Hochul, Kathleen C

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      As Governor’s Race Tightens, a Frantic Call to Action Among Democrats

      by

      Democrats and their allies are pouring millions of dollars into late-stage ads and get-out-the-vote efforts to help Gov. Kathy Hochul as she fends off her Republican challenger, Lee Zeldin.You don’t need to consult the most recent polls to realize that the race for New York governor between Gov. Kathy Hochul and Representative Lee Zeldin appears to be tightening — just follow the string of Democrats’ calls to action this week.With just 12 days until Election Day, Democrats and their allies are mounting a frenzied push to keep Ms. Hochul in office, pouring millions of dollars into last-minute ads and staging a whirlwind of campaign rallies to energize their base amid concerns that their typically reliable bedrock of Black and Latino voters might not turn out.Labor unions have gone into overdrive, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on television and radio ads to cajole those voters to turn up for Ms. Hochul. On the ground, Ms. Hochul is expected to campaign with Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a party power broker whose Brooklyn district provides crucial votes for the Democratic base, as well as in southeast Queens with Mayor Eric Adams over the weekend.The Hochul campaign has even turned to its former adversaries for help, including progressive lawmakers who opposed her during the Democratic primary in June, and the left-leaning Working Families Party, which called for an “emergency all-hands-on-deck meeting” of its leadership earlier this week to mobilize in favor of Ms. Hochul.Despite Democratic jitters, Ms. Hochul has continued to lead in the most recent major polls, by as little as four points, and as much as 11 points. The governor also still has an overwhelming cash advantage over Mr. Zeldin, as well as an electoral one: Democratic voters outnumber Republicans two to one in New York.Still, many Democrats have grown uneasy that they have not done enough to excite the party’s liberal base in New York, where Ms. Hochul’s victory was once presumed safe. And while some of the recent increase in campaign events is typical in a race’s final stretch, it is also a reflection of how the race’s dynamics have shifted.Recent public polls show Mr. Zeldin, a Republican congressman from Long Island, drawing closer to Ms. Hochul, and during a head-to-head debate on Tuesday, Mr. Zeldin repeatedly sought to appeal to New Yorkers disenchanted with the economy or fearful of crime.Much of the Democrats’ efforts have focused on New York City, the state’s voter-rich Democratic stronghold, which has accounted for about one-third of the total vote in the most recent elections for governor. Democratic strategists believe that if Ms. Hochul can secure enough votes in the city, she will more than offset any gains Mr. Zeldin makes in the suburbs and rural swaths of upstate, where he is more competitive.Erin Schaff/The New York Times“The more Hochul gets out the vote in New York City, the more wiggle room she has with swing voters in the Hudson Valley, in Long Island, and the Buffalo suburbs,” said Alyssa Cass, a Democratic political strategist who has worked in some of the state’s marquee congressional races this year.Indeed, some political operatives have questioned whether Ms. Hochul, who hails from western New York, has done enough to excite minority voters in the city. Her selection earlier this year of Antonio Delgado, a rising Black star who entered Congress in 2019, as her lieutenant governor was seen as an attempt to diversify her ticket.Others have raised concerns that her campaign, run largely by out-of-state consultants, has lagged in traditional organizing tactics and mobilizing voters, and may have relied too much on the prestige of the governor’s office and not enough on retail politics.They point to anecdotal evidence, such as an apparent dearth of Hochul lawn signs compared to the Zeldin campaign. Some voters are still unable to pronounce her last name — it’s Hochul, rhymes with local, her campaign likes to say. Others note that Ms. Hochul did not begin to consistently show up at Black churches, traditional campaign stops for Democratic politicians, until very recently.“Mobilizing and activating African American voters, the backbone of the party in New York and nationally, is crucial these next 10 days,” said Neal Kwatra, a Democratic consultant. “These voters, especially downstate, must be engaged and motivated if you’re going to win statewide as a Democrat.”The campaign’s efforts have included overtures to the Working Families Party, or W.F.P., a left-wing third party that endorsed one of Ms. Hochul’s rivals, Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, during the June primary.Governor Hochul at the Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral of New York in Queens, in June.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesIn an email on Monday calling for the emergency meeting of its leadership, the W.F.P. warned that “depressed progressive turnout could have disastrous consequences for W.F.P.-endorsed down-ballot candidates and the party’s ballot line and future.”“I know that some of us have deep policy disagreements with Kathy Hochul — that’s why we endorsed Jumaane in the primary — but a Zeldin administration would be entirely destructive to our agenda,” Sochie Nnaemeka, the party’s director in New York, wrote in the email, which was obtained by The New York Times.The concerns over voter engagement have also led a handful of labor unions to mount a last-minute drive to aid the governor, through expenditures on television and digital ad buys, with many targeting the party’s base of minority voters.Two unions that represent teachers — the American Federation of Teachers and an affiliate, New York State United Teachers, which represents 600,000 teachers in the state — are each steering $500,000 into a super PAC, Progress NYS, to finance an ad campaign on television and online. Another super PAC, Empire State Forward, is expected to receive at least $400,000 from about half a dozen labor unions to air ads on radio that target Black and Caribbean voters, with a focus on public safety and racial justice. (The Hochul campaign also reserved $150,000 worth of ads, which will begin airing Friday, on radio stations with large Black audiences).Candis Tolliver, the political director for one of the unions, 32BJ SEIU, which represents building service workers, said the ads were meant to speak to many of the union’s members, whom she said were typically “super reliable for Democrats.”“Making sure we turn out the base is going to be particularly important,” she said. “We’re realizing there is some apathy among voters and a fear that folks are staying home, and so we want to remind people not to stay home, and what’s at stake in this election.”The Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, which represents hotel workers, is spending $250,000 over the next two weeks on ads in Spanish-language broadcast channels in the downstate region, as well as on YouTube.Rather than focus on crime or abortion, one 30-second spot homes in on the economy, touting Ms. Hochul’s upbringing in a union household and her commitment to helping working-class families. A voice-over in Spanish tells viewers that Ms. Hochul, who is white and of Irish descent, is “one of us.”The focus on Latinos comes in the wake of national trends showing an increasing number of more moderate, Spanish-speaking voters flipping to the Republican Party, and concern among some Democrats that the same may happen in New York this cycle.The Hochul campaign on Thursday pointed to early signs that Democratic enthusiasm appeared to be strong, citing data from the state party showing that about 60 percent of the more than 167,000 absentee ballots received by election officials so far were from Democrats, even though Republicans are more likely to vote in person.Anna Watts for The New York TimesAs early voting begins this weekend, Ms. Hochul is expected to attend a union rally on Long Island, offer remarks at Black churches, and campaign in Buffalo and Rochester alongside Letitia James, the state attorney general. Her surrogates are also hitting the trail: Mr. Delgado is expected to attend a get-out-the-vote rally in the Bronx on Saturday, while Hillary Clinton is reportedly showing up at a “Women’s Rally” for Ms. Hochul at Barnard College next week.Next week, Ms. Hochul is expected to campaign in the Inwood neighborhood of Upper Manhattan with Representative Adriano Espaillat, and with Representative Grace Meng in Flushing, Queens. Meanwhile party volunteers will launch canvassing operations across the city, from Fort Greene in Brooklyn to Sunnyside, Queens.Mr. Zeldin and his lieutenant governor running mate, Alison Esposito, are in the midst of a two-week “Get Out the Vote Bus Tour” that will include 25 rallies across the state, including a stop in Erie County on Thursday. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fetterman vs. Oz Is Not Really Fetterman vs. Oz

