A Few More NYC Election Tidbits (SCOTUS Watch)

This week's SCOTUS summary is found here.

We had a significant increase in turnout, with as many voters as there were since 1969. The increase is relative, with only around 40% taking part. The Bronx had a paltry 28%. My city council district changed hands. What small fraction decided the result? 

Voting is a civic obligation. Many people think it is pointless to vote, including if they don't like the candidates. Republicans often felt they were wasting their vote, helping someone they strongly opposed in the process.  Others also did not like Mamdani. 

It is still important for people to vote. There were also other races and six ballot measures. The two links provide some voting analysis. For instance, the black vote significantly shifted from Cuomo in the primary to Mamdani in the general. Recall Mayor Eric Adams (black) was not in the primary. 

One analysis argues that Mamdani's leading reform proposals are cheap as a segment of the overall budget. The analysis provides some interesting information, including that free buses seem less extreme when 48% already do not pay for bus fares.

(That seems high, but there was a study comparing riders to fares obtained. I don't take buses too much, but have seen evidence of the overall practice.) 

Meanwhile, NY SNAP funding will continue even in the face of the government shutdown and Trump shenanigans. I expected state funding would help.

[ETA: After last night's SCOTUS order, the SNAP benefits are more up in the air. The linked article was updated since I first posted this.]

==

This entry has links to three online newspapers covering NYC and NY state news, as well as one to an NYT article. The (free) NY-specific online papers have provided helpful local coverage.  

Paywalls are annoying but fair since media providers need to be paid. Archived content can help avoid it. Also, you can fiddle around with the browser, including cookie settings, to avoid some others. 

Democrats Have A Good Election Day

Tonight, the results came in. American voters have spoken.

They firmly supported Democrats. The most notable for me personally is the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York. As of this writing, he has received a bit over 50% of the vote

Cuomo received over 40% while Sliwa received around 7%, including via his Protect Animals line. Mamdani said that Cuomo didn't send the usual complimentary victory message, though Sliwa did. 

Fox News (local NYC channel) referenced that Cuomo couldn't even pronounce Mamdani's name correctly in his concession speech. Sliwa also ran on a "Protect Animals" line. Someone else ran on the Conservative Party line. Perhaps, Mamdani can find an animal-related position, including involving feral cats, one of Sliwa's causes. 

Women played a major role here. The new governors of New Jersey and Virginia (both with convincing wins) will be women. Also, along with the new Muslim mayor of NY:

Ghazala Hashmi wins Virginia lieutenant governor’s race, becoming first Muslim woman elected statewide

Zohran Mamdani voted "Yes" on ballot measures 1-5 that were on the ballot in NYC, and those won. The sixth ballot measure to change off-year elections lost. It would not have been final, anyway, since the state legislature has to do it. I was a bit wary about the housing measures, but that's fine.

Anti-trans messaging failed this time around. It might best be noted that it didn't change other trends. The message appears to be anti-Trump, supporting Democrats, and progressive policies. 

The messaging there was mixed. Mamdani stood out. But it does provide a lesson about enthusiasm. House Minority Leader Jeffries, at the end, endorsed Mamdani (yippe) while Schumer couldn't even do that. He didn't say who he voted for. Sheesh.

Mamdani is not a "literal communist," which is now the framing. He is a self-labeled socialist, which is not horrible. I look forward to seeing how he does and hope net his administration is positive. Eric Adams is not a high bar, even if he has some positive policies.

I worked at the polls, checking in voters. We have ten days of early voting. We still had a respectable turnout in our neighborhood polling place. The whole process continues to impress me and provide some civic pride. Many fulfilled their civic obligations. 

A Texan parental rights amendment passed. The text seems rather benign, though various liberal leaning groups opposed it. For instance, literally, the amendment seems to help parents of trans people. OTOH, trans groups also opposed the amendment.

After 13 years, Mississippi Democrats have broken the Republican Party’s supermajority in the Mississippi Senate. Voters elected Democrats to two seats previously held by Republicans, reducing the number of Republican senators in the upper chamber from 36 to 34—one fewer than necessary to constitute a supermajority.

I will end with this symbolic bit of good news. After all, it is not like the legislature would logically often need to overrule a veto or something. 

Still, supermajorities do have more power, and that might help limit the damage in some cases. For instance, supermajorities make it easier to propose constitutional amendments. Most significantly, it is a message against extremism and the ability of others to have a voice. 

