Lee Zeldin & Kathy Hochul at their debate

October 25, 2022 - Max Politics Podcast: Breaking Down the Hochul-Zeldin Debate

After Gov. Kathy Hochul and Rep. Lee Zeldin debated Tuesday night in the race for Governor, two experts joined host Ben Max to analyze the big event: Dr. Christina Greer, political science professor at Fordham University, and Casey Seiler, editor of the Albany Times Union.

Listen to the conversation and let us know what you think, on Twitter @TweetBenMax. You can listen to the show through the embedded audio below or wherever you get podcasts at Max Politics.

Lee Zeldin and Kathy Hochul at Tuesday's debate

Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat seeking her first full term as governor, faced off against her Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin of Long Island, on Tuesday night in the only debate of the governor’s race.

In an hour-long debate hosted by Spectrum News, the two candidates attacked each other’s records and clashed on crime and public safety, the economy, abortion, ethics, democracy, and more. They outlined vastly different assessments of where New York stands today and visions for where to take it in the future, seeking to make an impression on voters with just two weeks till Election Day, November 8, and with early voting set to start this weekend. The debate was held at Pace University in Manhattan and moderated by Spectrum anchors Errol Louis and Susan Arbetter.

Going into the debate, Hochul, the state’s first female governor, held many advantages. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans two-to-one in the state and Hochul has a significant fundraising lead, having built a massive war chest since she took office after the resignation of disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Polls have consistently shown her ahead, with the latest Siena College poll released October 18 giving her an 11-point lead over Zeldin. 

But various polling has also shown a tightening race, and Zeldin is being boosted by a flood of outside spending by national Republicans and SuperPACs, somewhat mitigating his campaign cash disadvantage. Zeldin’s has also been laser focused on crime and inflation, which voters have consistently ranked at or near their top priorities, while Hochul has spent months highlighting Zeldin’s opposition to abortion rights and gun control and his support for former President Donald Trump. 

In recent days, Hochul has refocused on public safety, making governmental announcements and releasing a new campaign ad on the subject. She has also touted her economic record after months largely focused on abortion rights and Zeldin’s ties to Trump. 

“I’m here for one reason, to save our state and deliver a safer, freer, better future for you and your family,” Zeldin said in his opening remarks, criticizing Hochul for failing to reduce crime and inflation in the state. 

“You will see a great contrast here tonight between myself and my record and someone who has been called one of Donald Trump's strongest and most loyal supporters,” Hochul said for her part, as she touted her accomplishments and called out Zeldin’s opposition to abortion and gun control. 

For Zeldin, the overriding issue of the race is crime, which he repeatedly spoke to throughout the debate. He has called for a rollback of state bail reforms, legislation that limits solitary confinement in prisons, and other criminal justice changes made by Democrats in recent years. In particular, he wants to allow judges far more discretion to consider their assessment of defendants’ dangerousness when deciding to set bail and possible pre-trial remand. 

But state data shows that bail reform has not led to a significant rise in crime or rearrests for those released before trial. Zeldin has repeatedly ignored those statistics, insisting that New Yorkers’ sentiments about crime are far more important. “You ask the will of the people, they want to see reform,” he said on Tuesday when asked to respond to the data.

Hochul has repeatedly stressed support for balanced reforms, highlighting her effort to tighten the state bail law earlier this year, giving judges more discretion especially when dealing with repeat offenders. “You can either work on keeping people scared or you can focus on keeping them safe,” she said at the debate. She also pointed to her administration's effort to convene a multi-state task force that has pulled thousands of illegal guns off the street, strengthening the state’s gun control regulations and her collaboration with New York City Mayor Eric Adams to tackle crime on the city subway system.

The governor also sought to shift to the offensive, taking the opportunity to repeatedly call out Zeldin’s record on gun control. As she did often throughout the debate, she pointed to his voting record in Congress, where he failed to appear to vote on a bipartisan assault weapon ban last year. “[T]here is no crime fighting plan if it doesn't include guns, illegal guns, and you refuse to talk about how we can do so much more,” she said. 