      by

      So, how many of you watched the Pennsylvania Senate debate because you want to back the most articulate candidate?The whole country was wondering how well John Fetterman was doing, given his auditory processing issues. He can get his thoughts across, but there aren’t going to be any oratory prizes in the immediate future.If one of those had been given out on Tuesday night, Mehmet Oz, the Republican candidate, would have won. Big shock, right? The former television talk-show star was more articulate than the guy who had a stroke.But deep down, nothing made much difference. Most viewers knew who they were going to support before the debate began. Hundreds of thousands of them had already voted. Makes total sense. The most important thing about this election, by far, is that it could decide who will control the Senate.There, the big votes are almost always divided by party. Be honest — were you really surprised that Fetterman was the one who wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $15? Or that Oz is the one who would protect the filibuster?At this point, party is all that matters. Still, there we were, trying to judge how the guys performed. On occasion, it was a little hard to tell whether Fetterman’s answers constituted normal political evasion or stroke-induced confusion. For instance, he’d once said he’d never support the very lucrative fracking industry, which many Pennsylvania workers love and virtually all Pennsylvania environmentalists hate. Then he changed his mind. On Tuesday, he said: “I do support fracking. And I don’t, I don’t. I support fracking, and I stand, and I do, support fracking.”That was it, and a very good example of how the repercussions from a stroke can make it much more difficult for a politician to achieve classic dodge-and-switcheroo.Unfortunately, given Fetterman’s trouble with quick repartee, he didn’t throw in a reminder of his opponent’s very recent metamorphosis into a Pennsylvania resident, or more than a quick jab about how Oz, who doesn’t seem worried about the minimum wage, is the guy with “10 gigantic mansions.”True enough. Would have loved to pursue that a little bit — I wonder whether Oz couldn’t be lending one of his Manhattan condos to the homeless. Or displaced Venezuelan refugees?Issue-wise, the big faux pas of the evening actually came from Oz, who flubbed his answer to an abortion question. The good doctor has, um, evolved since he was dispensing medical advice on TV. He was slightly vague but apparently pro-choice back then. Once he became an ambitious Republican politician, he discovered he was “100 percent pro-life.” Now that he’s running in a general election, he’s trying to jump back to the old between-a-woman-and-her-doctor territory.Sort of. On stage this week, he called for a decision made by “women, doctors, local political leaders …”Hmm, how many of you want to bring the local political leaders into this? May I see a show of hands?Oz seemed unthrilled about being asked if he’d back Donald Trump for the 2024 nomination. Which was a little ungrateful, given that he was probably on stage only because Trump had endorsed him in the Republican primary.Bringing up the former president was yet another reminder that our main concern right now is about which party wins control. If you want a Senate that’s going to reject anything that comes out of a Biden White House, feel free to consider the Republican candidates. Otherwise, come on …I know, it’s tough. Voters have less than two weeks to make a choice, and in a fair world they’d be able to think about more than that One Big Thing. What about Fetterman’s long-term prognosis? After the debate, his spokesman said he did “great tonight for a man who was in a hospital bed just several months ago.” That’s true, but it’s not a qualification voters would want to hear for the next six years.You certainly hope he’ll at least be able to get up and go to work. But whatever his condition, don’t express your concern by helping turn the Senate over to Mitch McConnell.If you’ve got a local election for governor or mayor, feel free to mull the character details. They’re the ones whose personality, self-discipline and charisma really matter. For instance, watching the gubernatorial candidates in New York, Kathy Hochul and challenger Lee Zeldin, go at it this week, you got to hear people talk about stuff they could actually do on their own, and not in a pack with 49 or 50 of their colleagues.True, it wasn’t the most stirring debate in state history and objective viewers might have found Zeldin a tad off-putting. (He opened with a rant about how wretched everything was, to which Hochul mildly replied, “Well, nice to see you too …”)Yeah, if you’ve got to vote for an executive, you do need to pay close attention. Take some of the time you were going to devote to those Senate races. On that front, you should have been homing in at primary time, when they picked the candidates. Now, the Republican and Democratic nominees are who they are.And the oratory certainly doesn’t matter. When was the last time a friend told you she’d changed her mind about a big issue after a rousing speech by Senator X? Well, it did sort of work for Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” But that was 30 years before John Fetterman was born.And it was a movie.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

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      5 Takeaways From the Hochul-Zeldin Debate