Liberals have victories in places you least expect. For instance, criminal justice reform has occurred throughout the nation. The wins were often in places, though the breadth was particularly significant; you expect Democrats to win (but see Pennsylvania and Trump's wins there), so that's nice too. 

Back to New York City, for the second time in so many election cycles, my city council district switched political parties. I was concerned, I even sent them an email, about the lack of campaign signs in my neighborhood. They were available on Election Day to hand out literature near the polls. The Democrat won, however, perhaps some Mamdani coattails. 

One major issue for the Republican incumbent was opposition to a health program for former prisoners. I was particularly angry about that. Overall, she seemed to do okay, but I'm fine with her losing. Anyway, the already small Republican NYC City Council delegation will now be smaller.  

A couple of final comments. The personal factor played a significant role, in various degrees, in the Democrats' wins. They had impressive life stories. They ran good campaigns. They connected to the voters in ways Republicans often did not.

Finally, can the new Arizona congresswoman be sworn in already, please? 

Couple Things

Finding My Way (Malala Y) is well written. It has a lot of personal details. I would be embarrassed. I do not keep track of NYC political events. I should. I don't. The City Council is wrong here, ethically. I voted "no" since I wasn't quite sure. But, sort of deserve to lose.

Trump Odds and Ends

The Trump Justice Department regularly lied to and didn't follow the orders of courts. 

(This should matter, right?) 

Prince (for now) Andrew is having his royal title (basically symbolic) stripped because of his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. 

OTOH, Mike Johnson is keeping the House of Representatives in session and not swearing in a new Democratic representative, partially to prevent a measure from releasing the Epstein papers. 

Even in the friendliest polls, Cuomo has the smallest enthusiastic base of any candidate. Curtis Sliwa has more people excited to vote for him. Cuomo’s only shot is patching together enough voters who fear or despise his opponent enough to accept him by default. He has nothing to offer for the future, just a cynical warning that we cannot trust it to someone else.

But that same need to control has brought him here: stuck in a race he’s unlikely to win, for a job he never really wanted. And that’s because Cuomo can see everyone’s faults but his own. He doesn’t show humility. He rarely apologizes. And if you never admit mistakes, you never learn from them. You never evolve.

Okay. Let's move on from this ugliness.

The Supreme Court has found another possible "this goes too far" bit regarding Trump sending troops into our cities. At least, eventually. 

Don't worry. As a whole, the Supreme Court (6-3 much of the time) has supported Trump while expanding its power, including against the lower courts. 

Time for court reform.

ETA: Some SCOTUS addendum stuff.

A media advisory dropped regarding seating for a Trump firing case, underscoring the expectation it will be a well-watched oral argument. Press seating will be by assignment only. All cases aren't equal.

It could take years to have a bound copy of a term's opinions. Now, they start providing bound pages during the term. The final opinions for the 2024 Term are now available with the page numbers. 

Oral arguments begin again on Monday. 

Early Voting Begins

It is that time of the year again. Early voting has begun. Around five years ago, New York began to provide ten days of early voting. 

We also have "no excuse" vote by mail. I even convinced a voting-hesitant person to use it after years of not voting. She used an option where it is automatically sent to the voter, which is an incentive to vote as compared to those who would have to personally choose to vote each time. 

New York also provides a voting guide, though it does not cover judicial races. I find that dubious. 

I understand the value of convenience. I had to walk a significant way (not too long) the first time. Now, an early voting location is five minutes away. I will man the polls on Election Day.

(There is a race for governor going on in New Jersey. One person I follow on Bluesky is scaring me by warning us that the Democrat is not putting up enough of a fight. This is where we are at. Even NJ is not totally safe regarding not voting for the Trump Party.) 

Civic Duty 

I think in-person voting is an important symbolic act.

So, a little part of me doesn't like mail-in voting. But I understand there is a value there, especially for certain voters. It is best to have various options. 

Some argue Election Day should be a holiday to help some of these voters. It makes some sense, especially given the importance of voting overall to democracy.

But early voting helps to fill in that gap. After all, many people are already off today, Saturday, the first day of early voting. I don't think a whole day off is necessary. Early voting and many voting locations will also cut down wait times and other problems. 

Overall, we have a moral duty to vote. It is our civic duty. Some people are annoyed with that claim. 

