New York City

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The New York Times’s Interview With Jo Anne Simon

      by

      Jo Anne Simon is a state assemblywoman representing parts of Western Brooklyn in New York’s 52nd District since 2015.This interview with Ms. Simon was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 27.Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: I wanted to start — and I understand that by necessity you have to reject the premise of this question — but I hope we could talk a little bit about what you would be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress, and if you could be as specific as possible. But also, if there’s one big idea that you really want to pursue on a bipartisan basis.So, I do reject the premise of the question. So, No. 1, that’s true. I think that when you are changing opinions and changing hearts and minds, that you have to be clear about what you are about. You have to be fact-based, and you have to be able to engage with people.And a career of advocacy — very often where people are lacking in knowledge, for example, and have a lot of preconceived notions. And certainly my history as a disability civil rights lawyer at the dawn of the Americans With Disabilities Act, trying a seminal case in the area, I had to do a lot of educating of the court and of others.And the only way you do that is to be honest, to communicate and to engage people where they are. I certainly have done that in the State Legislature, although in my house we could pass a bill, obviously, if it’s our bill on the floor. When I passed the red flag law the first time — and I passed it a couple of times before — the Senate changed and we were able to get it as a law.Half of the Republican side voted in favor. Because they knew that this was about protecting people and about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have guns. And I was able to communicate that. And because I have, I think, the trust and respect of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, they believed me.Where there had been an earlier version, I made a number of changes to it that really tightened it up. That allowed people from upstate who were [inaudible] Democrats to vote in favor of the bill as well. You have to understand where people’s concerns are and how you can address them in a positive, constructive way.So do I know exactly what that would be in a Republican-controlled House? For example, one issue I’ve been associated with for many years is dyslexia, and the issues of reading and learning. I know we share an interest in that. There is a Congressional Dyslexia Caucus, and it’s bipartisan. Because this affects everybody’s children. It affects people who didn’t know they had this disorder.And the fact is that teaching our kids to read, that’s the way we’re going to save our democracy. We can empty our prisons if we teach our kids to read. And right now we’re not doing a good job of that for most students. And certainly an even less constructive job when it comes to kids with reading disabilities.I mean, I can tell you the data, but I don’t know how much you want to get into it.Mara Gay: Thank you. So inflation is hitting all Americans hard, but in your district, as you well know, the cost of living is really driving concerns. What would you do as a member of Congress to build more housing and ease that burden for your constituents?First of all, we need more federal money into housing. The federal government has really abandoned housing for all intents and purposes for many decades. I think one of the things we need to be is intentional about who is doing that development and how it’s happening.And so one of the concerns — and of course, we’re not running the City of New York, right? We don’t run their land use policies. One of the concerns that is always present in my mind is, are we being told that something is affordable when it’s not really affordable? We have numerous examples of that, I’m happy to go into more detail.I think we need to be providing money for supported housing. We could — so many people who are currently homeless and need supported housing and could be independent with the supports they need. And the other thing is to free up access to capital for not-for-profit housing developers. They can build more units, more deeply affordable units, permanently, because they don’t have that profit margin to worry about.So right now we’re kind of ceding control to big corporate developers who, if you do 25 percent of affordable housing, A, it’s not generally affordable to the people who need it, but even if it is, you’re — 75 percent of the project is luxury. And in my district, that’s all there is now, right? There’s a big stratification of that.That leads to displacement. People grew up in my neighborhood, my district, can’t live there. Seniors can’t live there. Atlantic Yards, we ended up with 25 percent of the African Americans in Community Boards 2, 3, 6 and 8 have been permanently displaced. That promise of affordable housing hasn’t been affordable. And the few that were available at that band haven’t been built. And only a third of the houses have been built in the 18 years.Mara Gay: Do you support building more truly affordable housing in wealthy areas of New York City, especially in N.Y.10?Yes. I think that there is a missed focus in some respects. And that is not so much the wealthier areas don’t want affordable housing. I think that’s where the battle lines have been set. What they want is for it to really be affordable. So when we have advocated for more affordability, we’re always told they can’t do that. Right?The issue is not quite what it is often set out to be by those vested interests.Jyoti Thottam: Councilwoman, I just wanted to shift to a national issue. As you know, there are many threats to our democracy right now. If you’re elected to Congress, what do you think Democrats could do to protect democracy more broadly and specifically secure voting rights?Well, I do think we need to pass voting rights legislation. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, I’m very proud that New York did that. I was very engaged in that process. We have a good example here in New York State. I think that the real challenge is going to be the Senate.I think the answer — and that would be before I would take office — is to flip a couple of seats in the Senate. There are flippable seats, and if we can neutralize Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, we can actually get — I know it’s hard to do. But if you get two seats, you can make them less relevant. And you can do what you need to do to get rid of the filibuster, even if it’s only for certain types of legislation, and make some change.That’s a real challenge to us as a democracy. I am hopeful because I’m seeing the generic ballot is starting to tip towards the Democrats. But the reality is we have to speak out. We have to be — talk about democracy all the time and preserve democracy, and have that be part of our conversation. We have to look at new ways to make that argument. Because currently, the old ways haven’t been working.But if you are on the ground listening to people and working with the people from around this country who are incredibly diverse in their thinking, democracy is the one thing that we share. And we have an overwhelming effort on the part of the right to be Christian nationalists.So we have to look at racism in every way that we can. I think the big issues in our world are climate, race, gender and the displacement of people. All of those things hang together, and that’s very much what our democracy can protect.Jyoti Thottam: Thank you. I’m going to hand this over to Patrick. And apologies, I realize you’re an assemblywoman.It’s OK.Patrick Healy: Do you think that Democratic elected officials today are out of step with Democratic voters on any issues? On immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on other issues, just where you see the conversation happening among officials and then what you hear from voters?Well, first of all, I confess that I live in something of a bubble, right? N.Y.10 is something of a liberal bubble. And so I think we have elected officials that, for the most part, are in step. I do think, however, that not everybody is listening to the people on the ground.And that is where, for example, I think that I excel. I came up from community, I’ve been a community leader trying to get the attention of officialdom on issues that were cutting edge, on issues that were before and ahead of their time, where we were laughed at. And now those —Patrick Healy: Any kind of a specific issue today where it feels like —Environmental justice. Sinking the Gowanus Expressway into a tunnel. We were talking about technology that hadn’t been used in the United States. We were definitely laughed at until we finally brought the guys from Germany in who said, no, this can happen. Then we pass the laugh test.And then it’s about funding, and it’s about the willingness of the state to actually build the project. And that did not go so well, although we have a plan that we can dust off and make happen. But we need to bring those federal dollars to that infrastructure money.And if you take down the Gowanus Expressway, you will open up the waterfront. You will do environmental justice. You can clean the air if you do a tunnel. So these are practical, responsible and environmentally just approaches that I’ve been at the head of and leading on for 25 years.Eleanor Randolph: So we have several yes-or-no questions, and we’d appreciate it if you’d limit your answers to yes or no. The first one is, do you favor expanding the Supreme Court?Can I say yes and?Eleanor Randolph: We’d appreciate it if you just said yes.Yes. I would add the term limits.Eleanor Randolph: OK. Now, expanding the Supreme Court?Kathleen Kingsbury: She’s saying yes, and —I said, yes, and —Kathleen Kingsbury: She’d also create term limits.And ethics.Eleanor Randolph: Would you end the filibuster?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: What about term limits for members of Congress?Term limits for members of Congress I’d have to look at more closely. I think the biggest challenge we face right now as a country is the Supreme Court having lifetime appointments.Eleanor Randolph: So is that yes or no?It’s a maybe. It depends on what it is that we’re talking about.Eleanor Randolph: What about an age limit for members of Congress?It’s certainly something I would consider.Eleanor Randolph: And should President Biden run again?I’m not sure.Eleanor Randolph: OK. Thank you very much.Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask about Ukraine. I’m wondering if you think there should be an upper limit on the amount of taxpayer money that should go to Ukraine, and if there should be any limits placed on that taxpayer spending.Well, I think one thing that we need to look at is really what those costs are in real time. I think setting a limit where you don’t know what it is you’re dealing with is a little difficult to do with any fidelity. So it’s something that I certainly would want to look into a little bit more. I can’t tell you that I know what the number is by any shades of the imagination. I’m not in that line of work. So I’m not good at estimating what that amount of money is.But I also think that this is a major democracy issue. This is a democracy in Europe that is a bulwark against the encroachment of authoritarianism. And I think that that is a terrible influence on the United States. And so the question is going to be what costs democracy. And I’m not sure what that amount of money is. But I do know it’s something we need to be very careful and intentional about.Nick Fox: What do you think Democrats could do about climate change in the face of Republican opposition and difficulties on the Supreme Court?