      by

      In their only scheduled debate, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York and her challenger, Representative Lee Zeldin, quarreled intensely on Tuesday over divisive issues such as rising crime and abortion access, while accusing each other of corruption and dangerous extremism.Mr. Zeldin, who has spent his campaign trying to appeal to voters’ dissatisfaction with the status quo, went on the attack from the get-go, frequently raising his voice as he channeled a sense of outrage, especially around crime. Ms. Hochul, a Buffalo-area Democrat vying for her first full term, took a more measured approach that fit her insistence that the state needs a steady hand to lead it.Scenes outside the debate.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesThere was no live audience, but some New Yorkers expressed their views.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesBeyond trading barbs, neither candidate appeared to have a major breakout moment or gaffe that could reshape the race, which, according to recent polls, may be tightening just two weeks before Election Day. But both staked out starkly different positions on substantive matters from crime to vaccine mandates and the migrant crisis ahead of the general election on Nov. 8.Here’s a recap of some of the most memorable moments.Zeldin repeatedly pivoted to crime.Mr. Zeldin, a Long Island congressman, has for months made crime the central focus of his campaign for governor, and Tuesday’s debate was no different. From the start, he attacked Ms. Hochul, charging that she was not doing enough to stem an increase in serious offenses in the state and especially New York City, and blamed her policies for fueling fears.New Yorkers, Mr. Zeldin said in his opening statement, were “less safe thanks to Kathy Hochul and extreme policies.”Mr. Zeldin largely stuck to tough-on-crime policy points that he honed during his primary campaign. He forcefully criticized Ms. Hochul for opposing further revisions to the state’s bail law and called for changes to laws that reformed the juvenile justice system and the parole system in the state.Mr. Zeldin also doubled down repeatedly on a vow that, if elected, he would immediately remove the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, from office, accusing Mr. Bragg of failing to enforce the state’s criminal code.Ms. Hochul sought to redirect attention to her efforts to stem the flow of illegal guns and noted that she had already tightened the bail reforms earlier this year. Those efforts, she said, had already proven fruitful.But Mr. Zeldin argued that the governor was overly focused on gun crime and had not focused enough on other offenses of concern to New Yorkers, including a rise in violent incidents in the subway system.Mr. Zeldin repeatedly turned the debate back to the topic of crime.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesIn New York City, the number of murders and shootings both dropped by about 14 percent through Sunday compared with the same time period last year, though other serious crimes, including robbery, rape and felony assault, have increased, according to police statistics. Though she largely kept her cool during the hourlong debate, Ms. Hochul appeared frustrated with Mr. Zeldin’s insistence on discussing crime when moderators were asking about other topics, something he did even during a discussion of abortion.Hochul says abortion is ‘on the ballot.’Throughout the debate, Ms. Hochul sought to criticize Mr. Zeldin’s anti-abortion stance, saying that he couldn’t run from his long record in Congress opposing access and funding for abortions.“You’re the only person standing on this stage whose name right now — not years past — that right now, is on a bill called ‘Life Begins at Conception,’” Ms. Hochul said.Ms. Hochul cast herself as a bulwark against a potential rollback of abortion protections in New York, warning that Mr. Zeldin, if elected, could appoint a health commissioner who is anti-choice — as he once pledged to do — and shut down health clinics that provide reproductive care.“That is a frightening spectacle,” said Ms. Hochul, the first female governor of New York. “Women need to know that that’s on the ballot this November as well.”Ms. Hochul said Mr. Zeldin could appoint a health commissioner who is opposed to abortion rights.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesReiterating a pledge from earlier this month, Mr. Zeldin vowed that he would not seek to unilaterally change the state’s already-strict abortion protections, which are enshrined in state law. Mr. Zeldin said that doing so would be politically unfeasible and that Ms. Hochul was being disingenuous by suggesting he would do so, given that Democrats control the State Legislature in Albany and are likely to retain control this election cycle.Mr. Zeldin, however, raised the prospects of potentially curbing funding for abortions for women traveling to New York from other states where abortions are banned.