How dare you tell me I have a duty to vote! I'm not (though it might work) talking about a penalty for refusing to vote. The state doesn't penalize being mean to mom. Is a minimal thing like voting too much for citizens to manage? Perhaps this helps explain things.

A fraction of the public voting has various problems. One problem is that it encourages very partisan representatives. Low turnout in primary elections is especially problematic when they are likely the "real" election in safe districts. AOC first won her primary with a tiny fraction of the vote. 

New York City Elections 

The two big things in NYC this year are the mayoral race and some ballot measures. 

Mayoral Race 

Zohran Mamdani is favored to win the mayoral race. He is a fitting answer to the times. Put aside the exaggerated, often bullshit criticisms. The main concern is that he is too young and inexperienced. He's more experienced than the Republican choice. 

And, as Mamdani said, Cuomo's "experience" is a big part of the problem. Plus, just what experience does he have to govern New York City well? Mamdani's campaign, including being open to respectfully listening, has shown a basic quality Cuomo lacks. 

It is a good thing that Mamdani and Cuomo (who should have simply dropped out) are not the only options. Mamdani's opposition hates that the anti-Mamdani vote is split. But do we really want Republicans and independents to only have to vote for Cuomo? It's as if Bill Clinton were the alternative to a very liberal presidential option in 1996.  

I'm obviously biased, but I am honest in saying that. My Republican city councilwoman (I have not seen a single campaign sign in the neighborhood of her competition; the Democrat deserves to lose), along with the rest of the small Republican caucus, endorsed Curtis Sliwa. If nothing else, Sliwa is not an asshole, Democratic, and likes cats. 

Sliwa is still not a serious option if you truly thought Republicans had a chance. He ran unopposed in the primary, probably because they felt Cuomo would win. He didn't. Too bad, Republicans. 

Additional candidates have filed to run on other ballot lines in the general election but have not raised significant funds or polled among leading candidates. They include Irene Estrada (Conservative Party) and Joseph Hernandez (Quality of Life Party). Walden and Adams will both still appear on the ballot, despite suspending their campaigns.

Some long-shot candidate (Walden) floated himself as an alternative for a little while. He waited too long to concede he had no shot and remained on the ballot. 

Eric Adams, who wound up endorsing Cuomo, is still on the ballot. Filling out the ballot is the first time I heard of the "quality of life" party. 

The biggest question is probably whether Mamdani receives over 50% of the vote. Cuomo concedes it is a longshot for him to win with Sliwa in the race. 

I am also interested in whether Adams or anyone else will receive a significant amount of the vote. I reckon Adams' loyalists might give him a percentage or two at least. I don't expect miracles with Mamdani.

But I think he gives us a chance to obtain some good things, including a suitably strong counter to Donald Trump. Plus, Adams is so darn crooked. 

Ballot Measures 

Mamdani has played it safe lately, including not stating his opinion on the ballot measures. 

I don't think the reason was the state measure concerning the use of wilderness land for development (more land will be put aside to compensate) or one about new maps. That is, the two I supported. A sixth measure about ending off-year elections (it is not the final step, even if it passed) is challenged here. 

The three housing measures, a "gift" of sorts from Zombie Candidate (he is still on the ballot), Mayor Eric Adams, are particularly touchy since the City Council hates them. It's logical since a major point is to reduce their role, to help speed up the process. 

Affordable housing advocates support the measures, though the League of Women Voters was agnostic about one of them. A "yes" vote seems reasonable, even a good idea. Still, I was hesitant. I decided to vote "no" out of caution. 

I am wary of direct democracy, especially regarding specialty issues and/or things that warrant the balancing of interests. This issue is a reasonable exception since it specifically challenges the City Council's role, and they are self-interested. 

Other Races 

One more thing. New York has a form of instant run-off voting for city races (district attorney is a state race). It is only available during the primary. 

There are other local races. Sometimes, you could vote third party (e.g., Working Families Party) instead of voting Democratic or Republican. For whatever reason, not every candidate runs on two lines.

It helps send a message that you support that cause. Third parties in even years also need significant vote totals to remain on the ballot. That doesn't seem like an issue in 2025. A few voters are confused and want to fill in the ovals for a candidate in both places! 

Sometimes, there is a third option, such as the "Unity" Party, which is meant to be a third "unity" type alternative. Only a few people vote for these candidates. Still, as with the chance to fill in your own candidate, it is helpful to provide other options. 

