The governor & high court (photo: governor's office)
Even with Governor Andrew Cuomo’s announced resignation, New Yorkers must keep in mind that whoever is Governor has the power to appoint a judge to fill a looming vacancy on the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court. And while Cuomo’s most recent nominations produced intense criticism and calls for the State Senate to deny confirmation, Cuomo is only partially to blame.
In 1977, New York voters approved a constitutional amendment that repealed elections to the Court of Appeals and gave the Governor power to nominate judges to the Court subject to Senate confirmation. This new process of judicial selection also spawned the creation of the Commission on Judicial Nomination. The 12-member Commission is comprised of four people selected by the Governor, four selected by the Court’s Chief Judge, and one each by the majority and minority leaders in the State Assembly and Senate. The Commission’s mandate is to vet applicants to fill vacancies, then send a list of potential nominees to the Governor. Critically, the Constitution requires that the Governor can only select a judge from the list provided by the Commission.
Even a cursory look at the most recent list of nominees forwarded to Cuomo reveals a Commission in need of an overhaul.
For the past several years, advocates, scholars, and even United States Supreme Court justices have called for experiential diversity in the judiciary; shunning the usual suspects of prosecutors and big law partners for lawyers with backgrounds and experience representing the most vulnerable.
New York’s Commission on Judicial Nomination sent Cuomo two lists of seven potential nominees to fill two vacancies this summer. None of those named had careers as civil rights lawyers, public defenders, or any other work that reflects a lifelong commitment to individual rights and liberties. And so, from that business-as-usual list, Cuomo nominated a longtime civil court judge and a career prosecutor who got her start in the oft-maligned Queens District Attorney’s office. Neither person has any meaningful experience representing people facing criminal charges, eviction, deportation, or anything similar.
The contrast with what is happening at the federal level is stark. Unlike New York’s Commission, the U.S. Senators with the power to recommend judges for nomination to the federal bench have heeded the call for a revamped judiciary by retooling their vetting process and forwarding to President Biden an unprecedented number of public defenders and civil rights lawyers. And, to his credit, Biden has followed through and nominated many of those people.
The failure of the New York Commission to forward to the Governor a list of candidates with diverse backgrounds is inexcusable, especially given its mandate, stated on its website, to “broadly solicit” applicants. With the large number of qualified social justice lawyers practicing in our state, only a commission intentionally wearing blinders could have ignored that vast pool of candidates.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer seems to have no such problem.
In just the past few months, the Majority Leader has recommended to the federal judiciary several New York lawyers who practiced at various stalwart civil rights organizations, including the Federal Defenders, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Office of the Appellate Defender, the Brennan Center, and the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund. Many other experienced lawyers at those and similar organizations stand ready, willing, and well more than able to serve as judges on New York’s high court.
The need for progressives on New York’s highest court is more crucial than ever. The current court has taken a markedly pro-prosecution turn -- it seldom agrees to review appeals from those seeking to challenge their conviction or sentence, and sides overwhelmingly with the prosecution in the few criminal cases it actually does accept. Furthermore, with a United States Supreme Court dominated by judges unsympathetic to voting rights, abortion, climate change, and the rights of the accused, there is an urgent need for New York judges willing to find greater protections for individuals in the state’s own constitution against practices that have overwhelmingly and disproportionately harmed individuals and communities of color.
The New York Commission on Judicial Nominations’ members will soon forward to whoever is Governor their latest list of seven potential nominees for the upcoming vacancy. If Chuck Schumer can get it right, so can the New York Commission.
***
Steven Zeidman is a professor of law at CUNY School of Law. On Twitter @SteveZeidman.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
New Yorkers in search of affordable housing (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)
With the rights of those experiencing homelessness being debated - or disregarded - in the move from hotels back to congregate shelters, homeless New Yorkers declared July Homeless Rights Month, forcing our leaders to reckon with those often ignored in our policy debates, simply because they don’t have a permanent address. While the United Nations has condemned America for its criminalization of homelessness despite having the resources to solve it, the timing has never been politically expedient to tackle this public health emergency — until now. At the end of a pandemic and a mayoral administration, it is finally too big an issue to ignore that Housing is a Human Right, and we are failing tens of thousands of our fellow New Yorkers every day.