“I’ve actually heard from a number of people who consider themselves to be pro-choice, who are not happy here that their tax dollars are being used to fund abortions, many, many, many states away,” he said.Zeldin dances around his ties to Donald Trump.For months, Ms. Hochul has emphasized Mr. Zeldin’s close relationship with former President Donald J. Trump, focusing particularly on the congressman’s vote to overturn the results of the 2020 election hours after the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.Though Mr. Zeldin has scoffed at Ms. Hochul’s focus on that day, when asked by debate moderators if he would repeat his vote, he stood by it.“The vote was on two states: Pennsylvania and Arizona,” he said. “And the issue still remains today.”Sarah Silbiger/ReutersMr. Zeldin walked a delicate line as he was questioned about his relationship to the former president. When asked if he wanted to see Mr. Trump run in 2024, he waved away the question as irrelevant. When Ms. Hochul asked if he thought Mr. Trump — who lost New York by 23 percentage points in 2020 — was “a great president,” he refused to give her a simple “yes or no” answer.Yet Mr. Zeldin did not denounce Mr. Trump, who remains popular with many of the Republicans that he needs to draw to the polls if he hopes to defeat Ms. Hochul. He said he was proud to have worked closely with the former president on a laundry list of issues ranging from local crime to international politics.Ms. Hochul appeared satisfied with the reply. “I’ll take that as a resounding yes,” she said. “And the voters of New York do not agree with you.”Questioning Hochul’s ethics.Mr. Zeldin wasted little time impugning Ms. Hochul’s fund-raising efforts, accusing her of orchestrating “pay-to-play” schemes because of the large sums she has raised from people with business before the state.In particular, Mr. Zeldin referenced a $637 million contract that the state awarded in December to Digital Gadgets, a New Jersey-based company, for 52 million at-home coronavirus tests. The founder of the company, Charlie Tebele, and his family have given more than $290,000 to Ms. Hochul’s campaign and hosted fund-raisers for the governor.The Times Union of Albany has reported that the company charged the state about $12.25 per test, similar to the retail price for many tests, and that the company did not go through a competitive bidding process.“So what New Yorkers want to know is what specific measures are you pledging to deal with the pay-to-play corruption that is plaguing you and your administration?” Mr. Zeldin asked.Ms. Hochul vehemently denied any connection between the campaign donations and the contract, saying the company helped the state obtain an extraordinary number of tests at a time of huge demand when tests were relatively scarce nationwide. The company has also previously said that it never communicated with Ms. Hochul or her campaign about any company business.“There is no pay-to-play corruption,” the governor said. “There has never been a quid pro quo, a policy change or decision made because of a contribution.”Thalia Juarez for The New York TimesMs. Hochul, clearly expecting the attack line, used the opportunity to underscore the millions of dollars that Ronald Lauder, the heir to the cosmetics fortune of Estée Lauder, has steered into super PACs supporting Mr. Zeldin’s campaign, saying, “What worries me is the fact that you have one billionaire donor who’s given you over $10 million.”Only a glancing focus on the economy.Despite public polls showing that inflation is a top-of-mind concern for voters, the economy and rising costs of living received less attention than anticipated during the debate.Mr. Zeldin promised to slash taxes across the board if elected, saying that “New York is going to be back open for business on January 1.” He also vowed to block the congestion-pricing plan that would charge drivers a toll for entering part of Manhattan, which he believes would burden middle-class New Yorkers during a precarious economic moment.Mr. Zeldin questioned what Ms. Hochul has done as governor to try and stem New York’s recent population loss. The state has lost 319,000 people since mid-2020, a decline of 1.58 percent that is higher than any other state, primarily as a result of residents moving away, according to an analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts.In response, Ms. Hochul turned to a turn of phrase she deployed several times during the debate, saying that Mr. Zeldin was more fixated on “sound bites” than “sound policy.” She challenged him to detail which social programs he would reduce spending on if he cut the state’s corporate and personal income tax rates, which are among the highest in the nation.And she highlighted her own record of economic investments. She mentioned the tax rebates she had enacted for the middle class, as well as a recent agreement to persuade Micron to build a semiconductor facility near Syracuse, a deal that the company said could generate more than 50,000 jobs. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      New York’s Governor’s Race Is Suddenly Too Close for Democrats’ Comfort