The comptroller and public advocate (who is the next in line if the mayorality is vacant) are decent Democratic sorts who will win. 

The city council races are generally not in doubt. Maybe there is some upset or two possible somewhere city-wide. I would hope that maybe my city council district (after an upset last time) would go back to being Democratic. But that candidate has basically not shown up. It is annoying.  

Judges 

Two local judicial candidates are also running unopposed in my district. This is common. 

It also underlines the stupidity of judicial races being on the ballot. Some states have more active judicial elections, and there are some ethically dubious things going on. Here, it is largely just something you fill in. 

The average voter knows little or nothing about them. Not that it often matters since (you can write in a name; I usually do), there often is no actual race. 

Final Thoughts 

I continue to find it reassuring that voters have a chance to decide on Election Day. Often, yes, things seem pro forma. The winners and losers are obvious.

Enough times to matter, however, there are actual races. That happened this year, too, especially the mayoral primary race. Either way, the act of voting, our civic duty, is a wondrous thing.

Some people argue that democracy is dead now that Trump is in power. Or, at the very least, it is in suspended animation, somewhat akin to Han Solo in that Star Wars movie. Fuck that. 

I got my sticker. And, voting still matters. It is still going on. Some might want to interfere, but we don't have to let them. Happy voting. 

Tidbits

I discuss the moral argument against Trump. Something to Talk About isn't just a good film. (Her second romance is good as well and has a lot more sex. Maybe too much!)  Yippee. Good luck, Blue Jays.

NYC Ballot Proposals

New York City has six ballot measures this year. 

One is a state measure required by the state constitution that protects wilderness land. Other than Curtis Sliwa ("no" on all), there doesn't seem to be much opposition to it. Some private land is being swapped for wilderness land.

One local measure creates a centralized digital City Map maintained by the Department of City Planning. Again, there doesn't appear to be much opposition to this measure. Sliwa, notwithstanding. 

The most controversial ones, which the City Council hates, involve streamlining the process for affordable housing. Mamdani needs the support of the City Council and other groups who are not fans. 

So, he is taking a while to decide. I realize it is probably a political move as much as or more than him truly being unsure. Still, helps me be wary. 

Affordable housing advocates, from what I can tell, generally support the measures. The League of Women Voters is agnostic about one of the three measures. It is a battle of the City Council (popular control) and concerns of NIMBY-ism. 

I generally favor legislative decision-making over direct democracy. There are times when direct democracy is a valid counterbalance to legislative difficulties. I am guardedly supportive of them. 

Abortion rights in red states come to mind. OTOH, some issues are complicated policy matters that should be left to legislators, who know about such things, and can negotiate the various policy issues.

The final measure involves ending local elections in off-years. A "yes" vote is not final since the state legislature has to be involved. This makes the measure somewhat lower in temperature. 

OTOH, this "no" argument is fairly convincing. 

==

There is a 10-day period of early voting, so the time to vote is rapidly approaching. And, the vote-by-mail ballots (I know someone who has one) have already been sent out. Still, I have a bit of time to decide. 

Odds and Ends: Peace, Judges, and Sex

I discuss the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

There are three types of judges that are elected by New York City voters, rather than appointed by the mayor or governor. 

Supreme Court justices oversee state trial courts for felony criminal cases and some types of civil cases, including ones that involve large amounts of money. 

Civil Court judges in the city preside over consumer debt, landlord-tenant disputes and several other kinds of civil cases. 

Surrogates’ Court judges handle cases related to deceased people’s wills and estates.

I think judicial elections are dumb, partially since the average voter knows nearly nothing about the people on the ballot here. Here's a helpful explainer with links for information.

I still think they are dumb.

This is a book (over 500 pages) from early 2017, so it can do for an update. Then again, it ends with a reminder that the law and social norms repeatedly changed and could change again, especially with new SCOTUS personnel. 

It starts from ancient times. A quick read overall. It argues that morals legislation tends to overlap with religion, so it is a separation of church and state issue. As Justice Brennan realized with obscenity:

Like the proscription of abortions, the effort to suppress obscenity is predicated on unprovable, although strongly held, assumptions about human behavior, morality, sex, and religion.

The final sections cover sexual speech, reproductive liberty, and gay rights. It is not totally comprehensive (it should at least reference Mormonism and polygamy), but it covers a lot of ground. Good book overall. My copy had no cover. 