[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]Well, I think, No. 1, if you’re just looking at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in West Virginia, you need to codify some of the issues that they said were not — that Congress had not told the E.P.A. they could do. And they’re going to do that with other things as well. And so codifying actual — the regulations, in essence, is going to be more important as we go forward. This is something that the Supreme Court’s been leaning towards for quite some time.The other thing, of course, is to embed climate goals and climate justice and money to everything we do. And so, any bill that we pass, we need to have climate as part of our focus. It has to be part of the lens through which we see. So when we talk about jobs, those jobs need to be jobs of the future. They need to be jobs that are not going to further the fossil fuel pollution of our country.We are in the midst of a huge climate crisis right now, and our heat the last week or so is a clear indicator of that. We’re seeing that with record rainfalls, with flooding. So everything that we do needs to have a climate focus on it. That is, I think, the only way that we can make progress, and we need to encourage people to engage in that, right?So we will save our climate ourselves if we compost, if we take certain actions, if we change or put solar on our roofs. That sort of thing. So we need to incentivize that. But we also need to make sure that that is included and anticipated in every bill that we pass.Mara Gay: OK. What further action can Congress take on gun violence? Just one or two things.Well, universal background checks is critical. We need to ban assault weapons. When we banned assault weapons, we had fewer mass shootings, right? Once we start — and research. Once they stopped researching gun violence, that precipitated additional gun violence.I’m proud of having started the New York State gun violence research institute because — but we were forced to do that because the federal government hasn’t been doing it, and we have a lot of catch-up to do.Mara Gay: And what about on abortion? Anything else that Congress can do?Well, passing the Women’s Health Protection Act, for sure. But also making sure that what we do, when it comes to funding, when it comes to access, recognizing that just because you have a right to doesn’t mean you can exercise that right. You have to be intentional about the fact that X bill could be implemented in a problematic way so that people could in fact be denied access to that care.I was an abortion counselor for years in Washington, D.C. It is something that I feel in my bones. It is something that I will never walk [inaudible].Kathleen Kingsbury: Alex, did you want to follow up?Alex Kingsbury: Just really quick. We hear about assault weapons bans a lot. There are about 15 million of these weapons in circulation right now. Does a ban mean buying them back? Does it mean just banning the sale of new ones? What are we going to do about all these millions of weapons that are already out there and beyond our control?Well, I think buying them back is a great idea, if we can find a way to do that and fund that. I think the problem is once you have all these weapons out there, it’s very hard to get them back. One of the ways we might do that is this further passing of red flag laws in states and financing the implementation of that.I passed the strongest red flag law in the country. But New York State didn’t follow up with implementing it. It was very hard for me to get data about that. I’ve been talking about us needing a public campaign, public awareness campaign, because people don’t know that they have the ability to move forward.And we certainly saw that in Buffalo. We saw that — this was a young man who went out and bought a weapon in New York State, but he modified it with parts from Pennsylvania. So that issue about parts is important. That’s a federal issue, it’s interesting. We need to act on that as well. But I think it’s very hard to get weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them unless we actually exercise those rights under red flag laws. We can do that. It’s not criminal, it’s a civil approach. And we can do that.[The Times has not confirmed the state where the Buffalo gunman purchased the parts he used to the modify his weapon.]Now, when it comes to people who have assault weapons who are not a danger to themselves and others, I think that public pressure, peer pressure, can also make a big difference when people realize that there’s no reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon. There just is no reason for a civilian to have an assault weapon. It’s like smoking. When you make it unpopular, people will start changing.Mara Gay: Assemblywoman, we have a lightning round for you. First question is, how does Plan B work?Plan B?Mara Gay: Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: The morning-after pill.Mara Gay: Yeah.How does it work?Mara Gay: Yes.It causes the — it stops the implantation. If you get it early enough, then you’re not going to actually implant.Mara Gay: It actually prevents or delays ovulation.It prevents ovulation? OK. I took the poll in The New York Times, and I scored 100 percent on it. So I —Kathleen Kingsbury: Thank you.[Laughter.]Mara Gay: It’s OK. I caught you nervous. Do you own a gun?No.Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?No.Mara Gay: What is the average age of a member of Congress?I have no idea.Mara Gay: It’s 58.Fifty-eight? OK.Mara Gay: What about senators?Probably older, I would say. Think it’s much older. I’d say, I don’t know, 75.Mara Gay: Sixty-four.[Laughs.]Mara Gay: Please name a member of Congress, dead or alive, whom you most admire and may emulate yourself after if elected.Dead or alive, wow. Well, I’m a big fan of Maxine Waters. I have great admiration for the folks that were leaders on the A.D.A., such as Senator Tom Harkin, Tony Coelho. But I think that somebody who’s got the finger on the pulse is good.Mara Gay: What is your favorite restaurant in the district?Convivium Osteria.Mara Gay: Thank you.Kathleen Kingsbury: I wanted to ask you about your decision to run for Congress as well as for re-election for your current seat. Which of those jobs do you want? Which one are you the most excited about?Well, that’s a sneaky question. I’ll say, No. 1, first of all, I was running for re-election when this happened. So I was already on the ballot for November. As you know, in New York, you couldn’t get off the ballot now if you tried, for one.I love my job in the Assembly. I had no intention of running for Congress. But Congressman Nadler made a decision that set in motion all these changes. And when the final map came out, I looked at it and said, this has my name on it. Because it’s communities I have worked in as a community leader, on big issues that connected communities. Like those traffic and transportation and environmental and health and safety issues. Leading on safe streets and traffic calming.I’ve worked in every community in this district — in the Brooklyn side of the district — long before I was ever elected to office. So it’s an area that I’m very familiar with, and I really know the issues, and I know that I can deliver on, just as I have delivered on those issues for my constituents currently.Patrick Healy: You were elected to the State Assembly in 2014. What laws did you personally sponsor that have improved the lives of New Yorkers?I would say, No. 1, the red flag law that we passed. I closed the L.L.C. loophole. I have passed in both houses, finally, a bill that requires the community to be consulted and residents to be consulted and their needs addressed in the closing of assisted living facilities, which is happening more and more because of real estate deals. Really happened on Prospect Park West.I have a bill to do the same thing for the closing of hospitals. We just weren’t able to get it past the Senate this year, unfortunately. I also changed the language in all of our statutes when it comes to firefighters and police officers. Instead of firemen and policemen, it is now firefighters and police officers. And that really changes the game, particularly for the women of the F.D.N.Y., for example. A very, very low rate of women firefighters.I work very collaboratively with them, and they are working very closely with new recruits to make sure that the language is changed in all of the preparation of training materials, for example. And I think that that will have a long-term impact as well. And the other is my dyslexia bill, where we mandated that if someone has dyslexia, that schools actually have to call it that instead of making believe that they’re not allowed. Which is something they told the parents for 45 years.Mara Gay: Thank you. So can you please talk to us a little bit about your path to victory? Others in this race have more money, some have powerful endorsements, like the 1199 S.E.I.U., which went to Carlina Rivera. So just tell us what your pathway to victory is in this very crowded race.Well, my pathway to victory comes through community. I am deeply embedded in the issues in this district in a way that I think none of my opponents are. Much of labor is staying out of this race because they have so many friends in this race. So these are not groups that have been supportive of me in the past.I have endorsements from people who matter on the ground. My predecessor Joan Millman, Senator [Velmanette] Montgomery, Deborah Glick has endorsed my candidacy. Margarita López, a former councilwoman who reached out to me wanting to endorse. As you know, she represented the Lower East Side in the council for a number of years.Plus I have the most active Democratic clubs, both in Brooklyn and in Manhattan. Now, the Manhattan club that I went to, they didn’t know me. And based on the way I talked about those issues and my track record of delivering and being on the ground, representing people where they are and listening to community, they made the leap to cross the river to endorse in another borough, and they are the largest Democratic club in Manhattan.And these are the people who are most activated. They are the most active voters. My district is roughly 30 percent — if you look at double prime voters — 30 percent of the turnout. And everybody is nipping away, of course. That’s what politics is about. But the reality is I’m very strong in my base. I’m very strong in the 44th A.D. I did very well in Sunset Park in the borough president’s race, almost overtaking Mr. Reynoso.So people throughout Brooklyn — I have support from public housing in my district at Red Hook. So these are people who are activated voters, they know why they’re voting, they’re sophisticated voters, and they are going to be coming out for me.Mara Gay: Thank you.Jyoti Thottam: So, given your deep ties to this community, I’m sure you’ve heard from people, their concerns about what looks like rising crime in some of these neighborhoods, public safety. What do you say to those voters?Well, public safety is many things. And so obviously you have to listen to people, and you have to respond. So the issues about public safety are often very clouded in rhetoric, but people are feeling unsafe.And so one of the things I did at the state level was I passed a bill that would allow, for example, a judge who can, at any time, order a psych evaluation for someone with serious mental illness. And to be able to hold that person and send them to a place where they can get an evaluation right away. A competent place. There are many mobile units and others who can do that. Many of the Health & Hospitals, corporation hospitals, are very well equipped to do that.And then that becomes treatment. And the response to that and the assessment of that individual becomes part of the conditions for release. Because the problem is, right now, what they do is, if someone comes in and is clearly seriously mentally ill and just bopped an Asian grandma over the head — scaring her and the community — the court will say, here’s a voucher, call this number and set up an appointment.Well, that person is never going to set up that appointment. They’re just going to go out, bop somebody else over the head a couple of days later, making everybody feel less safe. So we have to deal with the real issue at hand, and that’s one of the real issues at hand. The other thing, of course, is to not give in to some of the rhetoric that is misstating what it is that the legislature did.Yesterday the speaker issued a statement because Mayor Adams said: I want to have a special session in the Legislature to address these issues. But each and every one of the issues he was talking about are already bailable. Bail reform has nothing to do with those. So we have to be forthright and honest with people and say: Look, this is about something else. It’s important. And you’re right, and you’re right to be concerned. But this is about something else. It’s not about going bail reform, for example.And then hate crimes. I have a bill — and, again, couldn’t get it past this Senate yet — that would change the burden of proof. So the big issue with prosecuting hate crimes is that prosecutors can’t make the case, because you have to prove intent. And how do you prove intent? You prove intent by somebody saying something despicable as they bop the Asian grandma over the head.What I have proposed is a rebuttable presumption. By certain actions in certain communities, certain parties to the incident, for example, the person who is the victim, we can infer that, in fact, that is a bias crime, and then there’s a rebuttable presumption. So the defendant has the opportunity to rebut that with evidence that, no, it was not. I was just, just whacked this person over the head, but it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Asian, right?So I think that’s important. I’ve heard some colleagues talking about raising the penalties. Well, you can raise the penalties, but if you can’t make the case, it doesn’t matter. Right? And this is about making the case and making people feel safe.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