      by

      For months, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York has trusted that the state’s strong Democratic majority would keep her in office largely on the strength of a simple message: Her Republican opponent was too close to Donald J. Trump and would roll back abortion rights.But just two weeks before Election Day, a rapidly tightening contest has Ms. Hochul racing to expand her closing argument as Democrats warily concede they may have misjudged powerful fears driving the electorate, particularly around crime.In just the last few days, Ms. Hochul stood with Mayor Eric Adams to announce a new flood of police officers into New York City subways; she visited five Harlem churches to assure stalwart Black voters she was “laser-focused” on safety; and she highlighted new statistics showing that authorities were seizing more guns under her watch.“We believe in justice, the justice that Jesus teaches us, but it’s also about safety,” Ms. Hochul said at one of her stops in Harlem. “We are laser-focused on keeping you, your children and your grandchildren safe.”Her campaign has begun recalibrating its paid message, too, shifting the focus of millions of dollars in ad spending to highlight the governor’s efforts to stoke the economy and improve public safety, notably including a package of modest changes to the state’s bail laws that has divided her party. The spots trumpeting her record will run alongside a new ad tying Mr. Zeldin to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Anxious Democrats are hopeful that the changes can stabilize the governor’s campaign after weeks of increasingly shaky polls that show Ms. Hochul’s lead dwindling to single digits over Representative Lee Zeldin, the Republican.The narrowing margin tracks closely with recent surveys showing that fears about public safety and inflation have eclipsed abortion and the former president as make-or-break issues for voters, eroding Democrats’ support even in liberal enclaves like New York City and its suburbs, while rewarding candidates like Mr. Zeldin who have made crime the visceral centerpiece of their campaign.“Maybe it was the right thing to do at the time,” David A. Paterson, the former Democratic governor, said of the decision by Democrats to spend precious time and money messaging on abortion rights this summer.“But these times, meaning September and October,” he continued, “really call for more conversation about what we do with convicted felons, what we do with the judges’ capacity to assess dangerousness, and obviously what we do with a significant number of people with mental illness walking the streets right now.”Ms. Hochul has used appearances with Mayor Eric Adams of New York City to highlight anti-crime initiatives.Yuki Iwamura/Associated PressThose issues are all but certain to figure prominently in the first and only televised debate between Ms. Hochul, 64, and Mr. Zeldin, 42, on Tuesday night.Certainly, Ms. Hochul remains the favorite in the race, and her campaign has tried to calm jittery allies. She has a vast fund-raising advantage, passable approval ratings and a two-to-one registration advantage statewide for Democrats over Republicans. While several polls last week showed a tight race, a Siena College survey from that period showed the governor still up by 11 points.“There is no question that the national environment has gotten tougher for Democrats in the last few weeks,” said Jefrey Pollock, Ms. Hochul’s pollster. “We are focused on making sure that every Democrat understands the stakes and votes. When Democrats vote in New York, we win.”But for Democrats who are not accustomed to close statewide races in New York, some level of panic appears to be setting in — that Mr. Zeldin could flip Black, Latino and Asian voters worried about public safety, but also that other rank-and-file Democratic voters may simply sit the race out because of apathy about Ms. Hochul and her low-key campaign.“It doesn’t feel like there’s a ton of groundswell from the bottom up,” Crystal Hudson, a left-leaning Brooklyn City Council member. “Perhaps Democrats are taking for granted that New York state is bluer than we think it might be.”In Manhattan, the borough president, Mark D. Levine, said he, too, had grown increasingly concerned in recent weeks that Democratic voters were missing the warning signs. On Sunday, he put together a rally with more than a dozen elected Democrats on the ultraliberal Upper West Side to “wake up Dems.” The event turned raucous when hecklers, some wearing Zeldin garb, tried to derail the speakers.