Among the pledges that Zeldin has made is that, if elected governor, on his first day he would remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a progressive, from office for failing to be a sufficiently tough-on-crime prosecutor. “If he's not going to do his job, I'm gonna do my job and I'm going to remove as soon as I can,” he said. 

“I'm not surprised, because in Lee Zeldin’s world, you overturn elections you don't agree with,” Hochul retorted, again referencing Zeldin’s votes against certifying President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

“It's not about governing by sound bites. I'm governing by sound policy,” she added.

During the debate, Bragg tweeted data showing murders and shootings down significantly in Manhattan this year over last, with gun prosecutions up during that time.

Later in the debate, Zeldin refused to say whether he would vote the same way given the overwhelming evidence that the presidential election was fairly decided. “Election integrity should always matter,” he said, instead promoting restrictive election laws such as mandated voter ID.

Asked if he would accept the results of the general election if he loses, he said, “First off, losing is not an option. Secondly, playing along with your hypothetical question, of course.”  

With inflation at record highs and the economy facing the prospect of a recession, the candidates were asked about future economic plans. 

Zeldin broadly floated reining in state spending and cutting taxes, but offered no specifics, and repeated his calls for reversing the state’s ban on fracking for natural gas and approving new fossil fuel pipelines to cut the price of energy. “New York is going to be back open for business baby, January 1,” he said.  

Hochul largely touted actions that her administration has already taken including expediting a middle class tax cut approved under her predecessor, providing a property tax rebate in this year’s budget, and temporarily suspending the state gas tax. She acknowledged that the highest expenses that families face are mortgages and rent. “I have a plan heading into the next session, which is thoughtful,” she said, but gave no details until prompted in a question about affordable housing. 

She also noted Zeldin’s votes against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress, all of which are expected to provide many billions of dollars to New York and create many thousands of jobs. “It's so disingenuous to say you want to create jobs when you, as a member of Congress, vote against everything that would create jobs,” she said to Zeldin.

Keeping with his campaign’s limited policy platform, Zeldin also had no major ideas for solving the state’s affordable housing crisis. He vaguely criticized the length of time that it takes to receive approvals to build housing in the state and said that first-time homebuyer credits need to be ramped up. Hochul pointed to the state’s $25 billion housing plan, which includes funding to help ensure 100,000 units of affordable housing over five years. She touted a plan to foster conversion of office space into housing but that has not produced any housing or even specific deals promising its creation. She also spoke about shifting zoning regulations to foster more housing, previewing the promised pursuit next year, if she wins the election, of policies she dropped this year after they saw opposition from suburban lawmakers.

One of Hochul’s main lines of attack against Zeldin is his opposition to abortion, a particularly pertinent issue in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. Hochul tried to corner Zeldin on that at the debate. “There’s very few people in Congress who have a more pro-life record, someone who said he would bring on a pro-life health commissioner…that’s a frightening spectacle. Women need to know that that's on the ballot this November as well,” she said. 

Zeldin would not say whether, as governor, he would sign any abortion restrictions into law, only that there was little chance of a Democrat-led Legislature passing such a bill. He said he would choose a health commissioner who is “the best qualified person” for the job.

In the cross-examination round, the two candidates had an opportunity to pose one question to the other. 

Zeldin pushed Hochul on steps she would take to curb pay-to-play politics, attempting to put her on the defensive given her massive fundraising from entities with state business and one particularly egregious example of a major campaign donor receiving a state contract. “There has never been a quid pro quo, a policy change or decision made because of a contribution,” Hochul said of her administration. 

When the moderators later pointed to her fundraising from contributors with business before the state and being able to assure voters she is not influenced by such donations, she reiterated her defense. “I have always, for 30 years as an elected official, played by all the rules,” she insisted, noting that she has long been in favor of campaign finance reform.

Hochul, in turn, sought to highlight Zeldin’s association with former President Trump, asking him if he believes Trump was “a great president.” Though Hochul pressed for a yes or no, Zeldin responded by listing many specifics of work he said he accomplished while Trump was in office, from resources for Long Island to support for Israel. He even sought to praise Trump for some of his covid pandemic response. 