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The New York Times’s Interview With Jerrold Nadler

      by

      Jerrold Nadler is a congressman who has represented neighborhoods on Manhattan’s West Side and parts of Brooklyn in New York’s 10th District since 1992.This interview with Mr. Nadler was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 26.Read the board’s endorsement of Mr. Nadler for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 12th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: Congressman, I understand that you have to reject the premise of this question. So please excuse me in advance. But I hope we could start by talking about what you think you’d be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress, and is there one big idea that you would pursue on a bipartisan basis?Well, yeah. Remember, I was ranking member of the Judiciary Committee before I was chairman, so we’ve gone through this. I think we could accomplish some antitrust stuff. [Inaudible] and I are working well on that. We discussed the tech antitrust deals that we reported out a few months ago, we got very — we got bipartisan support to it. That would be the most obvious thing.Mara Gay: So inflation is hitting very hard across the country, obviously. But especially in New York, where the cost of living is already very high, especially in housing. What would you do to ease that burden for your constituents?Well, first of all, inflation is not just a New York problem. It’s not just an American problem, it’s a worldwide problem. Probably caused to a large extent by the dislocations due to the pandemic and the resulting problems to supply chains and [inaudible].The best thing we can do on the national level is to sharply raise taxes. Raise taxes on very rich people, that would cool down the demand side, which would have an impact on inflation. In New York, obviously, the housing is a big crisis. We have to build more housing. There’s no question.Mara Gay: What can you do as a member of Congress to do that?Well, we have to fund it. Nydia Velázquez and I two years ago introduced the bill for — to increase funding for NYCHA by — well, not for NYCHA, for public housing. NYCHA is the majority of public housing in the country. So, in effect, for NYCHA, by $72 billion.[Representatives Velázquez and Nadler introduced a bill in 2019 seeking to allocate $70 billion for public housing capital repairs and upgrades and $32 billion for the New York City Housing Authority.]There’s additional money to the Build Back Better bill, which, unfortunately, we haven’t been able to pass. But we will be if a Democratic Senate — we’ll pass that.[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]And we just have to fund housing a lot more. And we have to allow the construction of housing by removing a lot of the restrictions on density housing. The Urban Renewal Corporation — it always changes names, the Urban Development Corporation — has that authority to remove local zoning. So use it for other purposes as you use it for this.Jyoti Thottam: What do you think the Democrats should do to secure voting rights and, more broadly, protect democracy?Well, as you know, I’ve been leading the fight on that. Voting rights is — the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore — and in fact would restore Section 5 preclearance underneath the Voting Rights Act, and would undo a lot of what the Supreme Court has done in narrowing down Section 2. So we restore the Voting Rights Act through Section 2.Section 2 is of limited use because they play Whac-a-Mole. That’s a terrible bill. We’re suing the court. Takes three years to get rid of it and they do another one. That’s why Section 5 is so important for preclearance.And that’s why I applaud the passage of that bill placed in the Judiciary Committee. And on the floor, we passed in the House. We cannot pass it in the Senate. And, again, we need two more Democratic senators.Patrick Healy: Do you think —That’s the answer for a lot of things. We need two more Democratic senators.Patrick Healy: Do you think Democratic elected officials are out of step with voters on immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on any important issue of the day?Well, we’re obviously out of step with half the voters, roughly. But I think those half of the voters — this country is a very polarized country. Almost half the voters — I hope they’re almost half and not half — are impervious. They live in a different world. They get all their information from Fox News and Newsmax.They think that the crime is terrible in these Democratic-led cities, where, in fact, it’s not higher than in rural areas. They think that Antifa burned up half our cities. They live in a different world.Patrick Healy: What about Democratic voters?Democratic voters do not live in that world. I think Democratic voters are ready for real change. And they’re showing people, I think, people have voted for systemic change. That’s why we’ve had — the Democratic Party is a broad coalition. If you were in Europe, it would be five political parties.But that’s truly the American political system generally. The Electoral College system forces everybody into two parties. And we need, frankly, a center-left party, the Democrats, a center-right party, the Republicans.Unfortunately, the Republicans are not a center-right party these days. They’re more like a cult group. But Democratic voters have supported very substantial steps. They’ve supported all our voting rights legislation. They supported our gay rights legislation, our L.G.B.T.Q. legislation. They supported our women’s legislation.So Democratic voters, with coaxing, we can bring them on what we need.Eleanor Randolph: Hi. So these are yes-or-no questions. And we’d appreciate it if you’d just limit the answer to either yes or no, which, I know it’s hard. Do you support expanding the Supreme Court?Yes, it’s my bill.Eleanor Randolph: Do you support ending the filibuster?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: Should there be a term limit for members of Congress?No.Eleanor Randolph: How about an age limit?No.Eleanor Randolph: And should President Biden run for a second term?That I can’t give a yes or no answer. I’ll simply say to that, I think the interests of the Democratic Party and the country are best served by waiting till after the midterms before we begin discussing that.Eleanor Randolph: OK.Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask about Ukraine. And I’m wondering if there should be an upper limit on the amount of tax dollars that we spend on the war in Ukraine. And how do you talk to your constituents about the fact that we’re spending billions of dollars on a war we’re not officially a party to, and that money isn’t going to, say, projects in your district?I don’t think there should be an upper limit. The Russians have broken the barrier, really, imposed by World War II. You just don’t invade another country for territorial acquisition. That’s the foundation of the world order.And if they can get away with that, you’ll have chaos and lots more wars. If this country were attacked, we would spend far, far more than we’re spending on Ukraine now. And we can afford to spend more on Ukraine. We have to spend whatever it takes because they’re fighting our battle for us.And the country can afford it. This country has — we can afford that. And we can afford much greater social services simply by increasing taxes on the rich, which would also help with inflation, as I said before.Nick Fox: Given the continued opposition to climate action by the Republican Party and the Supreme Court, what can Democrats do to move us forward on that?Well, the president’s taken a number of actions within his jurisdiction. That’s what he can do. And what Congress can do is we can check that — again, we need two more votes. But we can pass very strong legislation on gas emissions. We could mandate the very, very quick convergence to electric cars.We can mandate that there are no new coal-fired plants built. We could mandate the conversion of those coal-fired plants to green plants, rapidly. And in fact, it’s cheaper today to build and operate a renewable plant than it is a coal plant. We can do that if we have a few more votes.Mara Gay: What further action can Congress take on gun violence at this point? Let me guess. We need two more votes.Well, I led the passage in the Judiciary Committee and in the House of the Save Our Kids Act, which is an amalgamation of seven bills that — with the passage of — we’ve seen them pass the red flag law. We can pass those.[The Protecting Our Kids Act passed the House in June.]We are taking up an assault weapons ban, which is my bill. We passed that out of committee, we should be taking that up on the floor this week.Ditto for a bill to repeal the liability exemption for gun manufacturers. That was imposed by the Republicans back in 2005. We passed that out of committee. We should be taking that up on the floor this week.Now, most of those won’t go through Senate. Get us two more votes and they will. But I’ll say this. We did pass into law Senator Murphy’s bill. And I’ll use, just for the purposes of illustration — [inaudible] these figures. I’m just making them up. But if our bill could save 100,000 lives and the Murphy bill we passed could save 10,000 lives, I’ll take — I’ll take the 10,000 and I’ll continue to fight for the 100,000.Mara Gay: And what about on abortion rights? Anything more that can be done?Yeah. We can — there are a number of things that can be done. Again, we can pass and we should pass the bill to codify abortion rights. I introduced the original version of that, the Freedom of Choice Act, about 10 or 12 years ago, because they didn’t trust the Supreme Court for the future.[Mr. Nadler reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act in 2006.]It’s now the Women’s Health Act. It’s sponsored by Judy Chu. We passed it in the House. And the Senate is the problem. We can make sure that the pill method — mifepristone, et cetera — is legal. We can mandate that.I think we could probably tell the post office not to adhere to any bans in delivery by … states. We’re passing a bill to guarantee the right of free passage from state to state. But, frankly, I think the Constitution mandates that anywhere [inaudible]. We’re passing a bill on that.And let me tell you my fear. My fear is far worse than this. If you look at the logic of the Supreme Court’s decision — and [Samuel] Alito said that, in differentiating himself from [Clarence] Thomas — Thomas was basically saying that the logic of substantive due process should endanger Obergefell and Lawrence — that is to say, gay marriage and, essentially, sodomy. And he didn’t say Loving, but … it could apply there, too.But even Roberts, his concurring opinion when he said, no, no, we don’t have to go that far, we’re just deciding abortion for now. He said that abortion was different because the fetus is a person.[In his majority opinion, Justice Alito argues that the constitutional rights recognized in Obergefell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas and other cases aren’t threatened because they don’t involve destroying a fetus.]Follow that logic. If a fetus is a person, the 14th Amendment guarantees any person life, liberty or — says you can’t deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. My fear is that within the next — I don’t know how many years — but at some point in the next few years, the Supreme Court is going to decide just that. That a fetus is a person you can’t deprive of life, liberty or property without due process of law.And therefore abortion is unconstitutional without any exceptions as a matter of constitutional law. And Congress can’t do anything about that, which is one reason that Senator Markey and I and two other colleagues of mine in the House proposed to expand the Supreme Court about a year ago, because that is the only answer. We’ve got to get rid of the filibuster. We’ve got to expand the Supreme Court.Kathleen Kingsbury: What should Congress do to address the increasing threat of domestic terrorism? We’ve seen some horrific incidents over the past few months.We passed the — I held hearings — I directed hearings in the Judiciary Committee, I think it was last year, to expose the threat of domestic terrorism, to show that 95 percent of the domestic terrorism comes from right-wing, racist groups and not from Antifa or other such nonsense. We held those hearings. And we passed the domestic terrorism bill. Again, in the House.Mara Gay: OK. So we have a lightning round question for you.OK.Mara Gay: So the first question is, how does Plan B work?By Plan B, you mean the medical —Mara Gay: The morning-after pill.The morning-after pill. You take one pill. And I think a few days later, you take a second pill. [Inaudible.]Mara Gay: Not quite. But I’m just wondering if you could tell us, medically speaking, if you know how Plan B works. What you were talking about, I believe, is referring to medication abortion.I think it’s designed to prevent the implantation.Mara Gay: That’s close. It delays or prevents ovulation.OK.Mara Gay: Do you own a gun?No.Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes.Mara Gay: In what context?When I was a kid, we lived on a farm, chicken farm in Jersey. And my father had — I don’t remember if it was a shotgun or a gun or a rifle — which he used to shoot the fox that was preying on the chickens. And once or twice, he let me — with him standing there — fire the gun. I was maybe 8, 9 years old.[A phone rings.]Mara Gay: What is the —Sorry.Mara Gay: Oh, sure.Let me get that. Sorry.Mara Gay: What’s the average age —[The phone continues ringing.]Mara Gay: What’s the average age of a member of Congress?I don’t know.Mara Gay: Fifty-eight.OK.Mara Gay: What about the Senate?If congress is 58, the average age of the Senate is probably somewhat higher — 65.Mara Gay: Sixty-four. Close. Please name a member of Congress, dead or living, whom you most admire and would potentially emulate yourself after if re-elected.Jamie Raskin.Mara Gay: What is your favorite restaurant in your district?[The phone rings again.]My favorite restaurant is Cafe Arte.Mara Gay: Thank you.I’m not going to take the call. I’m just trying to —Mara Gay: If you hit the right side, yeah.Kathleen Kingsbury: Congressman, you were first elected to Congress 30 years ago. And you chair the Judiciary Committee. How would you use your seniority to help residents in your district going forward? In your next term.Well, I will use the seniority going forward exactly as you said. I would say that seniority gives you clout. And it has enabled me to bring a lot more transportation and other infrastructure projects to the district. I was the senior northeast representative on the T. & I., the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, for many years.And so I used the seniority to be able to get [inaudible] every five years — funding for the Second Avenue subway, funding for gateway, funding for the rail freight tunnel, which I’ve [inaudible] for many years. I’ve funded all kinds of transportation projects. And seniority helps. Helps me go to other committee chairs and get all kinds of other things.Jyoti Thottam: So, again, just in your role on the Judiciary Committee, I want to ask you about Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, who our paper has reported has urged lawmakers in Arizona to overturn the 2020 election results. She’s been widely criticized for her communication with the White House during that period.Yep.Jyoti Thottam: Why hasn’t the Judiciary Committee done more in its oversight role? Do you think there’s a conflict of interest there?I certainly think there’s a conflict of interest there. We have been asked by the speaker to defer all such things to the Jan. 6 commission until they finish.Jyoti Thottam: So you just — there’s nothing else that you can do.There’s nothing else we can do until the Jan. 6 committee is finished, which we anticipated will be in September and apparently will.Patrick Healy: How do you feel personally about the idea of impeachment for Justice Thomas?I think it’s probably a good idea. I can’t say that for certain until we know more about what Ginni Thomas’s role was. She has agreed to testify at the Jan. 6 committee. And I think a lot more information will come out of that.Patrick Healy: Could you tell us about an issue or position on which you’ve changed your mind?Sure. I voted to repeal Glass-Steagall back in 1998. I think that was a terrible mistake. And I regretted it for a long time.[Mr. Nadler voted in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which overturned much of the Glass-Steagall Act.]Mara Gay: Congressman, could you talk —I bought into the — excuse me.Mara Gay: Sorry.I bought into the deregulationary rhetoric of the Clinton administration. That was a mistake.Jyoti Thottam: So, then, just related to antitrust — so now we’re at this position where you’re trying to get antitrust bills through the committee. But it’s not clear if they will actually go through.Well, they’ve gone through the committee. They have considerable bipartisan support, surprisingly. And there’s considerable bipartisan support in the Senate. Senator Klobuchar is negotiating with Senator Grassley. They’ve gotten, I think, nine Republicans so far. If they get one more Republican, it will pass.Kathleen Kingsbury: I want to follow up on something from earlier. But I think this will be a relatively quick question. You mentioned earlier that right-wing media has perpetuated the perception of crime being up in blue cities, yet we all live in New York City. And I think that it’s safe to say right now there is a perception that crime is up and that the city is less safe than it was, particularly before the pandemic.No question.Kathleen Kingsbury: Can you talk a little bit about what you think the city should be doing more of, and maybe if there are national solutions there?Well, crime is up all over the country, in rural as well as city areas.Kathleen Kingsbury: Right, OK.And it’s no more uptick. It’s no more uptick. It’s not further up in —Kathleen Kingsbury: Got it.In city areas and rural areas. And that’s probably as a result of the pandemic, the social dislocations of the pandemic. And there’s not much we can do about the past. But I think there are a number of things we can do now.No. 1, in no particular order — No. 1, we got to get the guns off the streets. And as you know, I’ve been the leader, one of the leaders on the anti-gun legislation. We just passed — well, I mentioned some legislation we passed this week, how we’re going to do the anti-assault-weapons ban on the floor. And this week, we’re going to do the bill to revoke the companies’ liability protections.Secondly, in addition to guns, there is a whole social services — we’ve got to get more social services into cities, especially into areas of color, because that’s where a lot of the problem is. And those are some things you’ve got to do.Nick Fox: How do you get the guns off the street?Jyoti Thottam: Nick, Mara had a question she’s been waiting to ask.Mara Gay: Thanks. I just want to make sure we talk about this campaign, which is quite unusual. Could you talk to us about your path to victory? And not only is it an unusual race, but one of your opponents, Carolyn Maloney, I believe has — a bigger portion of her current constituents happen to live in this new district. So how do you overcome that?What has your campaign been like? How many doors are you knocking on? That kind of thing.Well, first of all, Carolyn is saying that the 60 percent of the district is her own district. I don’t know whether she means by the population or acreage. When you look at the number of registered Democrats, it’s about even.And when you look at the number of prime Democrats, which is to say people who voted in two of the last three primaries, it’s about 52 percent from the West Side. When you look at super primes, people who voted in three of the last three primaries, it’s about 53 percent or 54 percent from the West Side. And this primary being in the dog days of summer, the worst time you can hold a primary, it’s most likely to be the super primes who vote. So I think there’s an advantage there and a disadvantage.Secondly, we are executing a fine program. We’ve got hundreds of volunteers out making thousands of phone calls a week, identifying people. Have a direct mail program to get — not a direct mail program, a program to incentivize people who are not going to be in town to get these absentee ballots.We’ve gotten tremendous endorsements. I’ve got an endorsement from Senator Elizabeth Warren. I’ve got the endorsement of 1199 [S.E.I.U., a health care union], the Working Families Party, just about every elected official in my old district. So I think we’re in good shape.Mara Gay: Thank you.Nick Fox: I just wanted to follow up. When you said get the guns off the street, I was wondering how you’re going to do it.Well, I wish we could do what Australia did. But it’s not in the cards. We’re just never going to do that.Jyoti Thottam: You mean the buybacks?Under penalty of criminal law, they did that. You get the guns off the street by seeking to do a number of things. You ban ghost guns, which our legislation has done. You ban ammunition clips greater than 15, so you can’t convert a weapon into a semiautomatic weapon. You ban bump stocks for the same reason. And you enforce it nationwide. Those are some of the ways of getting guns off the street.Patrick Healy: Some New Yorkers may wonder what the biggest difference is between you and Congresswoman Maloney. Could you tell us from your point of view what you see is the biggest difference between the two of you?Yeah. Well, let me start by saying that Carolyn and I have worked together for a long time on many things. We worked together on the Zadroga Act. We work together on getting, funding a lot of infrastructure projects, including the Second Avenue subway and others. And we’ve worked together for a long time.Having said that, there are differences. There are some differences in our voting record. I’ll mention three. She voted for the war in Iraq. I voted against it.She voted for the Patriot Act. I voted against it, even though 9/11 was in my district. And she voted against the Iran deal. I voted for it.And I must say that voting for the Iran deal, I thought I was taking my political life in my hands because I watched as every single — remember, Netanyahu came and spoke against Iran. And I watched as every single Jewish organization in the country, one by one, excluding the most liberal, came out against it. And I watched as, one by one, every Jewish member of the tristate area came out against it.And I was standing there alone. And I really thought I was going to take my political life in my hands. I thought I had to do the right thing because when the real test comes like that, why are you there otherwise? And I knew I’d have a primary as a result of it. I did have a primary as a result of it.But I did what I thought I had to do. And I voted for it. And I published a 5,200-word essay, which really was the record of my thoughts. This argument [inaudible] by this argument. Because I was undecided initially.I went through a decision process. And I put it on paper. You can read it if you want. It’s online. I don’t know why you would want to read at this point. But it was an essay explaining in great detail. Now, I used the opportunity to get some guarantees from the president in terms of Israeli-American relationships. But I would have voted for it even if I hadn’t gotten that.I just used the opportunity. I would have voted for it in any event. I thought it was — ultimately, I had to do what you have to do.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