“There hasn’t been a seriously competitive statewide election in 20 years and Democrats certainly in Manhattan and elsewhere have been taking November on autopilot,” Mr. Levine said afterward. “It’s not an exaggeration to say we can’t win statewide unless we get Democrats in Manhattan excited to vote.”The stakes have only grown in recent weeks amid a massive outside spending campaign by a handful of ultrawealthy conservative donors seeking to capitalize on the public safety debate to damage Ms. Hochul.Ronald S. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir, put more than $9 million into a pair of pro-Zeldin super PACs at the start of September, almost single-handedly bankrolling statewide television ads that savage Ms. Hochul’s record on public safety. Just on Friday, one of the PACs reported new contributions totaling $750,000 — a sum that would take even Ms. Hochul, a prolific fund-raiser, days to raise from scores of donors — from a shell company that appears to be tied to Thomas Tisch, an investor from one of New York’s richest families.New York is not the only state dealing with increases in certain crimes since the onset of the pandemic, and the reality is more nuanced than Republicans would suggest. As Ms. Hochul likes to point out, the state remains safer than some far smaller, many run by Republicans.But a rash of highly visible, violent episodes on the subways and on well-to-do street corners around the state in recent months have left many New Yorkers with at least the perception that parts of the state are growing markedly less safe.In Ms. Hochul’s 14 months as governor, she has taken a nuanced approach to public safety issues. She has meaningfully tightened the state’s gun laws. She and Mr. Adams have pledged more money for mental health services for disturbed people who commit crimes. And she has initiated plans to put cameras in every subway car. Under pressure from Mr. Adams, a former police captain, Ms. Hochul used the state’s annual budget to strengthen bail restrictions and tighten rules for repeat offenders, over the objections of some more left-leaning colleagues.“He doesn’t own the crime issue,” Ms. Hochul said in an interview on Sunday about Mr. Zeldin. “Saying that more people should have guns on our streets and in our subways and in our churches as a strategy to deal with public safety — that’s absurd.”But until very recently, she had relatively little to say about it in the general election campaign, outside of criticizing Mr. Zeldin’s opposition to many gun control measures, and a single Spanish-language ad focused on Ms. Hochul’s gun policies.That omission has left some moderate Democrats fearing that the party has ceded the terms of the debate to Republicans like Mr. Zeldin, who have decried legislative attempts by the Democrats to make the system fairer as “pro-criminal” laws.After Ms. Hochul and Mr. Adams announced on Saturday that the state would pay for more police officers in the subways, Mr. Zeldin pilloried the plan as little more than a political gimmick.His own campaign platform calls for firing the Manhattan district attorney and declaring a state of emergency to temporarily repeal the state’s cashless bail laws, and other criminal justice laws enacted by the Democrat-run Legislature.“For Kathy Hochul, it wasn’t the nine subway deaths that drove her to action. It wasn’t a 25-year-high in subway crime. It wasn’t New Yorkers feeling unsafe on our streets, on our subways and in their homes,” he said on Sunday. “For Kathy Hochul, all it took for her to announce a half-ass, day-late, dollar-short plan was a bad poll.”Lee Zeldin, right, has received endorsements from numerous law enforcement unions, including the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesThe challenge for Ms. Hochul in shifting that narrative was on clear display on Sunday, as she shuttled up and down Harlem to speak at five different Black churches, usually a hotbed of Democratic support.At the first stop, Mount Neboh Baptist Church, the Rev. Johnnie Melvin Green Jr. gave a full-throated, personal endorsement of the governor from the pulpit, but he sounded alarmed about low turnout and the state of the race.Without naming Mr. Zeldin, the reverend warned that certain people had “hijacked” the public’s understanding of what was happening in the city, leading to “a race that shouldn’t be tight.”“I want to make something crystal clear because they aren’t going to explain it to you in the media,” he said, adding: “They want to make us afraid.”Jeffery C. Mays More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Zeldin Agrees to Debate Hochul This Week in N.Y. Governor’s Race