Local News

A bit of good news regarding the approval of a local "re-entry" housing project involving previously incarcerated individuals with special needs. It faces NIMBY opposition in my neighborhood, including from my (Republican) city council member. 

Mayor Eric Adams Suspends Campaign

He recieved kudos from Mr. "Mamdani Has to Prove Himself" Jeffries (fu). People now want Curtis Sliwa (R) to drop out so Republicans can vote for Andrew Cuomo. Ha ha ha. (Ha ha.) 

NYC Mayoral Race: Prostitution

The quasi-Republican NYC mayoral candidates have used various tactics to try to label Zohran Mamdani as a dangerous radical. One tactic is to cite Mamdani's co-sponsoring of prostitution reform. 

Mamdani is currently in a good position and is trying to avoid any controversies. He says it won't be a priority in his administration (who thought it would?) and that he did not support legalization. That is, not decriminalization, which does not set up a legal administration to regulate the thing.

Marijuana legalization is a good comparison. We now have authorized dealers of marijuana (there is one in my neighborhood, a few blocks from a junior high school). Marijuana is regulated in various respects. New York didn't simply stop making marijuana illegal.

Mamdani co-sponsored "Cecilia's Law" (which did not pass), which partially decriminalizes prostitution. It is named after a sex worker advocate. 

Cuomo signed into law something overturning an anti-solicitation law. Someone challenged him on the point after Cuomo went after Mamdani. He tried to downplay its importance, partially claiming ignorance.

An article cited at the first link clarifies:

On paper, the legislation repealed an anti-prostitution law which previously prohibited “loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.” But in recent years, LGBTQ+ activists charged that police more often used the statute to harass or arrest visibly trans women, particularly trans women of color, under the guise of combating prostitution.

Gay USA continues to report that such "neutral" laws have resulted in discriminatory enforcement. So-called vices or moral laws tend to have that effect. 

After Lawrence v. Texas, laws against fornication have been struck down on right to privacy grounds. Prostitution is different because it is not just private sexual conduct. 

It is an economic transaction. The line drawing, however, is sometimes difficult. Common dating procedures, to be blunt, can be quite transactional. 

Privacy rights, such as obtaining sexual materials or contraceptives, also have an economic component. Escort services can also entail non-sexual aspects. Criminalizing prostitution is dubious.

The average voter probably is not too concerned about this issue. They would at most want to address the stereotypical "streetwalker" as well as abusive tactics, including the use of minors. They would be fine with focusing on social services, including helping prostitutes who need medical treatment. 

Mamdani's more left-leaning causes overall tend to be positive developments. The voting population might be more conservative than he is on certain issues. But they also will often find his ideas, including reducing the reliance on police for providing mental health services, to be good ideas.

Any changes to the law here will be up to the legislature. The most Mayor Mamdani would do is change executive priorities. He would even have somewhat limited influence over the police, depending on who he chooses (or leaves in place) to run that department. That is not nothing, but it again shows the over-the-top concerns are just that.

And, to the extent Mamdani did support prostitution reform, it is a positive development. I did not parse the legislation he supported, in part because it did not pass. I do support its overall goals. On this issue, I'm generally libertarian.* Prostitutes often are victimized. Bans, however, are not the way to help them. 

===

* We need not apply that word absolutely. 

Things tend to have degrees. I'm not a "libertarian" even if I am libertarian on certain issues. 

Why? Because we need regulations, we aren't islands, and that factors in when applying a label for myself. 

Eric Adams Is Bad Quickie

The NYT had a good guest essay on the corruption of Mayor Adams. The article also explains how the Supreme Court (at times unanimously) made fighting corruption harder in recent years. Yours truly, replied to this article, where the mayor made a switch to join NIMBY-ism. This matter has been a long-time concern. More bad.

NYC Housing Ballot Measures

The most important thing on the ballot in NYC is the mayoral election. There are also other local offices, including city council positions. For instance, my Republican city councilperson is up for re-election.

We will also have ballot measures. I am not a big fan of ballot measures. They often are technical issues that are best determined by the legislature. Sometimes, the state constitution requires a public vote. So it goes. 

The measures, which have the backing of pro-development advocates and interests, aim to simplify and expedite land use review procedures to streamline new housing development in the community districts with the city’s lowest share of affordable development and for small-scale projects. In both cases, the City Planning Commission — and not the Council — would have final say. 