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The New York Times’s Interview With Elizabeth Holtzman

      by

      Elizabeth Holtzman, a lawyer and former comptroller of New York City, served as a member of Congress from New York from 1973 to 1981.This interview with Ms. Holtzman was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 26.Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: We have a lot of questions for you, and not very much time. I understand this is the first question, and you may need to reject the premise of it. But if polls are any indication, we could be headed toward a Republican-controlled Congress after the midterms. Could you talk a little bit about what you think you’ll be able to get accomplished in such an environment? Appreciate it if you could be specific, but also if there’s one big idea that you would pursue on a bipartisan basis.OK, first of all, I’d like to kind of step back for a second and just tell you why I’m running, if that’s all right. And I know you have a lot of questions. I’ll be very brief. I’m running because these are very dangerous times. Probably, if we weren’t at this moment, I wouldn’t be thinking about it. I’d be out kayaking somewhere.But the fact of the matter is that this is not a time for on-the-job training. This is a time to be able to take advantage and understand the levers of power because the democracy is being threatened, the economy is also in kind of a little bit of a shaky situation. I was on the House Budget Committee for five years. I learned a little bit about that.So I think that I have the unique background to deal with these problems. One, I’ve been there before, for eight years, and I have a great record of accomplishment. I was very privileged to be able to get a lot done. Two, I had the know-how to do it. Three, I had the guts to stand up, whether it’s to the dangerous right wing on the Supreme Court, whether it’s to the MAGA Republicans in the House or whether it’s to Trump, who wants to retake the presidency, in my opinion, by fraud or stealing it in some fashion.So that’s why I’m running now. I think I have the qualifications. I know I have the energy and the stamina. And this is a time that I think calls on my credentials.To respond to your question, yes, there are several ways of dealing with the problem you posed, which could be a serious one. I hope it’s a hypothetical one only. But let’s assume that it’s, in fact, true. First of all, there are ways of dealing with problems which elude the Congress and the congressional route. I know about that. And that’s a very important thing to think about, because even if the Ds retain control of Congress, we’ve been in kind of a gridlocked mode.So how can you go around it? One, you put pressure on the administration to do things, or No. 2, you go to the courts. I did that. I brought a lawsuit against the Cambodian bombing.And now one of you asked me for some ideas, but that’s not necessarily something that Republicans would ever agree with. But I think that, for example, states, localities and particularly the federal government can use their purchasing power with regard to munitions — they’re buying billions in weapons — to say to the gun manufacturers: OK, we’re buying all this stuff from you. What are you going to do for us?And pressure was put on a recent settlement in the Connecticut case. In the recent settlement, the company that was being sued agreed in the settlement to monitor its gun sales. You need a settlement. So that’s one area.Secondly, working with Republicans. I chaired the — and one of the things I did in Congress and one of the reasons I think I got a lot of stuff done was, one, I did the homework. An aide of mine once said, the first one with a piece of paper wins. So we used to have the first piece of paper. So if other people didn’t have to do the thinking and the homework, that helped.But also, if you were honest with people, you didn’t try to fool them politically and say, oh, you’ll get away with this in your district. Nobody will care. You hit the real problems in the bill. If you were straightforward with people, it brought you a lot of credibility.So when I was chair of the immigration subcommittee, sometimes I’d look around and there was a vote, and the Republicans would be gone because they didn’t want to vote against me. And I was able — probably the toughest bill I ever got Republican support for, and I got unanimous support in the subcommittee. And there were very conservative Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, even then, very conservative.I had a bill — you probably don’t remember this, but there was something called the Smith Act that made it — it was really against communists, and it was a way of arresting and prosecuting them. And this was part of a revision. We were doing a revision of the criminal code. And I looked at the law, and I knew it was really unconstitutional.And I said to them on the subcommittee, what do you think about this? And I’m talking to real right-wingers. And I said, you know, we don’t really need it, because if they’re doing some violence, you can get them under other areas of the code, I think. And they said, you know, maybe you have a point. And they said, let’s ask the Justice Department.We asked the Justice Department. They said it was redundant. So I had a unanimous vote to eliminate the Smith Act from that proposed bill. The bill never saw the light of day because, ultimately, nobody wanted to pass a whole revised criminal code. It had too many other problems. But this, again, is a good example of getting Republican votes on very theoretically controversial issues.So I’ve been able to work with Republicans and win their support. I can’t say I have a silver bullet. And these Republicans are not the same as the ones I’ve worked with. I have no illusions about that. But at least I had some ways to start working.Mara Gay: Thank you. So there’s been a lot of discussion, understandably, about inflation, which is hitting all Americans hard, but I actually want to ask you about what you may do to ease the burden of housing costs, which is a far greater issue for the constituents that you would serve.Right. Well, housing is a really, really, really, really big problem. And one of the things I’ve been thinking about, because I have a little bit of experience in this. I wasn’t on a committee with housing. So, I mean, I can answer some constitutional questions with ease, but I’m not a housing expert. But I’ll tell you two things I did do, and they sort of suggest possibilities for the future.One is insurance companies were redlining areas in New York City when I was in Congress to prevent borrowing. That, in essence, freezed borrowing in areas of mostly minority residency. And you can’t easily beat the insurance companies, but we did. We were one step ahead of them.I had to organize a campaign around the country. And we got a bill, an amendment passed to some housing bill that was coming. It had housing in it. And we stopped the redlining.[The practice of redlining has been illegal since the 1970s, but its effects contribute to inequality today.]Now, as soon as Reagan got in, they undid it, and I wasn’t there anymore. But that’s one thing that we have to look at. The second thing is the kind of financing. When I was comptroller, we used the pension funds to build or rehabilitate — because that’s also very important in affordable housing. You have a declining base of affordable — of repair that’s being done on affordable housing.We financed tens of thousands of units of affordable housing because we were able to do it in — use the pension funds, take basically no risk. We never lost one penny. And we made money, whatever the market rate was that we were supposed to make. And we were able to build this housing. For various reasons that I don’t fully understand, this mechanism has not been fully utilized again by New York City. And it’s something that could be adopted around the country. Maybe there is a way of making it a national program.So I’ve just been in touch with some people who are in the not-for-profit realm in affordable housing to see whether there’s some way of expanding this program. I have some other friends who are — one used to be the assistant secretary of Housing and has built a lot of affordable housing around the country.So, yes, it’s something that constituents have raised with me, and it’s something that I had done, had some familiarity with. We did do this. And I’d like to see it replicated if that’s really an efficient way for the country, as well as in New York City, too.Jyoti Thottam: You mentioned already that it’s a dangerous time for democracy. What specifically do you think you could do in Congress to protect it?Well, two things. I mean, I’d like to do them right now if anyone would pay attention to me, but they’d probably pay more attention if I were in Congress. One is — I think there’s been too much delay in doing this — holding the former president accountable under the criminal law. And I think there needs to be more pressure on Merrick Garland to commence and indicate there is an investigation ongoing with respect to what happened and the former president’s involvement in that.I was just talking to somebody the other day. Sorry to be a little bit long on this. And we were talking about the difference between Nixon and Trump. And if you look at Nixon, some of the people would say, oh, well, he’s a different character, he understood he had to resign. He knew there was no other way out for him. He’d been held accountable. First of all, all of his top aides, every one of them, was under prosecution, had gone to jail or was going to jail.Every one of them — Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, Mitchell. I’m sure I’m leaving 10 or 11 out, but they all went to jail. [Nixon] himself was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the grand jury, which wanted to indict him. The Senate Watergate — I know the Congress did not respond today the way it did in the past, but you had a criminal justice system putting the period, exclamation point on the misdeeds of Nixon. He knew he couldn’t recover. He knew he had to resign. We have no such accountability now. What will this do to our country and our democracy?[Dozens of Nixon administration officials and campaign workers pleaded guilty or were found guilty of crimes related to the Watergate break-in or the subsequent cover-up. Nineteen were sentenced to prison, including some of Mr. Nixon’s aides.]By the way, if you look at the Constitution, the framers explicitly say that there’s no reason to not prosecute someone after they leave office. It’s right in there. They understood there’d be bad presidents. They didn’t know what their names were. They didn’t know it would be Nixon, they didn’t know whether it would be Trump, but they knew there’d be somebody like that. And they allowed for prosecution.What is the hesitation? This is not bad for the country. It was contemplated exactly in the Constitution, in my judgment.Patrick Healy: Congresswoman, do you think that the Democratic elected officials are out of step with Democratic voters on immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on any issue right now, as you hear the conversation among elected officials and —Well, first of all —Patrick Healy: The voters?I’ve only been back in this maelstrom for a relatively short time. So I can’t tell you that I have the temperature personally, definitely not for the country, and even for my whole constituency. And I think, talking to the people in my district, it’s a very tolerant and very — I think, from what I’m getting — nonbigoted district. I’m not hearing any racism, anti —Patrick Healy: Is there any issue where the party feels out of step with —Any homophobia. Well, I’m getting some — yeah, generally, I mean, I’m getting a couple of attacks on the Democratic Party. We don’t have time, generally, to go into that in depth. I think it’s because maybe they think the Democratic Party is too left or too right. I’m getting it from both sides.I think that’s part of being in Congress, is to be a leader on some of these issues. On immigration, both my parents are immigrants. My mom’s family were refugees. I helped to write the refugee law with — I was the co-author of it with Senator Ted Kennedy. I’m very proud of that. I worked on bringing in the boat people from Vietnam. We accepted almost a million of them.[The Refugee Act of 1980 is credited for resettling more than 1.1 million people affected by the Vietnam War.]I’ve written articles about immigration and refugees. I’m very strongly in favor of it. I haven’t heard attacks on that issue from my constituents. That’s something I care a lot about and have always supported and continue to support. I was chair of the immigration subcommittee, so I remember racial profiling, ethnic profiling. We tried to put a stop to it when I was there. But I can’t speak for what’s going on now.Eleanor Randolph: So we have a series of yes-or-no questions. We’d appreciate it if you’d just limit your answer to one word, yes or no. First one, do you support expanding the Supreme Court?I’d have to say yes, but with a caveat.Eleanor Randolph: No [laughs]. No, we don’t allow that.Did I just say “caveat”? No, just joking. All right.Eleanor Randolph: Do you support ending the filibuster?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: Should there be term limits for members of Congress?Not sure. That’s two words.Eleanor Randolph: How about an age limit?