It is possible to move past ‘Housing is a Human Right’ being just a slogan, and make it a reality in the United States, especially right here in New York City. This is not some far-fetched dream. It is within our grasp.
The Section 8 housing program is a guaranteed path to housing stability - for those lucky enough to have access. We should expand the Section 8 program that provides a housing subsidy universally to everyone who is eligible, giving renters a similar benefit as homeowners who receive tax deductions on their mortgage. Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) introduced the Ending Homelessness Act that takes us closer to this being a reality, which if passed, would be the biggest step towards ending the city’s housing crisis.
But even if we ensure everyone can afford to pay rent, we cannot house them all until we see a major influx of new housing supply. Our housing supply has failed to keep up with our job growth over the past several decades. It is little wonder housing costs have skyrocketed, severely outpacing wages and leaving many households rent burdened and at risk of becoming homeless. It is simple supply and demand economics. The lack of housing supply in New York City puts a strain on services when essential workers are pushed out far away from the jobs where we rely on them and has led to massive increases in homelessness.
Unfortunately, we cannot just snap our fingers and create more housing. The housing supply our city needs is often slowed down and turned away by exclusionary community input that seeks to preserve the status quo rather than welcome new neighbors. We see this most often in high-income neighborhoods, especially when housing or supportive housing for New Yorkers experiencing homelessness is being proposed.
While proponents of more community input may mean well, not every housing project should be dissected, slowed down, and litigated by those who claim to speak for the community. If housing is a human right, then the rights of people to have a roof over their head should simply not be open for debate. Mayor de Blasio’s Racial Justice Commission should consider proposing city charter changes that exempt projects that are deeply affordable or contain housing for people experiencing homelessness from a public review process, therefore codifying that housing is a human right and not up for discussion.
When a patient is rushed to the emergency room, we don’t hold a community meeting to decide whether a doctor should treat them. Housing our homeless neighbors is a matter of life and death, it shouldn’t be up for negotiation by stably housed New Yorkers.
Beyond the supply and subsidy, we must remember that stable housing allows for a person or family to begin taking steps towards so much - mentally, physically and emotionally. We must ensure that, whichever stage of housing a person is at, the social safety net, including affordable, dignified housing with security of tenure, is as expedient and humane as possible.
We need to stop repeatedly asking people to prove poverty, searching for fraud where there is none to be found, or continually sending them from one government agency to another sharing the same information over and over again. These hoops force people who need it the most to stop asking for help. Access to services to get a family on the pathway to stable housing should not be an onerous process.
It is possible for us to end the homelessness crisis and ensure that New York City is affordable and accessible to all. It will take action at every level and compassion and commitment from each other, but if we truly believe Housing is a Human Right, is that too much to ask?
***
Jessica Katz is the Executive Director of Citizens Housing and Planning Council. Robert Robinson is a formerly homeless individual, human rights activist and Staff Volunteer with Partners for Dignity and Rights. On Twitter @chpcny.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dogs for adoption (photo: Edward Reed/City Council)
Animal issues were given short-shrift in the recent Democratic primary for New York City Mayor. In fact, most of the major Democratic candidates did not come out publicly in support of any important animal concerns. In 2013, the last open mayoral race, animal issues were front and center in the election. This included a mayoral debate on animal issues attended by almost every candidate jockeying for support from the animal protection community. There is little doubt that Bill de Blasio’s promise to ban horse-drawn carriages on day one, a promise that was nevertheless broken, helped him win the election.
This year, the Democratic primary’s focus was on crime, the economy, jobs, health care, housing, homelessness, children, and education. Important issues to be sure — however, major animal issues, a blight on our city, continue to be ignored.
The still-low turnout of voters this year was perhaps indicative of the failure of any of the candidates to put forth a truly bold platform. Eric Adams emerged victorious and is the Democratic nominee for Mayor. Among others, he faces Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee, who also managed to get an Animal Welfare Party line on the general election ballot — clearly an effort to appeal to New Yorkers who care about animal issues but who might not otherwise support a Republican.