The third disputed ballot item would create an affordable housing appeals board made up of the mayor, the local borough president, and the Council speaker for projects the Council rejects.

These measures were opposed by the City Council, which seemed to be concerned about its turf. Yes, there is a claim that the text (see link) is not clear enough. I think the general assumption is that the claim is rather pretextual. And, reading the proposed text, it seems clear enough to me.

Housing advocates, meanwhile, celebrated the board’s decision. The pro-housing group Open New York and the political spending committee it formed to raise $3 million to support the changes claimed credit for prompting the Board of Elections to allow the amendments on the ballot by mobilizing members to inundate the board with phone calls and emails.

Here is more arguing that the City Council, particularly single members, are NIMBY-ing things here. I don't claim to know much about this. I generally trust that person's judgment and that of housing advocates overall.

Still, I prefer that such issues be decided by the legislature. The problem here is that there might be a biased bottleneck that blocks good policy. That is a major purpose of ballot measures. It allows the public to step in and act directly.  

Housing is a major issue in this election already. So, perhaps, this is a good time to have this on the ballot. Either way, it's there. Time to decide. 

Zohran Mamdani's Rent Stabilized Apartment

A person (who lived in the city for over fifty years but hasn't for around thirty) is strongly against Zohran Mamdani. They are a Republican. So, no shock.

The person hates Cuomo, partially because they think he killed elderly people during COVID. Says Eric Adams is a crook. Probably has no interest in Curtis Sliwa or thinks he is not a serious candidate. But Mamdani is a socialist, so basically the person endorses Cuomo. 

The latest thing is that Mamdani has a rent-stabilized apartment. This disgusts the person. They are mad that more isn't made of this. Adams and Cuomo, specifically Cuomo, have made it an issue. Cuomo suggested Zohran's Law to mean test rent-stabilized apartments.  

Mamdani's neighbors have had a collective yarn. Cuomo's proposal has been criticized by housing advocates. The numbers overall are not impressive:

Mr. Mamdani has said he was making just $47,000 a year working as a foreclosure counselor when he moved into his current apartment in Astoria years ago. (The median household income for rent-stabilized tenants is around $60,000.) He said he did not know it was rent-stabilized at the time.

Mr. Cuomo said that Mr. Mamdani’s Assembly salary, plus the wealth of his parents, should disqualify the lawmaker from continuing to occupy the unit. Mr. Mamdani has previously told The New York Times that his parents had not supported him financially for years.

The logic, I guess, is that Mamdani should have left the rent-stabilized apartment after he started to make more money and/or became a politician. His critic, speaking totally neutrally (of course), focused on that last part. 

Maybe that would have been the best thing to do symbolically. It's a bit shallow of a concern, but what else is new there? Politics is often about symbolism. The hypocrisy claims are still shallow:

Criticism against socialist candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, over his acquisition of a rent-stabilized apartment as someone who makes close to $150,000 a year, is ramping up after a watchdog issued a complaint to New York's government ethics commission. 

Unless Mamdani supported means testing, which I am not aware of, there is no hypocrisy here. For instance, freezing rents and making sure (to cite one third party) "rent is not too damn high" is your concern, what changes if you have a rent-stabilized apartment? What makes you not a socialist?

One criticism is that someone else would have obtained the rent-stabilized apartment (a big get but still not a unicorn) if Mamdani didn't. Someone else making what he makes? I guess he could have found a suitable candidate to pass it along to. Sorry, the alternative, with many good things going for him, against criminals and so forth, isn't a saint. 

Oh look. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries reportedly argues the criticism is "legitimate." Helping Cuomo to win, huh? Jeffries might not be the best guy to talk about this issue. Can you just endorse the Democrats' choice, please? What a tool.

Overall, if this is the best you can do, it isn't much. 

Partisan Gerrymandering in the Texas and California

Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to his party, part of a broader effort to help the GOP retain control of the chamber in next year’s midterm elections.

Trump wants to rig the system because he thinks the people will not otherwise support him. There is much opposition to the things he has done so far. He is trying this time to do a bunch of things without congressional approval (illegally, though the Supreme Court repeatedly has helped him out).

Partisan gerrymandering is a basic way for a political party to obtain and retain power without popular support. It is ultimately a violation of the republican form of government. "We the People" no longer govern by a fair expression of the vote. 

The Guarantee Clause has long been deemed (probably somewhat wrongly) non-justiciable. Nonetheless, other means can be used by the courts, including the Equal Protection Clause (see "one person, one vote").  States and Congress can also address the problem.

The Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) conclusively (after Kennedy never bit the bullet) said partisan gerrymandering is not for the federal courts to handle. I question blaming John Roberts, full stop, here. 

Kavanaugh is probably the person directly to blame. He was the fifth vote. Likewise, Barrett is to blame for Dobbs (abortion). But Roberts is the Chief Justice. It is part of his decades-long conservative anti-voting rights campaign.* 

Texas is the second most populous state. It is standardly cited as a red state. Nonetheless, over forty percent of the voting population voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. There is a significant Democratic presence. A fair map will provide many Democrats. Good luck with that. 

The campaign to make the map even more Republican-focused apparently cannot wait until the end of the decade. The Constitution sets forth once per decade apportionment tied to the census. Mid-decade apportionment, other than to fix disputed maps, should be traditionally disfavored. 

California, the most populous state (and state of mind), has stepped in to check Texas. They are using the amendment process and proposing a gerrymandered map. The people have to accept the amendment first. New York has a more extended process. We could not act as quickly.  

The amendment has language supporting federal reform, both legislatively and by constitutional amendment. Partisan gerrymandering ultimately requires a national solution. 

Strategically, unilateral disarmament is ill-advised. There will also be a "race to the bottom" problem. Now, Republicans control many more legislative halls and governors' mansions.

They see misrule as having short-term gains. 

==

* Roberts decided on Thursday, for once, to vote for the liberals during Trump 2.0 in a confusing 4-1-4 ruling. More shadow docket shenanigans. 

Jackson strongly speaks out, including accusing the Court of Calvinball. The case involving NIH funding, and in one bit, Jackson notes the result will include euthanizing animals used in research. 

Great. Now, SCOTUS is killing animals.

NYC Mayoral Race Update

Eric Adams's liking of Fox News is far from surprising. He is a prime kinda Democrat for that network. 

Zohran Mamdani met with congressional Democrats. Democratic leaders, Schumer and Jeffries, have not endorsed him yet. That is both aggravating and probably deep down not a problem. He is riding on a wave, and not being part of the old guard is part of his appeal.

I guess my representative deserves some credit, too. 

Eric Adams Receives (Limited) Support from Police

13 Law Enforcement Unions Endorse Eric Adams in N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race

Not surprising that law enforcement unions endorse a former police officer over a Republican who cosplays as one. Plus, Adams is the semi-MAGA candidate.

Numbers can be misleading:

The largest NYPD union, the Police Benevolent Association, was not at the event. Sources told CBS News New York the PBA wants to go through its own endorsement process and has not yet made a decision on who it will support in the mayor's race.  

He also has problems with stability:

He cycled through three police commissioners before Jessica Tisch’s appointment in November, the first mayor to have that many in a single term since the 1930s.

Zohran Mamdani has left open keeping Jessica Tisch. People have assumed he is just about defunding the police. The guy who is seriously about gaining power to destroy the institutions he oversees is Trump.

Adams' law enforcement endorsements come at a critical time in the campaign, after former interim NYPD Commissioner Tom Donlon filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the mayor and top brass of running the department as a criminal organization. 

In the lawsuit, Donlon claims that he was commissioner in name only and was removed from the role when he tried to report corruption and misconduct. He accused the mayor of giving real authority to NYPD members who were loyal to him, alleging the group operated without oversight, enabling sexual predators and burying misconduct investigations. 

Adams has a history of helping sexual predators. See his relationship with Donald Trump. More:

His lawsuit follows one filed last week by four former NYPD chiefs who claim they were retaliated against by the Adams administration after they blew the whistle on corruption within the department’s highest ranks. 

Okay. There is a reason that Democrats weren't going to vote for this guy in the primary. The polls suggest Adams still has significant support, though he would lose in a one-on-one campaign versus Mamdani (Cuomo would win there). 

Republicans are bad at being fiscal conservatives. They have a reputation for being better than Democrats. They are not. 

They also have a reputation for being tough on crime. That is also a mixed thing, especially regarding results. Trump has supported lots of criminals, including himself.

Eric Adams is a bad choice. He isn't even that strong, one issue you would think would help him. Being indicted didn't help there. But there is a lot more. 

Cuomo, who lost the primary and has his own problems with the law, is also a bad choice. Let's vote for the other Democrat, who is also conveniently running on that line. 