[Softly] No.Eleanor Randolph: Was that no?Kathleen Kingsbury: She said no.Eleanor Randolph: All right. Should President Biden run for a second term?It’s up to him.Eleanor Randolph: OK.Alex Kingsbury: Hi. I’m wondering if we can speak about Ukraine for a little bit. I’m curious to know if you think there should be an upper limit on the amount of taxpayer dollars we should be spending on the war in Ukraine. And how do you explain to constituents why we’re spending all this money on a war we’re not officially a part of rather than spending money, say, on your district?Well, many years ago, I did pioneer something when I was on the Budget Committee called the Transfer Amendment, which did take monies in the budget from military spending to social programs. So I’m very much in favor of that and support of it. And certainly at that time, when we had so much money in the military budget that they couldn’t spend it. I mean, the pipeline of unspent monies was so huge that they’d come back and say, well, we can’t spend this. We were supposed to buy a whatever kind of tugboat, and that’s out of date, so we’ve got to buy something else. I mean, this is happening all the time. So we can’t have that kind of thing going on.But yes, I think there’s a serious question about the spending for the war, about how long it should go on or are alternatives to the war possible. I’m not somebody who, as a first resort, believes in warfare as a solution to problems, but I don’t know that there was much of a choice here. And I think it would be very dangerous for the rest of Europe, maybe even more significantly than that and a broader range than that, if Russia were able to take over Ukraine.I mean, I was in Ukraine several times. My mom’s family comes from Ukraine. I was there as a member of Congress. I was there representing clients. So I’m a little familiar with the country. But I think it would be too dangerous —Should Congress monitor? That’s a very important function that I found, when I was in Congress, was not hugely or sufficiently exercised, and that was oversight. They used to interpret that as meaning, don’t look. Oversight means you look over it and you see what people are doing. I think there needs to be a lot of scrutiny about this, and the spending, where it’s going, and are there alternatives that are available. How does the administration examine them and review them.Alex Kingsbury: I’m just wondering what alternatives those might be.Well, there are always — I mean, one alternative certainly is a theoretical one, but I don’t know how practical it is: Is there some way that you can have a cease-fire and an end to the war? I don’t have the answer to that.Listen, I was involved in negotiating with foreign governments. I did during the Vietnam boat people crisis. I negotiated with the government of Vietnam to have an orderly departure program, and with other governments. But I know how tricky it is and how little you know if you’re not involved in the process. I’m someone on the outside. I’d like to see a peaceful resolution to this problem. I don’t have enough information at this point to suggest what alternatives exist. But Congress should look at that and determine whether any exist. They may not. I’m not saying they do.Nick Fox: How can the United States meet its commitments on climate change?Well, I think it’s going to be very tough with the opposition from special interests, MAGA Republicans, and Joe Manchin and the like. I think we need many more Democrats in Congress, but Democrats who are in favor of dealing with climate problems.[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]I think states and localities can be pressed to do more. And Biden can act through regulatory measures. I don’t know how much legislation he will allow. And that’s one of the reasons I’m so concerned about the Supreme Court, because what the court did was to kind of set out a very, very dangerous framework. What the court said was that — having been in Congress, I know how dangerous it is — Congress, if there’s a crisis or serious problem, Congress has to spell out in detail what the agency has to do.So I mean, Congress can’t always think ahead two days, much less two months or two years. Congress can’t be expected to legislate on a dime. That’s why we have an administrative structure. That’s what happened during the New Deal, was to create an administrative structure where Congress created the broad outlines. They could always fine-tune it, as it does, to restrict what agencies can do here and there and whatever. It does that. But the broad outlines are there.And if you’re going to tell Congress that it’s got to legislate every time there’s a crisis, we’re not going to be able to deal with the crises that we have. And it’s not just in the area of climate, it’s going to be in all other areas. And so in my opinion, they’re on their way to dismantling the New Deal.Mara Gay: Thank you. Could you name one further action that Congress could take on gun violence and then on abortion rights?OK. On gun violence, as I mentioned, I think that the pressure that Congress can — I know Congress, Congress, of course, can pass all these bills. I’m just a little skeptical that it’s going to do that. Of course, I support that. I mean, I voted against gun violence. I voted against the N.R.A. I don’t even want to mention how many years ago.So I’m very, very much in favor of very, very strict regulation of all guns, handguns, assault weapons ban and all of that stuff. But I’m not sure that’s going to happen. So we have to work around it. If we can’t get the legislation — and I will fight for it and struggle very hard for it — but we have to find other ways, such as what I mentioned, using the leverage of the purchasing power of governments. But working with — and I have worked with the Brady organization and other organizations to try to develop some very innovative methods.I mean, California just enacted a very interesting bill. Not the vigilante bill, but they said, some gun companies are trying to do the right thing, monitor their gun sales, and we don’t want to put them at a disadvantage. So we’re going to just pass the bill. They passed a bill in California saying — I forget the name. It’s something like Fair Treatment of Gun Manufacturers or something like that, which is a code of conduct for gun manufacturers, requiring them to do the right thing, not penalizing those who try to do the right thing.So we may have to look at states and localities. And that’s where maybe some congresspeople can be effective, by raising the point and publicizing what’s happening elsewhere that seems to be making a difference, and not necessarily in Congress, because I’m worried that — and there was a question you posed at the outset. How are we going to get anything done if the Republicans don’t?Mara Gay: And just one thing on abortion, please. We’re just so short on time.One thing on abortion? Change the composition of this court.Mara Gay: Thank you.Kathleen Kingsbury: What should Congress —Which is why I propose having hearings right now. Congress shouldn’t take a recess. Have hearings right now, finish up the investigation that was never finished on Brett Kavanaugh, and investigate Clarence Thomas’s failure to recuse himself [inaudible] —Mara Gay: We have a few lightning round questions for you, just to quickly answer. How does Plan B work?What Plan B?Kathleen Kingsbury: The emergency contraceptive.What do you mean, how does it work?Mara Gay: How does it work as a medication?You know, I’m not sure how it works.Mara Gay: It works by preventing or delaying ovulation. Do you own a gun?No.Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?No.Mara Gay: What is the average age of a member of Congress?I don’t know.Mara Gay: Fifty-eight. What about a senator?Maybe higher, but I don’t know.Mara Gay: Sixty-four. Please name a member of Congress, dead or living, whom you most admire and may emulate yourself after if elected to serve.There are lots of people who have qualities that I respect. I liked Al Gore very much when he was in the House. I respected Peter Rodino for his fairness and gravity in the impeachment hearings. I like Adam Schiff. He’s smart and thoughtful [inaudible]. And I also like Shirley Chisholm. She had a lot of guts.Mara Gay: Thank you. And what is your favorite restaurant in the district?Well … Rucola, let me just say that.Mara Gay: Yeah. And actually, I wanted to ask you as well: Did you leave the city for longer than a few weeks during the pandemic?Yes.Mara Gay: Where’d you go?I stayed with a friend for about three months.Nick Fox: On Election Day, you’ll be three years younger than Emanuel Celler was when you were the wunderkind who defeated him in the House. Your election was an inspiration to the younger generation back then. Now the kind of young leadership that you once represented is being held back by the Democratic Party gerontocracy. You’re obviously qualified and capable of running, but with a field of young candidates in the tent, why wouldn’t it be better for you to let one of them move forward?I’m going to let them?[Everyone laughs.]At least let the constituents to decide.Nick Fox: Well, yeah.Let me just say one other thing. It’s not just an issue of qualified. I don’t think this is a level playing field. I think I bring unique qualifications. Anyone can issue a press release. Probably most of the people on the panel, if you ask them at the right moment, would agree on — the panel of people running for Congress — would agree on the same points. But who’s going to get something done? That’s the issue. Who knows how to go and bring a lawsuit such as we did on the Cambodia bombing? Who knows how to organize the Congress and the grassroots as I did to get the E.R.A. extension against Phyllis Schlafly and the right wing?I’m not saying they’re not good people, but this is a time when we need somebody who has that expertise and the energy and the guts to do the right thing. I’ve got nothing to lose anymore.Mara Gay: Can you talk to us about your path to victory in this exceptionally crowded race? How many doors are you knocking on? Have you been out — tell us about it. How are you going to win this race?You know, what is it? Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun, but also this candidate for Congress. I’m out there on these blazing hot days, at farmer’s markets, on crowded streets, shaking hands, talking to people.And one of the things that I find that’s really energizing and exciting for me is, one, that there are a lot of people who remember me, and the enthusiasm. The real enthusiasm. And I don’t really recall that when I was campaigning. I’ve been in a few campaigns in my life. I don’t really recall that — maybe my memory is fading on that issue.But it’s exciting because I think what they see is what I — when I answered your question about why don’t I pull out of this race and leave it to some young people, they will have their time and their chance if they want it, but I think what they see is somebody who’s going to stand up for them and fight and get things done. That was my record when I was D.A.And you probably remember this, Mr. Staples. I was the only one in the country — I mean, it’s a sad commentary. I was the only D.A. in America who stood up and said, we can’t have peremptory challenges used to remove Blacks from the jury. Why wasn’t any other D.A. involved in that? Nobody.So, I mean, that’s what I bring to this. And that’s what the people in the district that I talk to remember. And that’s what they prize. That’s what they want to see. And I got results. Yes, I stood up against racial discrimination. It wasn’t a press release, it wasn’t a press conference. I litigated that up and down to the Supreme Court, and we got the court to change it — not to change, but to adopt the position we ran on.Kathleen Kingsbury: I wanted to actually ask you — and I know we’re just about out of time — but I actually wanted to ask you about your experience as D.A. We’re in a period right now, as the pandemic is waning, where there’s a very strong perception that the city is unsafe right now. I’m curious what advice you’d have for Mayor Adams or the current D.A.s in terms of what could be done to address that, and maybe if there’s things that Congress could do as well.Well, I think gun violence is clearly guns in the street, clearly part of the problem. And Congress’s failure to act on this for so long has really been — has really increased the danger and flow of guns into the country and into the city. That has to be stopped. It’s not going to be so easy. I suggested one method. Will it work? Who knows, but we can’t give up on that.So I just know that somebody is [inaudible], somebody without a gun, a coward, we put a gun into that person’s hands and they could be a mass murderer. So guns are a critical part of that. What more needs to be done in terms of policing, work with the federal authorities, agencies, federal prosecutors. I mean, I don’t know how much coordination is going on, but it could be better.I would say that that’s probably a major key. Other things — how do you stop crime? We don’t 100 percent know the answer to that. I think it’s a very complicated problem. Some of it has to do with economic conditions. A lot of it has to do with people who are just dangerous. What do you do about them? We still have a revolving door system in our criminal justice system. There’s something wrong about that.Why isn’t there some other kind of intervention? Someone gets arrested time after time after time. They maybe spend 15 days in prison, and then they’re out on the street again, and then they commit a similar crime. I’m not saying that jail is necessarily the right answer, but what are we doing to kind of correct these problems? I’m not going to give you the answer, because part of it has to do with improving the whole policing effort. And for me, I don’t think anybody’s looked at it from top to bottom. I mean, I’m the only one in this race, maybe one of the few in the country, that’s ever stood up publicly about police brutality, misuse of force.When I was D.A., we created a special unit in my office. And by the way, Zachary Carter, who was — I’m very proud that he came to work for me, he then became the first African American U.S. attorney in the City of New York — suggested to me, and we worked on this together, we created a special unit to deal with the misuse of force by police officers. And we did it not just because we wanted to quote-unquote “get” police officers. That wasn’t the objective. The objective was to be fair. In the D.A.’s office, A.D.A.s work with police to solve crimes. You can’t turn around, after you’ve been working with a police officer to solve a rape or a robbery, and then prosecute that police officer. Nobody will even think you’re doing a fair job. We didn’t want that.[Zachary Carter was the Eastern District’s first Black U.S. attorney.]So we created this special unit. I had 5,000 police officers picketing me. They had to leave. I was there. And that office stayed as long as I was D.A. And then it was dismantled by my successor, who promised the police that he would get rid of it.But that’s what I’m prepared to do. I think we need to professionalize, make sure that our police are professionalized, that we’re recruiting the best, and that we have proper training, we have proper supervision, proper discipline. Who’s looking at the whole picture of policing in New York City?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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Carlina Rivera and Yuh-Line Niou Rise In Race for NY’s 10th District