The major Democratic candidates were contacted by animal protection organizations to ascertain their positions on various issues but only a few responded. New Yorkers concerned about the deafening silence surrounding persistent animal crises staring us in the face felt they were being ignored by most of the Democratic candidates.
The failing, archaic New York City animal shelter system is reputed by many as a ‘hellhole for animals,’ a place where many get sick, and others are designated as “behavior” risks, both of which are used to justify their killing. It is appalling and disheartening to know that thousands of healthy, treatable, adoptable cats and dogs continue to be destroyed in our dysfunctional and outdated New York City Animal “Care” Centers, even when life-saving alternatives exist.
These include legislation, the state-level Shelter Animal Rescue Act (SARA; bill A.7155), which offers practical solutions to these issues, and could save thousands of lives in our three New York City animal shelters, but is stalled in the State Assembly. While shelters around the country were emptied out by a flood of adoptions during the most difficult period of the pandemic, New York City shelters continued to kill homeless animals. Although money has been allocated by the city for critically needed shelters in the Bronx and Queens, as well as funding for desperately needed renovations in the Manhattan and Brooklyn shelters, these things have yet to happen.
Eric Adams was one of the few candidates who did respond to an animal issues questionnaire, circulated by NYCLASS, however his responses were not made public. And while some responses regarding the sale of fur, live animal markets, and a ban on horse-drawn carriages may not be entirely satisfactory to animal advocates, Adams has indicated that he is “open to further discussion” and said he will bring stakeholders together. Adams has a long history of positive actions on behalf of animals both as a State Senator and as Brooklyn Borough President. They include opposition to wild animals in circuses; opposition to the slaughter of geese; encouraging people to eat more plant-based food; and support of the Foie Gras ban. He has also advocated for pet adoptions, supported feral cat initiatives, and pet-friendly programs in housing and homeless shelters.
Sliwa, on the other hand, presents himself as an animal welfare candidate, but did not respond to the same NYCLASS questionnaire submitted in great detail by Adams. He has never gone into specifics about how he would make New York City “no kill,” a challenging paradigm, at best. He has no history of supporting other animal issues such as bans on carriage horses, puppy mill dogs and cats sold in pet shops, the sale of fur, circuses, rodeos, etc. New Yorkers want to know that any candidate seeking the highest office in our city cares about these issues that matter to us.
There cannot be silence from candidates when it comes to the carriage horse issue, which is still dire. Since 2020, two carriage horses have collapsed in Central Park. One was forced to get up and continue to work. The other died. Politicians continue to look the other way but most New Yorkers care about animals and need a compassionate and savvy mayor to lead the way.
There is a new proposal by the Compassionate & Responsible Tourism group that would substitute electric, battery-operated carriages for horse-drawn carriages, saving jobs and finding homes for the horses, in addition to giving a shot in the arm to the tourism industry, which has suffered greatly this past year.
This is not about reliving past campaigns, but instead offers a practical solution to resolving the carriage horse issue. Electric, horseless carriages currently exist in a number of cities around the world, including Berlin and Cologne, Germany; Dubai, UAE; and Guadalajara, Mexico, where they have been a success since 2017 when they were introduced. This proposal is worthy of serious consideration by the next City Council and mayoral administration. It’s a win-win for all.
As a long-time animal activist advocating for animal issues for over 30 years, I know that even though change is slow, it is inevitable. Animal Rights is the emerging social justice movement of the 21st century, as consciousness about animal sentience and the impact of animal agriculture on global climate change are raised, and justice and compassion take precedence over cruelty, indifference, and greed.
Anyone running for the second most important job in the United States -- Mayor of New York City -- must pay close attention to animal rights. Being a compassionate, visionary leader means caring for animals, and for those who care deeply about animals and vote!
***
Zelda Penzel is President of People for the End of Animal Cruelty and Exploitation, or PEACE.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.