“I’ll take that as a resounding ‘yes,’ and the voters of New York do not agree with you,” Hochul said. 

The candidates found some common ground in their response to the crisis of thousands of asylum seekers arriving in New York City, burdening an already struggling local shelter system and straining the city’s precarious finances. Both candidates said the federal government needs to step up their role, though Zeldin proposed harsher immigration measures that Hochul does not support.

And they both said yes when asked if the state cap on charter schools in New York City, which has been hit, should be lifted. It was Hochul’s first time taking the position publicly.

Zeldin did have the governor on the back foot when the subject of the Buffalo Bills stadium deal was raised. The governor, at the last minute, added the deal to the state budget, approving $600 million in state subsidies for the $1.4 billion project. As the moderators noted, stadium deals rarely provide the level of economic development to justify the subsidies. 

The question kicked off an intense back and forth between the two. Hochul said she structured the deal in a way that will keep the Bills in the state for 30 years while creating 10,000 construction jobs and providing ample economic benefits. “It was just important to make sure that the Buffalo Bills stay in New York State,” she said. 

Zeldin said he would renegotiate the deal if elected. “We can absolutely have a better deal,” he said. “At the 11th hour of a budget deal, she slams it in, she screws over Seneca Nation and she puts the squeeze on legislators. No vetting, no debate. It was irresponsible on process and substance,” he added. 

“Lee Zeldin hates job-creating projects,” Hochul said.

“I haven’t got a problem with job-creating projects, I have a problem with corruption-creating governors,” Zeldin countered. 

There were key differences between the two candidates on other issues as well. With the state expediting the approval of three new casino licenses in downstate New York, Zeldin said he would “possibly” alter the process. “Local control is important. There is a process that is underway and it shouldn't be jammed into areas that do not want it,” he said. “We have to respect the will of the people.”

Hochul said she would not stop the process, and reminded that there is a robust local siting approval process already in the law.

Hochul also defended her decision to lift covid mask and vaccination mandates, even as the pandemic continues to plague the state and as the CDC recommends that the covid vaccine be added to the list of required vaccines for children. 

Asked if she would mandate a covid vaccine for children, Hochul said, “Not at this time.” Though, she did say the decision would fall to the Legislature. 

Zeldin was more absolute. “I will not mandate COVID vaccines for your kids ever,” he said, though he did not explain why. Asked if he would mandate a polio vaccine (as the state is experiencing a polio outbreak emergency), he drew a distinction between the two diseases and noted that a mandate already exists. 

“You've been an election denier, a climate change denier. You and Donald Trump are the masterful covid deniers,” Hochul responded. 

In a brief lightning round, the two offered different takes on many issues. Zeldin opposed the operation of two overdose prevention centers in New York City, while Hochul said she conferred with her health commissioner, Dr. Mary Bassett, who supports them. The governor indicated she would study them further before supporting any new sites.

Hochul said she is still studying a bill that would put a temporary moratorium on the reactivation of fossil fuel facilities to support the proof-of-work crypto currency mining industry. Zeldin said he would refuse to sign the bill. Hochul said the state should continue the rollout of its cannabis industry while Zeldin raised concerns about the legalization of marijuana.

Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin

In what should be must-see TV for New Yorkers, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul and Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin are set to debate tonight for the first and only time in the general election for Governor.

The debate, held at Pace University in Manhattan, will take place from 7 to 8 p.m. on Spectrum News and be moderated by anchors Errol Louis and Susan Arbetter (and broadcast online for those who don’t get Spectrum television). It comes two weeks before Election Day, November 8, with absentee balloting underway and just ahead of early voting (October 29-November 6).

The differences between the two candidates are vast, and the stakes for New Yorkers and the state are high. The debate promises to be full of attacks in both directions and, hopefully, a clear presentation of the candidates’ different stances on key issues and contrasting ideas for moving the state forward. Hochul and Zeldin will surely paint two pictures of New York: Zeldin offering a state in steep decline and deep crisis that's in need of 'saving,' and Hochul a state moving ahead in important ways and facing down big challenges thanks to her leadership.