      by

      Two months ago, the megawatt contest for a rare open House seat in New York City seemed destined to be shaped by one of a handful of nationally known candidates.There was the former New York City mayor, an ex-congresswoman, a former federal prosecutor who helped impeach Donald J. Trump, and even a sitting congressman from the exurbs.But with the Aug. 23 primary less than three weeks away, the contours of the race have been redefined. Two women with local bona fides but little national stature have surged toward the front of the pack, upending early conventional wisdom and scrambling the race.In recent public and internal polling for the Democratic primary, Carlina Rivera, a councilwoman from Manhattan, and Yuh-Line Niou, a Manhattan assemblywoman, are running neck-and-neck with the two well-resourced men considered heavyweights: Representative Mondaire Jones, a recent transplant to the district, and Daniel Goldman, the impeachment investigator, who has never held elective office.Ms. Rivera and Ms. Niou have one particularly compelling advantage: they already represent parts of the congressional district, and have proven bases of support among voters and Democratic groups in the area — a likely boon in a late-summer contest where voter turnout and interest are expected to be low.Ms. Niou, speaking at a recent candidates forum in Brooklyn, is backed by the Working Families Party.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesIndeed, in a brief canvas on Thursday of would-be voters in Ms. Rivera’s district on the Lower East Side, the vast majority said they were not following the race. Campaign signs were almost nonexistent — save a couple for Mr. Goldman.But Wilfredo Lopez, a 73-year-old resident walking by Hamilton Fish Park, was an exception. He said he was voting for Ms. Rivera because “she’s from the neighborhood and she’s for the neighborhood.”On the surface, Ms. Rivera and Ms. Niou have similarities; both are 30-something women of color with far-left roots.When she was first running for Council, Ms. Rivera, a 38-year-old Lower East Side native of Puerto Rican descent, was a dues-paying member of the Democratic Socialists of America; her campaign said that she attended only one meeting.New York’s 2022 ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.N.Y. Governor’s Race: This year, for the first time in over 75 years, the state ballot appears destined to offer only two choices: Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, and Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican. Here is why.10th Congressional District: Representative Mondaire Jones, a first-term Democratic congressman who faces a highly competitive race in the redrawn district, has won the endorsement of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.11th Congressional District: Recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion and guns are complicating the re-election bid of Representative Nicole Malliotakis, New York City’s lone Republican House member.State Senate: New district maps are causing some incumbents to run in neighboring districts, forcing them to campaign in unfamiliar territory and contemplate new living arrangements.She has since tacked toward the center, resisting the anti-development predilections of the left and defining herself as a pragmatic progressive, as someone who gets things done.Ms. Rivera has nonetheless won the support of the progressive Brooklyn political establishment — the borough president, Antonio Reynoso; Nydia Velazquez, the congresswoman whose current district overlaps with the newly redistricted one; and several unions — even as she has also more aggressively courted the real estate sector.Ms. Rivera has been endorsed by Representative Nydia Velazquez, whose current district overlaps with the new contours of the 10th District in Brooklyn.Kirsten Luce for The New York TimesMs. Niou, 39, has never been a D.S.A, member, but has retained her far left posture, winning the support of left-leaning organizations like the Working Families Party and the Jewish Vote, the political arm of Jews For Racial and Economic Justice. Since she was elected to the New York State Assembly in 2016, Ms. Niou has focused on combating racial discrimination and sexual harassment. In the past six years, she has been the prime sponsor of 15 bills that became law, according to her campaign, including one establishing a toll-free hotline for complaints of workplace sexual harassment.During the tail end of Andrew Cuomo’s tenure as governor, Ms. Niou could sometimes be found sparring with him and his staff. After The New York Times reported on a $25,000-a-couple fund-raiser hosted by the governor during the legislative session, Ms. Niou and two colleagues held a news conference to express their outrage. Mr. Cuomo’s spokesman responded by calling her and her colleagues “[expletive] idiots.”During this race, Ms. Niou has assiduously courted the left-most flank of the Democratic Party, even expressing support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement — a decision that may cost her votes in a district with a substantial Jewish population.John Mollenkopf, a political science professor at the CUNY Graduate Center who analyzes voter data, estimates that at least 16 percent of the primary voters in the 10th Congressional District will have Jewish surnames. He said those voters might take issue with Ms. Niou’s B.D.S. stance, “partly because there are other quite acceptable candidates to center-left Jewish voters in the race.”Ms. Niou’s and Ms. Rivera’s national policy stances are similar: They both champion federal abortion rights; the Green New Deal plan advanced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and more liberal immigration and refugee policies.But at the local level, pronounced distinctions have emerged.Ms. Rivera staunchly backs the ongoing effort to tear down and then rebuild East River Park at a higher elevation, to make the neighborhoods it abuts less vulnerable to storms like Hurricane Sandy. Protesters booed Ms. Rivera for that stance at a recent environmental forum, but on Monday she won the backing of the forum’s host — the New York League of Conservation Voters.Ms. Niou took issue with the plan to make the area more resilient.Ms. Niou and Representative Mondaire Jones, embracing after the candidates forum, are among the more left-leaning contenders in the primary contest.Hilary Swift for The New York Times“The city and the way that the city operated raise a lot of questions for me,” Ms. Niou said.In the City Council, Ms. Rivera has acted as the first primary sponsor on 25 pieces of legislation that have become law, including a bill requiring restaurants give bathroom access to delivery workers.Ms. Rivera also supported a bid to build low-income senior housing in a wealthy neighborhood’s community garden, a project codeveloped by Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Niou sued to stop the development, alienating the former local councilwoman, Margaret Chin, who has endorsed Ms. Rivera instead.“I’m so disappointed in her,” Ms. Chin said of Ms. Niou.“Normally I would support an Asian woman, we need more representation, but in this case,” Ms. Chin said, trailing off.Ms. Rivera has also backed a bid to allow more density, including affordable housing, in the Manhattan neighborhoods of SoHo and NoHo, an initiative Ms. Niou says she had doubts about.This year’s unusually messy redistricting process fundamentally reshaped the 10th District. Where the district once stretched from the Upper West Side of Manhattan to Bensonhurst Brooklyn, the new map makes it more compact, encompassing only Lower Manhattan and the northwest precincts of Brooklyn.Jerry Nadler, the congressman now representing the district, opted to run in the 12th District against a longtime colleague, Representative Carolyn Maloney, after his Upper West Side home base was moved there. The result was a rare open seat in the heart of New York City, and a political gold rush that drew a dozen or so candidates, including Mr. Jones, the congressman who currently represents Rockland County and parts of Westchester.Mr. Jones and Mr. Goldman are by far the race’s best-resourced candidates. At the end of June, Mr. Jones had $2.8 million to spend. Mr. Goldman had $1 million, though he also has a vast reservoir of personal wealth to draw from and told NY1 he intends to use it. He has up to $253 million in personal wealth, according to Bloomberg News.“I am extremely grateful for the opportunities I’ve had, and that is why I’ve committed my life to public service,” Mr. Goldman said in a statement. “I’m running for Congress to continue that service, to build a better future for all of our children, and to give everyone the opportunity to succeed.”His financial disclosures with the House, which cover an 18-month period ending June 30, indicate that he has a line of credit from Goldman Sachs worth up to $50 million, and hundreds of investments, including in weapons manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Company; in oil companies, including Chevron and Exxon Mobil; and even in Fox Corporation.A spokesman for Mr. Goldman said he will put his assets into a blind trust upon entering Congress, as he has done in the past, and that he has such a wide breadth of investments because his portfolio is structured to mirror the S&P 500. “How the hell can this guy claim to believe our democracy faces a five-alarm fire, and to care about public safety, when he’s got investments in Fox News and deadly gun manufacturers?” Mr. Jones said in a statement. (On Friday, after the article had published online, Mr. Goldman’s spokesman said that the former prosecutor no longer holds any stock in Sturm, Ruger and Company.)Even so, Mr. Goldman’s paid role as a legal analyst on MSNBC, and his time as an impeachment prosecutor have won him supporters, including Joan Manzioni, a 67-year-old restaurateur who on Thursday said she was considering voting for Mr. Goldman or Ms. Holtzman.Mr. Goldman and Mr. Jones are the only two candidates with television ads, according to Ad Impact, an advertising analytics firm. As of Thursday, Mr. Goldman had spent $2.2 million on television, while Mr. Jones had spent $684,000.The third presumed heavyweight, former Mayor Bill de Blasio, dropped out of the race in July, citing his inability to sway voters. Elizabeth Holtzman, the former congresswoman, is doing better than expected in some of the polls, but is far behind in fund-raising and is combating doubts about her age, 80.Ms. Rivera trails two Democratic rivals in fund-raising, but has $150,000 more than Ms. Niou.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesAs of late June, Ms. Niou had $202,000 on hand; Ms. Rivera had $354,000. In an effort to compete financially with Mr. Jones and Mr. Goldman, Ms. Rivera has raised money from major developers, including the CEO of Two Trees, which is based in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Dumbo. In recent weeks, she has reached out to at least two other executives in the real estate industry for donations, according to recipients of her outreach.And, in apparent expectation of super PAC support, she has also put a so-called “red box” on her website, which candidates use to communicate indirectly with super PACs. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Adams Won’t Let Up on Bail Reform, Putting Pressure on Hochul