      by

      ALBANY, N.Y. — Closing the chapter on a lengthy and bitter exchange, the Republican candidate for governor, Representative Lee Zeldin, has agreed to debate Gov. Kathy Hochul this week.The debate — the only one before the general election on Nov. 8 — will be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday and hosted by Spectrum News NY1.That even one debate would be held has been a matter of some contention. Mr. Zeldin had previously challenged Ms. Hochul to a series of debates, but she agreed to this single one.Mr. Zeldin refused to accept the date in protest, noting that because it came so late, many voters would already have received and filled out absentee ballots. But Ms. Hochul held firm, and on Sunday, Mr. Zeldin agreed to appear.When asked on Sunday on Channel 7’s “Up Close” about her refusal to agree to additional dates, Ms. Hochul noted that a single debate was not unusual for New York governor’s races.“I also want to point out, I’m still running the state of New York government. I don’t have time to stand on a street corner screaming into the wind,” Ms. Hochul said.Previous governors have also played hardball with debate scheduling — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo was notoriously reluctant to debate challengers. But unlike previous incumbents Ms. Hochul has not yet been elected to the office of governor, having ascended from the lieutenant governorship only after Mr. Cuomo resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment.Mr. Zeldin has repeatedly accused Ms. Hochul of avoiding the debates to avoid answering questions about her record, a line of attack he reprised in his statement Sunday. Even so, he said, did not intend to “let her off the hook.”Jerrel Harvey, a spokesman for the Hochul campaign, welcomed the news that Mr. Zeldin would debate, saying: “Governor Hochul looks forward to highlighting her strong record of delivering results and exposing Lee Zeldin’s dangerous lies.”The debate will be held at Pace University in Manhattan and will be available to New York viewers on Spectrum news channels and will be moderated by Susan Arbetter and Errol Lewis. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      For New York Governor, The Times Endorses Kathy Hochul

