NY Primary Day #2

New York passed a state constitutional amendment to improve the way we district the legislature and our congressional delegation.

It was something of a half-measure and the system in place was applied this cycle is a way clearly problematic. The result was litigation and late in the day redistricting. This was a mess and there is some debate over the proper way it should have went. People who are upset at the 4-3 court of appeals ruling tossing the maps by my lights admit the maps violated its terms. It was a realpolitik issue of what should have been done about it.

Anyway, as we discussed here before, the net result was that new maps were drawn, resulting in various drama as people dealt with the new situation, and there is now a special election for U.S. House and N.Y. Senate seats scheduled August 23rd.   Early voting started today.  My district has one new senate seat to fill and no disputed congressional race.

(The original June primary dealt with governor, assembly -- map also struck down but too late for redrawing -- and (where applicable) judges.)  

As noted, my district -- like various others -- involve some intra-partisan disputes arising out of the new districts.  If it was my old district, my current assemblywoman is running.  But, this is a new district, and I will have to adapt to new people.  No Republican primary is scheduled. 

I have this idea that with people voting from now to Election Day, there will be rather limited voting each day.  A few hundred voted in my district on Election Day itself in June and that was when there was a governor's race for both parties.  There is also the absentee ballot route.  So, there is less of a need to vote in person on Election Day.  I'm working again as a poll worker.  Suspect it will be a lot of waiting around.

I again am reminded of the book that provided a philosophical argument regarding our duty to vote.  I do not know if it would be worthwhile to require it legally.  It very well might lead to some sort of problems, though if a "none of the above" option is provided, I'm unsure if there is any good First Amendment argument against it.  There remains a republican duty to vote and good policy reasons to encourage it more than we do. 

Local and mid-term elections overall are known to have limited turnout, especially primaries.  Primaries in some districts can be the real elections with only token opposition in November or a tough road ahead because a party chose the less popular option.  Thus, the Democrats hang on to the Senate for one more cycle under Obama basically because of a few extremists winning primaries against people who could have won later.

(I'll repeat now my support of instant run-off voting to insure that the winner of the primary has majority support and to avoid unnecessary run-offs that are sometimes in place to help advance that end.)

Local races are important because we leave a lot of power to local officials.  This is so even if certain races are not good policy (judges basically, especially in my state where there is little evidence most people know anything about these people)  or (currently) there is no major competition.  Sometimes, there should be more competition.  And, overall, people should be aware of who is running and what their role is.

New York -- like the Democrats in Congress -- has passed a lot of stuff in recent years. Put aside local constituent support, which is often an important role for legislators, having good personnel in local offices is important.  Voting provides a chance for each one of us to play a role here, including to become basically informed about who is running and what is at stake.  This need not be a "policy wonk" thing. 

Often, surely, it is not a gigantic big deal who exactly wins. For instance, I want Alessandra Biaggi to win one race the NYT editorial board submitted endorsements for, but even there, it would not be a total travesty if she lost.  And, that is one of the fewer races I have a stronger feeling about.

Anyway, I went to my local early voting location -- a few blocks away, past the Rite Aid -- and voted for state senate.  I supported the newbie supported by the local Bronx political machine.  I am seeing her face in various windows and such.  OTOH, a campaign worker from the other candidate stopped by my place (noted he got $25 an hour) recently to promote that guy's candidacy.  Unsure who is going to win, though name recognition is important.  My current city councilperson was out blanketed in her past race, the winner's face in much more places.  Important in a close race.

Gustavo Rivera has Biaggi's support and has a good record overall. But, he has been in the legislature for over a decade, and Miguelina Camilo looks promising. One article summarizes:

Camilo, born in the Dominican Republic, is a lawyer who previously held commissioner and associate counsel posts with the city Board of Elections. She is the president of the Bronx Women’s Bar Association and was a practicing attorney before she put her job on hold during the campaign.

From what I can tell, she supports the usual things, a few times something tossed in articles I saw suggesting she tries to be mildly moderate about some thing or other.  We are talking marginal things here though including a small donation to a IDC candidate (the independent caucus that helped Republicans retain power in the Senate) a few years back.  

I think her background and professional career is what matters here. And, it impressed me while the fact the local party (including the Bronx borough president, who I saw in person voting in June) people support her is also suggestive she is fine enough.  If the other guy was new like her, it probably would be tougher.  Giving someone new a shot is my tie breaker.

Not quite the biggest disputed race, but it's my own.