      by

      Mayor Eric Adams is calling forcefully for another round of changes to state bail law, putting pressure on Gov. Kathy Hochul as she runs for a full term in November.Hours before Mayor Eric Adams held a news conference on Wednesday to argue that an “insane, broken system” allowed repeat offenders to keep getting arrested and then released without bail in New York City, Gov. Kathy Hochul issued something of a pre-emptive strike.Four months ago, the governor and the State Legislature tightened New York’s bail laws for the second time in three years, making more crimes bail-eligible and giving judges additional discretion to consider both the severity of a case and a defendant’s repeat offenses when setting bail.But the mayor, dissatisfied with the city’s crime rates, was again putting the ball back in her court.At her own news conference, the governor, visibly peeved, brought up the recent bail law revisions. “I’m not sure why everybody intentionally ignores this,” she said. “But people are out there and, you know, people trying to make political calculations based on this.”She did not mention Mr. Adams, a fellow Democrat, by name, or, for that matter, her Republican opponent in November, Representative Lee Zeldin. But both Mr. Adams and Mr. Zeldin have hammered the governor on the state’s approach to bail and have made similar claims about how the bail laws have affected crime rates.Mr. Adams, who has based much of his mayoral platform on reducing crime, even made use of physical props on Wednesday to illustrate his point. He made his remarks next to poster boards detailing the crimes of individuals he said were some of the city’s worst recidivists. (Mr. Adams said his lawyers forbade him from releasing the individuals’ names.)Mayor Adams gave examples of how some repeat offenders had committed multiple crimes after being released without bail.Natalie Keyssar for The New York TimesThe mayor and his police officials also unleashed a litany of statistics they said demonstrated the severity of the problem.“Our recidivism rates have skyrocketed,” Mr. Adams said. “Let’s look at the real numbers. In 2022, 25 percent of the 1,494 people arrested for burglary committed another felony within 60 days.”He added: “In 2017, however, just 7.7 percent went on to commit another crime.”In 2019, state lawmakers rewrote bail law so that fewer people awaiting trial landed behind bars because they could not afford to post bail. Law enforcement agencies have furiously fought the law, whose implementation came at the beginning of the pandemic, during which gun crime rose in cities around the country.After a wave of criticism, lawmakers agreed upon a set of changes in 2020 that added two dozen crimes to the list of serious charges for which a judge could impose cash bail.The second revisions to bail law came earlier this year, after Mr. Adams demanded further changes, angering many lawmakers.But Mr. Adams said tougher revisions are still needed. He called on the state to allow judges to more frequently take dangerousness into account when deciding to set bail, and to have some juveniles’ cases play out in criminal court rather than family court.He insisted on Wednesday that he was not trying to target the governor, his ostensible political ally whom he endorsed less than two months ago. Ms. Hochul, likewise, chose to highlight the programs she and the mayor had worked on together, and the ways they were “in sync.”The mayor and governor have made a point of projecting political comity, a new tone after years of public feuding between their predecessors, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio.But the uptick in crime and Mr. Adams’s laserlike focus on the issue threatens to strain their relationship.Murders and shootings are down slightly this year, but major crimes including burglaries have risen more than 35 percent.Mr. Adams, a former police captain, sometimes turns to hyperbole to describe the situation. In May, he said he had never seen crime at these levels, despite serving as a police officer in the 1980s, when crime was far, far higher. Today’s murder rate, for example, is roughly on par with 2009, when Michael R. Bloomberg was mayor.But Mr. Adams ran for office on the premise that he would bring down crime, and his political imperatives threaten to collide with Ms. Hochul’s, who has every incentive to cast herself as firmly in control of the situation.Many left-leaning advocates, as well as some political leaders, have pushed the state to not undo changes made to the bail laws in recent years.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesLegislative leaders in Albany have recoiled at Mr. Adam’s recent comments. When a reporter last week asked the mayor if he wanted a special session to address bail reform, and the mayor responded in the affirmative, Michael Gianaris, the deputy majority leader in the Senate, compared him to Republicans.“It’s sad Mayor Adams has joined the ranks of right wingers who are so grossly demagoguing this issue,” Mr. Gianaris said. “He should focus less on deflecting from his own responsibility for higher crime and more on taking steps that would actually make New York safer.”When Mr. Adams pressed for the second wave of changes to the law earlier this year, Ms. Hochul adopted the cause as her own, expending significant political power to do so. The effort met with fierce opposition in the Legislature, with one lawmaker going on a hunger strike to oppose the Hochul plan.And while Ms. Hochul was ultimately successful in winning alterations, the effort left a stain on her relationship with the Legislature.Among other things, the 2022 revisions made more crimes eligible for bail, and gave judges additional discretion to consider whether a defendant is accused of causing “serious harm” to someone, or has a history of using or possessing a gun. The new changes did not, however, impose a dangerousness standard that Mr. Adams is now pressing for, which criminal justice advocates argue is subject to racial bias.Mr. Adams’s decision to push for even more changes has created an opening for Mr. Zeldin, who last week held a news conference to voice support for Mr. Adams’s calls for a special session to address bail reform.“I believe that judges should have discretion to weigh dangerousness and flight risk and past criminal records and seriousness of the offense on far more offenses,” Mr. Zeldin said.A poll this week found that Ms. Hochul has a 14-point lead over Mr. Zeldin — “an early but certainly not insurmountable lead,” according to the pollster at Siena College.Gov. Hochul said that judges and prosecutors had the “tools they needed” to improve public safety, but had not deployed them effectively.Anna Watts for The New York TimesThe mayor on Wednesday took pains to insist that he and Mr. Zeldin were not, in fact, joined at the hip.“We must have a broken hip, because he clearly doesn’t get it,” Mr. Adams said of Mr. Zeldin. “He has voted against all of the responsible gun laws in Congress.”The Legal Aid Society, the main legal provider for poor New Yorkers, said in a statement on Wednesday that the Adams administration was trying to “cherry-pick a handful of cases to misguide New Yorkers and convince them that bail reform is responsible for all of society’s ills.”Ms. Hochul was more circumspect in her criticism, instead focusing on the recent revisions to the bail laws. She said that the changes gave judges and district attorneys “the tools they need” to improve public safety and suggested that those who failed to utilize them should answer to voters.“I believe in accountability at all levels,” she said. “And you know, people can’t just be saying that they don’t have something when they do have it.”Jonah E. Bromwich More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Nadler and Maloney Are Collegial at Debate. Their Rival Is Combative.

      by

      After decades of working together as House colleagues and ultimately ascending to powerful committee leadership posts, Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney took the stage on Tuesday night as reluctant foes in a three-way Democratic debate.If fireworks were expected, then the debate was something of a washout: The two longtime Democrats stood and sat side by side, each collegially allowing the other to recite decades of accomplishments and showing an unusual degree of deference.It fell to the third candidate, Suraj Patel, a lawyer who has never held elected office, to play the energetic aggressor, criticizing the records of the New York political fixtures and suggesting that voters would be better served by a younger representative, and perhaps House term limits, too.The debate, hosted by NY1 and WNYC, offered the broadest opportunity for the three leading Democratic candidates seeking to represent New York’s newly drawn 12th Congressional District to distinguish themselves ahead of the Aug. 23 primary. (A fourth candidate, Ashmi Sheth, will appear on the ballot but did not meet the fund-raising requirement to appear onstage.)In a debate with few standout moments, the most notable exchange had little to do with the primary contest itself.Errol Louis, one of the moderators, asked the three candidates whether they believed President Biden should run for re-election in 2024.Mr. Patel, who is running on the importance of generational change, was the only candidate to respond in the affirmative. Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney, who are running on the argument that seniority brings clout and expertise, both dodged the question.“Too early to say,” Mr. Nadler said.“I don’t believe he’s running for re-election,” Ms. Maloney said.It seemed like a rare break from Democratic solidarity for Mr. Nadler, 75, and Ms. Maloney, 76, who were elected to office in 1992 and have often worked together as they climbed the ranks of Congress.About halfway through the 90-minute debate, Mr. Nadler was asked to expound on the differences between himself and Ms. Maloney. “Carolyn and I have worked together on a lot of things,” he said, stumbling a bit. “We’ve worked together on many, many different things.”New York’s 2022 ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.N.Y. Governor’s Race: This year, for the first time in over 75 years, the state ballot appears destined to offer only two choices: Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, and Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican. Here is why.10th Congressional District: Half a century after she became one of the youngest women ever to serve in Congress, Elizabeth Holtzman is running once again for a seat in the House of Representatives.12th Congressional District: As Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, two titans of New York politics, battle it out, Suraj Patel is trying to eke out his own path to victory.“There are some differences,” he added, stumbling a bit more before going on to name three votes in particular.But even as the two essentially made cases for their political survival, Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney largely refrained from attacking each other or offering strong reasons for voters to choose one of them over the other. When given the opportunity to cross-examine an opponent, both chose to question Mr. Patel.Ms. Maloney even admitted she “didn’t want to run” against Mr. Nadler, her “good friend” and ally.Mr. Nadler pointed to three key votes that set him apart from Ms. Maloney — he opposed the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, which expanded government surveillance powers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while she voted for them; he supported the Iran nuclear deal, which she opposed. But he refrained from criticizing her votes outright. Mr. Patel was more forceful, at one point calling Ms. Maloney’s vote on Iraq his “single biggest issue with her voting record.”Mr. Patel, 38, who has twice unsuccessfully attempted to defeat Ms. Maloney, at times tried to use their amity to his advantage. At one point, Mr. Patel questioned why Mr. Nadler had previously endorsed Ms. Maloney despite her past support for legislation that would have mandated that the government study a discredited link between vaccines and autism.“In the contest between you and her, I thought she was the better candidate,” Mr. Nadler said.“What about now?” Mr. Patel shot back.“I still think so,” Mr. Nadler responded.With three weeks until the primary contest and no clear front-runner, Mr. Patel sought to draw a sharp contrast with his two opponents. He pointed to their corporate donors and their adherence to party orthodoxy and tried to liken himself to younger, rising party stars like Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.“It’s 2022,” he said in his opening statement. “It is time to turn the page on 1992.”Mr. Patel’s performance seemed energetic, in starkest contrast to that of Mr. Nadler, who gave a halting opening statement in which he misspoke and said that he had “impeached Bush twice” when he meant to refer to former President Donald J. Trump.“I thought Suraj performed well,” said Chris Coffey, a Democratic strategist who is unaffiliated in the race. “I thought Carolyn did fine. And I thought Nadler struggled at times.”It was only toward the end of Tuesday’s debate that Ms. Maloney seemed to set her sights on Mr. Nadler. In a conversation about infrastructure, she argued that he had wrongfully taken credit for helping fund the Second Avenue Subway, a long-sought project in her district.Ms. Maloney said that she had advanced the project, while Mr. Nadler had yet to secure funds for a proposed freight tunnel that would run beneath New York Harbor, a project that he has championed for years.“It’s still not built,” Ms. Maloney pointed out.The exchange drove home the end of decades of political harmony predicated on a dividing line between the two elected officials’ districts: Ms. Maloney represented most of Manhattan’s East Side, while Mr. Nadler served constituents on the West Side. Over their time in office, their reach grew to neighborhoods in parts of Brooklyn and Queens, after changes made in the state’s redistricting process. Both had endorsed each other’s previous re-election bids, supporting their respective journeys to becoming New York City political icons.But the alliance fractured in May, when a state court tasked with reviewing New York’s congressional map approved a redistricting plan that threw the two powerful allies into the same district, one that combined Manhattan’s East and West Sides above 14th Street into a single district for the first time since World War II.Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney ultimately chose to run against each other rather than seeking a neighboring seat — a decision that guaranteed that at least one of the two will lose their position, robbing New York’s congressional delegation of at least one high-ranking member with political influence.Ms. Maloney leads the House’s Oversight and Reform Committee, a key investigative committee. Mr. Nadler chairs the Judiciary Committee, a role that vaulted him into the national spotlight during both of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trials.For months, the two have engaged in a crosstown battle for their political survival that has riveted the Democratic establishment. Both Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney have drawn on political ties to try to pressure old allies and wealthy donors they once shared to back one of them.All three of the candidates at Tuesday’s debate and political analysts alike have acknowledged that the race’s outcome may largely depend on who casts ballots. Even as they tried to appeal to voters, Ms. Maloney, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Patel acknowledged they largely share political viewpoints on key issues like abortion and gun control.“We are, on this stage, star-crossed lovers,” Mr. Patel said. “We are arguing right now, but the fact of the matter is, we’re on the same team.”Nicholas Fandos More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Pelosi Backs Rep. Mondaire Jones in Crowded Open-Seat Race in New York