The backdrop is such: polling shows a tightening race in a state where no Republican has won statewide since Governor George Pataki secured a third term in 2002. Democrats have those trendlines and a big voter enrollment advantage, but Hochul faces significant challenges given large crime and cost of living increases over the last two-plus years, as well as a general sense of dissatisfaction and unease among many voters amid the tumultuous covid pandemic.

While Zeldin has seized on crime and inflation, top issues of concern for voters, he must overcome the fact that his views on other key issues don’t match up with what polling shows most New Yorkers believe in as well as his close association with former President Donald Trump, who remains deeply unpopular in the state where he made his name.

Hochul, a liberal moderate from western New York and the state’s first female governor, has been in office just over a year after replacing Governor Andrew Cuomo upon his resignation amid several scandals. She’s pitching steady, no-drama leadership, protecting abortion rights in the wake of Roe, and the ongoing implementation of a variety of policies dealing with climate change, child care, public safety, and more. And she’s warning of Zeldin’s opposition to abortion rights and gun control and his votes against certifying the 2020 presidential election.

Zeldin, a conservative from Long Island, gave up his seat in Congress to try to break the New York GOP’s 20-year losing streak. Along with an almost single-minded focus on public safety, he’s pitching change of leadership, restoring some balance to a state government dominated by Democrats, tax cuts and business deregulation, the implementation of fracking to create jobs and energy production, and the expansion of charter schools. And he’s arguing that Hochul has performed poorly in her young tenure and continued a pay-to-play culture, tying her to the Cuomo administration she was part of as lieutenant governor on that and other fronts.

Hochul has leaned in to some key advantages of incumbency, particularly the ability to raise a massive sum in a short time, especially from entities with state interests, and to make major governmental funding and policy announcements in the lead up to the election. But, fairly or not, she is among the top officials voters are holding responsible for troublesome trends, from runaway inflation to a spike in subway murders. While Hochul won two statewide races with Cuomo as a ticket, she has not won on her own, and this has long been expected to be an opportune year for Republicans in New York and elsewhere.

Though it is far short of what New Yorkers deserve in terms of general election debate in the race for governor, Tuesday’s one-hour ‘exchange of ideas’ will undoubtedly be an intense affair sure to bring out some of the many differences between the candidates and how they would lead New York over the next four years. While Hochul and Zeldin surely won’t get to several important issues in that short time, the top-notch moderators will help draw out distinctions on a number of the most pressing issues facing the state and its residents.

Here are a few things to watch for during Tuesday’s debate:

1. How Hochul Handles Crime
As pandemic era spikes in crime have dominated the news and recent election cycles, Zeldin has hammered away at the issue. That is sure to continue at Tuesday night’s debate.

Hochul has been facing questions about her plans for handling crime since she took the helm of the state in August 2021, just after Eric Adams won the Democratic mayoral primary on a crime-focused campaign, and she has taken a number of steps toward increasing public safety. But, while there has been some progress this year on murders and shootings, other categories of major felonies are still increasing in New York City, and random attacks in the subways, which the governor controls, have been far too frequent and deadly.

Hochul has advanced a long list of public safety-focused policies — including significant adjustments to toughen the state’s controversial bail law, which Zeldin targets incessantly — but she has often struggled to present her crime-fighting agenda clearly and convincingly. Tuesday night will be her most high-profile opportunity to cogently explain the sum of her efforts and argue how they will soon show more results.

At the same time, it will be interesting to see if Zeldin is pressed to go deeper on his top issue than he has during a largely sound-bite-driven campaign and explain in detail how he would achieve the major turnaround in public safety that he promises.

While pointing to a number of factors, Hochul has said again as recently as Monday that the major social disruptions of the pandemic appear to have had a significant role in the crime spike. If that is indeed a key part of her diagnosis, she should explain more of how she is helping to create a holistic recovery that includes, for example, more attention on treatment for those with the most serious mental illness and opportunity for the main drivers of crime: young men from the least-resourced communities who are out of work and out of school.