      by

      The race for the governor of New York is unusually close this fall. That probably reflects the frustrations of many voters in the state: Like millions of other Americans, New Yorkers are living with sharply higher costs for housing, food and fuel; higher rates of crime; an unsteady economy; and schools where teachers and students are struggling to overcome two years of learning loss. A total of 71,623 people in New York have died of Covid as of Oct. 21, and the pandemic left many others ill, isolated or angry at the failures at all levels of government to protect them and get the state moving again. New York City’s transit system has not regained its ridership, office towers are not full, and the financial system has taken longer to recover than in many places in the United States.This is fertile ground for a candidate like Representative Lee Zeldin of Long Island, the Republican nominee for governor. He can easily be mistaken for the moderate that he likes to portray: just another average New Yorker worried about jobs and safety, family and gas prices. Someone who wants to shake up Albany and get things done.New York has a long, proud tradition of moderate, thoughtful Republicans, from George Pataki to Nelson Rockefeller. Mr. Zeldin is not part of this tradition.Over and over again, he has demonstrated a loyalty to Trumpism over his oath to defend American democracy and the Constitution. In his campaign for governor, he makes spurious arguments about crime, and his public safety plan appears to be little more than returning to the zero-tolerance policies that have no clear connection to improving safety. Ads from Mr. Zeldin’s campaign use threatening images of Black men to stoke panic, and one features a crime that took place in California. And the plans Mr. Zeldin has laid out during this campaign lack a serious interest in the work of governing, at a time when the state needs strong, energetic leadership.Compare that with the record of Kathy Hochul, who has used her first year in office as governor to show that she can get things done to improve the lives of New Yorkers. Ms. Hochul has set aside political drama to make progress on the things that matter most to New Yorkers — health, safety and access to good jobs and housing. For that work, she has our endorsement for a full term.Ms. Hochul, who took office after Gov. Andrew Cuomo resigned in August 2021, made some important changes right away. She appointed top-notch leadership, including Dr. Mary Bassett, the state’s health commissioner, and Janno Lieber, chair and chief executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, who have brought competence and zeal to two of the toughest jobs in America. Ms. Hochul has worked diligently with Mayor Eric Adams of New York on issues from transit to crime, and their respectful partnership is a refreshing change from the petty, ego-driven rivalry of Mr. Cuomo and former Mayor Bill de Blasio.Her determined, collaborative approach to governing dovetailed with important economic and policy advances — again, without the drama of the Cuomo years or the divisiveness that a Trump-supporting governor would bring. Her record includes an upstate hydropower, solar and wind initiative expected to create thousands of jobs, a proposal for a new rail line in New York City, tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses, expanded child care subsidies for families of four earning up to $83,250, and $25 billion for affordable housing. Ms. Hochul has struck a deal to bring Micron Technology, a computer chip company, to upstate New York, a move that could add thousands of jobs in the state. Along with the State Legislature, she has strengthened laws that protect reproductive freedom and voting rights and ensure gun safety. Her approach to managing the nation’s largest transit system has been to hire the right people and then get out of the way and allow them to oversee long-overdue upgrades.In her actions, Ms. Hochul has demonstrated a steady, cooperative and focused hand in an uncertain era. That’s equal measures temperament and the urgency of circumstance. But it’s also the mark of a leader who is focused on finding solutions to the big problems — such as battling the economic headwinds hitting the state — rather than getting off track with partisan warfare.Mr. Zeldin speaks passionately about the fears that New Yorkers have about crime, but his ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny — they won’t improve safety and they amount to an undemocratic power play, such as his plan to declare an emergency for crime. He told the Times editorial board this week that he would remove from office the elected district attorney of Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, who has continued the work of criminal justice reform that the state and city have pursued in recent years. Earlier this year, Mr. Bragg revised some of his policies; Ms. Hochul was among those who urged him to do so. That kind of open dialogue makes for better policy. A governor who would consider removing an elected official over a policy disagreement is nullifying the will of the people of New York.Ms. Hochul has been a steadfast defender of strong gun laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the state’s law on concealed-carry restrictions, she quickly mobilized the Legislature to draft new legislation.None of this is to suggest that Ms. Hochul does not still have work to do as governor. Even with a Democratic majority in the State Legislature, change has been slow, and public safety, in particular, has risen to the top of many voters’ concerns. In New York City, crime overall is up about one-third so far this year from 2019 levels.Ms. Hochul has not articulated a plan sufficient to address the state’s housing crisis. We’d also like her to set a higher standard for ethics in Albany — her decision to accept campaign donations from individuals who sit on state boards and company executives who have business before the state has been particularly disappointing. So, too, is her lack of transparency around the state budget process. These practices are business as usual in Albany, but Ms. Hochul has a chance to raise the bar.Mr. Zeldin, on the other hand, has called the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade “a victory for life, for family, for the Constitution, and for federalism” — a position misaligned with a vast majority of New Yorkers. In Congress, he voted for legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks with few exceptions.He has one of the worst environmental records of any member of Congress from New York, according to the League of Conservation Voters, and would reverse the state’s ban on fracking. As a state senator, he voted against the 2011 Marriage Equality Act, which legalized gay marriage.What’s worse, Mr. Zeldin has embraced the conspiracy theories and lies surrounding the 2020 presidential election. Dozens of court cases in several states have found that there was virtually no fraud in that election. When asked if he accepts those conclusions, Mr. Zeldin told this editorial board in an interview that “none of us at this table know” the extent of the fraud. But, in fact, we do.Mr. Zeldin played an active role in attempts by Donald Trump and his allies to undermine American democracy. According to evidence shared with the House select committee on the Jan. 6 attack, Mr. Zeldin sent text messages on the day before the election was called for Joe Biden to Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, suggesting “ideas” for how to use unsubstantiated allegations about voting irregularities. Hours after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, Mr. Zeldin voted against certifying presidential election results in states that Mr. Trump lost, although he said to this board that he never claimed that President Biden’s victory was illegitimate.Not only his beliefs but also his actions in the wake of the 2020 election make Mr. Zeldin unfit for the office he is seeking. Across the nation, at the ballot box, Americans this fall are being asked questions about where they stand on truth, integrity, the rule of law and on democracy itself. New Yorkers are no exception. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Interview: Lee Zeldin Talks to the New York Times Editorial Board

      by

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