Will the next mayor expand preschool for all?Mayor Bill de Blasio announced last week that he is expanding a 3-K program for 3-year-olds — the sequel to universal prekindergarten, his signature mayoral achievement — to roughly 40,000 total seats.This year’s candidates for mayor have their own education proposals, but how would they treat the prekindergarten program?At the mayor’s news conference, Laurie Cumbo, the majority leader of the City Council, said the next mayor should expand the program to 2-K for 2-year-olds. Most of the candidates agree, though they have different plans for doing it. Some want to focus on less wealthy families.Mr. Stringer said he supported the idea and pointed to his “NYC Under 3” plan to subsidize child-care costs for families making less than $100,000.“As mayor, I have a plan to go even bolder and ensure that every family has access to quality child care starting at birth,” he said.Mr. Yang said his family had benefited from universal prekindergarten.“We should not only expand existing 3-K services, but also work to create 2-K programs in the coming years,” he said in a statement.Mr. Adams’s campaign said his plan focuses on subsidies and tax breaks for parents and providing free space to child-care providers to bring down their costs.Others who support a 2-K expansion include Raymond J. McGuire, a former Wall Street executive,; Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mr. de Blasio; Shaun Donovan, a former Obama administration official; and Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner. Ms. Garcia’s child-care plan focuses on families making less than $70,000 a year.Yang is criticized for ditching a forum focused on povertyRunning for mayor in the middle of a pandemic has meant a constant stream of virtual forums for the top-tier candidates, who sometimes attend multiple online events in the same day.Mr. Yang, citing forum fatigue, pulled out of a candidates’ forum last week focused on economic and housing security for poor and working-class New Yorkers — a move that disappointed the organizers, given that Mr. Yang is probably best known for proposing a universal basic income as a tool to fight poverty.“This was a forum that brought together groups who advocate on behalf of low-income New Yorkers and the working poor,” said Jeff Maclin, vice president for governmental and public relations for the Community Service Society, one of the forum’s sponsors. “We were a little surprised that he was passing up an opportunity to deliver a message to this community.”Several other top mayoral contenders attended the forum.Sasha Ahuja, Mr. Yang’s co-campaign manager, said in a statement that he attended three forums last week and had also participated in a Community Service Society forum on health care in January. Mr. Yang also spent time with The Amsterdam News, a co-sponsor of the forum, for a profile recently, “but there are far too many forums and we can’t do each one,” Ms. Ahuja said.Elinor R. Tatum, the editor in chief and publisher of The Amsterdam News, a New York-based Black newspaper, moderated the forum. She said Mr. Yang’s decision to not attend might hurt him among her readers.“He’s got a lot of name recognition, but our community doesn’t know him,” said Ms. Tatum. “We know him as a presidential candidate in name only. We know him from talking about national issues. We don’t know him as a New Yorker.” More