If you are a Republican, maybe you want to vote for Curtis Sliwa. I don't think he has the experience and serious policy chops to warrant that. Still, I understand the sentiment on a partisan level. Better than voting for Adams or Cuomo, probably.

Cuomo these days might be Trump's choice, now that Trump made Adams his you know what. Cuomo definitely has Trump-lite vibes in various respects. 

Vote Mamdani. It isn't too hard. If you aren't a progressive, just consider the alternatives.

If you are a conservative, fine, vote Sliwa if that is your jam. Mamdani will only lose, however, if there is a serious failure from the Democratic side. And, even then, splitting the vote will ease the blow. 

Eric Adams' having problems with the police underlines that the other options are not ideal. Cuomo has already lost. He had to resign being governor.

Again, it isn't THAT hard. 

Open Primary in NYC (and DEI Again)

In 2023, Common Cause New York issued a report on New York’s “unaffiliated” voters, who represent more than a million voters in New York City and are now the second largest voting bloc citywide.

A local op-ed opposed putting an open primary on the ballot in New York City. It did not necessarily oppose the concept. Nonetheless, it argued that more study should be provided. [ETA: Never mind.]

The argument appears reasonable. We are having an atypical mayoral election this year with at least one major third-party candidate (Eric Adams). The unaffiliated voters weren't the only ones unable to take part in the primary. The Republicans did not have a contested mayoral primary.

Mamdani appeals to a plurality of voters. Republicans are a minority (only about five members of the city council are Republican). The result is that there is a middle group who wish for a third candidate. Adams and Cuomo, however, are dubious options for certain non-ideological reasons.  

I think an open (or "jungle") primary in an area that is strongly one-party makes sense. The alternative might not result in a fair representation of the will of the electorate. Curtis Sliwa is not a typical Republican. 

OTOH, if we are going to change how we vote, it should be done carefully. So, I find the op-ed convincing. 

Diversity ensures representation among qualified persons across race, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, socioeconomic status, military status, shared ancestry, parental status, persons who live in rural communities, and more, so that institutions reflect the communities they serve.

DEI came up on another blog. It is a favorite target, and some people conclusively say it failed. I have talked about this issue before. It still bothers me.

DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access) is fundamentally a good thing. It is not just about race (or sex). It has quite a few aspects that few will oppose across the board (e.g., disability access or religious accommodations).  

DEI (the "A" is often left off) is used as a buzzword. It is more political theater than an honest attempt to address the substance. 

Some aspects will be controversial and/or problematic. Others are fine. Others are good. 

I will die on that hill. Well, I will die on many hills. 

Continue to Say No to Cuomo

I respond to a discussion about an appeal to consistently supporting the Democratic nominee. I agree, but am still bothered, particularly that Cuomo's sex crimes continue to be underreported. 

Trump v. NYC

The MAGA bunch is attacking the winning NYC Democratic candidate for mayor, Zohran Mamdani, as a dangerous commie and some such. They are very concerned about our elections. 

More concerning are official attacks. Election interference is Trump's m.o. He was (rightly) prosecuted for it in New York City. 

Trump then corruptly interfered in an ongoing prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams. Started a criminal investigation, against traditional policy, of another candidate (Andrew Cuomo). Now, he is targeting another Democratic candidate. Consistency.  

President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Advisory Council — a group that includes Rudy Giuliani, cop-turned-actor Bo Dietl and the founder of Bikers for Trump — held its first meeting on Wednesday to discuss the top threats facing the nation.

Trump has flagged him as dangerous and potentially a criminal. He has left open the possibility that Mamdani's naturalized citizenship can be revoked. He is accusing the leading candidate of a major city of being illegitimate.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council is not typically so heavy on politics. It was created in 2003 in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and, as stated in the Federal Register, is meant to provide “nonpartisan and organizationally independent strategic advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security on critical matters related to Homeland Security.” 

The article, however, shows how a recent meeting was quite political. The discussion included endorsements (Sliwa) and semi-endorsements (Adams), and attacks on Cuomo and Mamdani. 

Giuliani (disbarred and found liable for defamation and still part of a pending prosecution in Georgia) being part of anything in this context is outrageous. But so it goes.

I apologize for including this photo without a trigger warning, but it does underline where we are today. New York City residents, especially, need to be on guard that our right to govern ourselves will be challenged by a constitutionally unfit convicted felon.