      by

      House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will on Monday endorse Representative Mondaire Jones, a first-term upstate congressman who is facing a stiff battle in his bid to capture an open seat in New York City.Following an unusually messy redistricting process, Mr. Jones opted not to run again in his current district, which encompasses Rockland County and parts of Westchester County, or in a neighboring one to the south. Either would have required him to compete against incumbents, one of whom is the powerful chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.When that chair, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, announced he would run in Mr. Jones’s reconstituted 17th District — drawing outcries from Mr. Jones and his allies — Ms. Pelosi supported Mr. Maloney.With her endorsement on Monday, Ms. Pelosi will be making some amends, hoping that her backing may help Mr. Jones get more traction in a district where he only recently moved.“Mondaire Jones has gotten real results for New Yorkers,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement provided to The New York Times. The speaker credited Mr. Jones for playing a “vital role in passing life-changing legislation that has lifted up working families, helped deliver expanded access to health care and invested in affordable housing.”New York’s 2022 ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.N.Y. Governor’s Race: This year, for the first time in over 75 years, the state ballot appears destined to offer only two choices: Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, and Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican. Here is why.10th Congressional District: Half a century after she became one of the youngest women ever to serve in Congress, Elizabeth Holtzman is running once again for a seat in the House of Representatives.12th Congressional District: As Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, two titans of New York politics, battle it out, Suraj Patel is trying to eke out his own path to victory.New York’s messy redistricting process created new maps that jumbled primary contests across the state, but had a particularly chaotic effect in New York City.Representative Jerrold Nadler represents the existing 10th District through the end of the year. But after reapportionment drastically altered the district contours, he opted to instead compete against Representative Carolyn Maloney for the 12th District, which now envelops his Upper West Side political base.His decision created a rare open seat in the 10th District, a safely Democratic stronghold that now encompasses Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, including Sunset Park and Park Slope. That has sparked a political gold rush, with roughly a dozen candidates on the ballot for the Aug. 23 primary.Late-summer turnout is likely to be low, as many voters are expected to be on vacation or unaware of the unusually timed contest. Its outcome is likely to turn heavily on voter outreach and absentee ballot operations; endorsements may also play a small factor.Mr. Jones’s first term in Congress has been active. His eagerness to sponsor and co-sponsor bills put him at the top of Axios’s 2021 list of “the most legislatively active freshmen in Congress.” More recently, he co-sponsored legislation to enshrine marriage equality into federal law and another bill that would provide monthly payments to families with children.“Whether it was passing monumental voting rights protections or securing billions of dollars in new investments in New York City’s housing, health care and schools, I’ve worked closely with Speaker Pelosi to deliver real results for New York’s working families, and I’m proud to have her support,” Mr. Jones said in a statement. Mr. Jones has secured the support of several other House colleagues, including Representative Pramila Jayapal, who leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus. But recent polls suggest Mr. Jones’s campaign is struggling to stay in the top tier, and Nydia Velázquez, the congresswoman who represents much of the existing district, has endorsed one of Mr. Jones’s rivals, Carlina Rivera, a New York City councilwoman.It is unclear how much influence Ms. Pelosi’s endorsement will yield, or if will come with any financial support from the House Majority PAC or the Democratic funding arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But it may help in other ways.“Obviously it will be helpful, in that it will bring more attention to what has been arguably a struggling campaign out of the box,” said Neal Kwatra, a Democratic strategist who worked on former mayor Bill de Blasio’s abortive run for the same seat.But Mr. Kwatra cautioned that the voters who do turn out to vote out will be unusually well-informed about the election, and will have strong opinions about the candidates that are not likely to be swayed by a political endorsement.“The ones that do end up voting in this election, they’re going to be very sophisticated and very clear about why they’re voting and who they’re voting for,” he said. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Moving in With Mom: Redistricting Creates Upheaval for N.Y. Lawmakers

      by

      Earlier this year, New York’s tumultuous redistricting process convulsed the state’s House races, sparking intraparty drama that has provoked free-for-all primary contests and forced high-ranking Democrats to run against each other.But the court-drawn maps also threw Albany into chaos, upending district lines in the Democratic-controlled State Senate, and with similar effect: Lawmakers were thrust into the same districts, forcing some to make inconvenient living arrangements to run in neighboring districts in the Aug. 23 primary.For State Senator Joseph Addabbo Jr., a Democrat from Queens, the changes meant that he would be likely to move in with his mother, who resides in the new district he is running in, if he wins. Mr. Addabbo’s home in Howard Beach was excluded from his current district.“Thank God, I was nice to my mom all these years,” said Mr. Addabbo, 58, who is facing a primary challenge for the first time since he was elected in 2008. “I think my old bedroom is still available.”The redistricting saga has forced incumbents to campaign in unfamiliar territory and to face unexpected challengers, injecting an element of unpredictability and setting off primary contests defined by ideology, ethnicity and local political power struggles, as well as by issues around public safety and affordability.Residency requirements are eased in redistricting years, meaning candidates only have to live in the county they are running in, not the district. They must, however, move to the district if they win.In the Bronx, State Senator Gustavo Rivera faced a choice: stay in the rent-stabilized apartment he has lived in for over two decades and take on State Senator Robert Jackson, or find another district to run in. He chose the latter, and will go up against the preferred candidate of the Bronx party machine.“I’m not looking forward to jumping into the rental marketplace, but I will think about that pain after the 23rd of August,” said Mr. Rivera, a Democrat, referencing the primary date for contested races in the State Senate and Congress. “I’m not pleased.”At least seven Democratic incumbents in the 63-seat Senate, where Democrats hold a supermajority, are facing primary challenges, while two newly created districts in New York City are among a handful of open seats up for grabs.Despite the redistricting upheaval, Democratic incumbents are optimistic about their chances in the August primary, after the party establishment squashed insurgent challenges in many Assembly primaries in June, as well as in the race for governor and lieutenant governor.New York’s 2022 ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.N.Y. Governor’s Race: This year, for the first time in over 75 years, the state ballot appears destined to offer only two choices: Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, and Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican. Here is why.10th Congressional District: Half a century after she became one of the youngest women ever to serve in Congress, Elizabeth Holtzman is running once again for a seat in the House of Representatives.12th Congressional District: As Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, two titans of New York politics, battle it out, Suraj Patel is trying to eke out his own path to victory.There may also be fewer seats in the State Senate ripe for left-leaning hopefuls to target, following a string of progressive upsets that led Democrats to retake the majority in 2018 and placed incumbents on high alert, according to political operatives.“They’ve lost the element of surprise,” said Bhav Tibrewal, the political director for the New York Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, which represents hotel workers. “Mainstream Democrats have been running scared of them and so are taking their challenges much more seriously.”Incumbents significantly outspent their opponents in the June 28 primary, but labor unions also played a key role in mobilizing their members in a low-turnout election.Endorsements from unions, whose members tend to turn out at higher rates than the average voter, could serve as a powerful stamp of approval for incumbents racing to meet new voters in new neighborhoods.On a recent weekday morning, State Senator Andrew Gounardes, who represents a Trump-supporting district in the Bay Ridge neighborhood of Brooklyn, was campaigning outside a subway station vying for the attention of far more liberal voters in Brooklyn Heights, which is now part of the new district he is running in.State Senator Andrew Gounardes, center, campaigning in Brooklyn Heights with City Councilman Lincoln Restler, right, in July. Mr. Gounardes has been forced to court voters outside his Trump-supporting base in Bay Ridge.Janice Chung for The New York TimesA city councilman campaigning with him, Lincoln Restler, spotted a janitor ordering coffee from a nearby food truck and approached him to let him know that his union of building service workers, 32BJ SEIU, was planning to endorse Mr. Gounardes soon.“Oh, we got you!” replied the worker, as he picked up a Gounardes campaign flier.But roughly 80 percent of the Brooklyn waterfront district is new territory to Mr. Gounardes, 37, creating an opening for his challenger, David Yassky, 58, a former city councilman from Brooklyn Heights. Mr. Yassky is running on a pitch that he is more intricately familiar with the brownstone neighborhoods in the district than Mr. Gounardes.“I have deeper knowledge of these neighborhoods than anybody else in the race,” he said, adding that he was running to voice his district’s concerns with affordability and subway safety.Challengers across the ideological spectrum have launched campaigns, hoping that the new maps will loosen the terrain and lead to the unseating of longtime incumbents. The Democratic Socialists of America endorsed two insurgent candidates hoping to win new seats, including David Alexis, 33, a ride-share driver and community organizer challenging State Senator Kevin Parker in Brooklyn. To overcome what is expected to be abysmal voter turnout, Mr. Alexis said that his campaign has been mobilizing potential voters since last year, knocking on over 60,000 doors with the help of 750 volunteers.Mr. Parker may have benefited from the new Senate maps: His Flatbush-based district no longer includes Park Slope, removing a neighborhood that could boost a challenger from the left.“I don’t need to turn atheists into Catholics,” said Mr. Parker, 55, who was first elected in 2002 and has clashed with younger progressives in Albany. “I just need to get Baptists to come to church.”“For me, it’s just emphasizing the date of the election and the fact that I’m on the ballot,” Mr. Parker said.In the Bronx, Mr. Rivera’s primary sparked an intraparty clash.To avoid running against a fellow lawmaker, he chose to run in a district that encompasses about 50 percent of the heavily Hispanic district he currently represents, but now also includes the more white and affluent neighborhood of Riverdale.Also running is a new candidate, Miguelina Camilo, who had been endorsed by the Bronx Democratic Party before the courts redrew the lines. The local party stuck with its endorsement after Mr. Rivera jumped into the race, a decision that he called “terribly disappointing.”Miguelino Camilo, 36, said that her lived experience working in her father’s bodega while becoming the first member of her family to go to college made her “a strong voice for working families.”Janice Chung for The New York Times“The lines put me in the worst-case scenario,” said Mr. Rivera, 46, who was first elected in 2010.He said it wasn’t a secret that he didn’t have a close relationship with the party organization in the county, but that it was disappointing to feel as if all the work he had done had gone to waste because he didn’t “bend the knee” to the local party.Ms. Camilo, a lawyer with a focus on family law, called the situation “unfortunate,” stressing that she had received the party’s endorsement when she launched her campaign in February, before the courts intervened, to run in the open seat vacated by State Senator Alessandra Biaggi, who is running for Congress.“It wasn’t just a game to pick a seat just to get to Albany, I want to speak for this district,” said Ms. Camilo, 36, a first-time candidate from the Dominican Republic. She said that her lived experience working in her father’s bodega while becoming the first member of her family to go to college made her “a strong voice for working families.”In Queens, Mr. Addabbo’s expansively contorted district, which stretched from Maspeth to Rockaway Beach, was made more compact, shedding the Rockaways, which is predominantly white. Richmond Hill, home to a robust South Asian community and the city’s largest Sikh population, was added to the district, which now has a notably higher share of Asians and Hispanics.Among those running against Mr. Addabbo, who is white, is Japneet Singh, 28, an accountant and part-time taxi driver who is Sikh American and has focused his campaign on the anti-Asian hate crimes affecting his community.“I’ve seen the pain of these folks; it’s not safe out here,” said Mr. Singh, who ran unsuccessfully for City Council last year. “I’m representing a demographic that nobody cares about.” More