Given the horrific spate of murders in the subways over the last two-plus years, Hochul has announced efforts to enhance security and outreach, but she often falls back on reminding people that policing the subways is the jurisdiction of the Mayor and NYPD, something that quickly comes across as passing the buck and Zeldin is likely to pounce on at the debate.

For his part, Zeldin decries bail reform as a top culprit of the crime spike, but may need to explain that theory beyond providing anecdotes. And, beyond the change in the bail law that he wants — more judicial discretion to hold defendants in jail pre-trial — he may need to provide more evidence of how his public safety plan differs all that much from what Hochul has been doing. (The governor has, after all, been telling anyone who will listen that she doesn’t support ‘defunding the police’ and that her administration has only added funding for law enforcement.)

It would also be interesting for both candidates to be pushed to explain why they think murders and shootings are down this year but other felonies have continued to spike in the city.

2. Zeldin’s Mismatching Views, Votes
If Hochul is well-prepared she’ll also turn attacks from Zeldin on public safety around by pointing to his opposition to virtually all gun control and gun safety measures, like his vote against reinstating an assault weapons ban, his questioning of red flag laws, and more.

Zeldin’s opposition to gun control is one of the most glaring examples of how his politics and congressional votes don’t match what polling shows most New Yorkers believe in. The other major example sure to come up at the debate is abortion rights.

Any persuadable or swing voters who could determine the outcome of this gubernatorial contest — which will of course also hinge on how well the two candidates turn out their bases — could be drawn to Zeldin on crime and the economy but wary of him on gun control, abortion, and his alliance with Trump, especially his efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 election. Right now, the polling shows that Zeldin is doing quite well with men while Hochul is dominating among women.

While Zeldin has been whacking Hochul on crime, she has been relentless on abortion and depicting Zeldin as an extremist. He has been so concerned about how his anti-abortion beliefs and record could hurt him that he has started running ads promising voters that if elected governor he “could not” and “would not” change New York’s abortion law.

As he does in the ad, Zeldin is likely on Tuesday night to repeat that pledge and argue that Hochul is trying to use abortion to change the subject from crime, inflation, and the other areas where he believes she is falling short. She is unlikely to let him make that point without repeatedly stressing that a Zeldin governorship would be a threat to reproductive rights in the state, no matter what he may say on the campaign trail. Zeldin would then be right to point out that polling shows New Yorkers are most concerned about public safety and cost of living.

3. Making New York More Affordable
But one key question for the debate may be if either candidate has any real plan for bringing down the cost of living in New York, or at least stemming its rise.

Hochul has touted her several modest tax policies that have put some money back into New Yorkers’ pockets, but mostly acknowledged that inflation is an international phenomenon. Can she make a convincing case that if elected she will ease the financial burdens of living in New York? This is where her focus on both economic development and child care may come in.

Zeldin is promising sweeping tax cuts but has offered virtually no details for what his plan would include, not even a sketch of what he would attempt to get the Legislature to agree to. That and the abortion law speaks to another major likely challenge Zeldin must confront in discussing a potential governorship: how he would work with a Democrat-dominated Legislature to find compromise and ensure that governing doesn’t grind to a halt or become filled with acrimony, delays, and chaos.

The Republican nominee may use the opportunity discuss cost of living to hit Hochul for her support of congestion pricing in New York City, but that attack could quickly be at least somewhat undercut by his lack of a plan to fill the massive hole in the MTA capital plan that would result from reversing course on congestion pricing.

Aside from more general promises to cut taxes and business regulations, Zeldin’s main talking point on cost of living and economic activity is his promise to reverse the state’s ban on fracking, which he points to as a potential boon to economically-distressed areas of the Southern Tier. It is among the many climate- and environment-related issues where Hochul and Zeldin disagree significantly.

Beyond the question of fracking, climate-related policies dovetail with economic activity on a number of other fronts where the candidates could find fertile ground for debate, including how each plans to manage a transition to renewable energy and the job opportunities involved. Hochul has taken many steps toward such a transition and has had other ideas for continuing on that path, while Zeldin has questioned some of her climate and energy policies, warning against the state moving too quickly and the potential costs to residents.

On economic development more broadly, Hochul may tout some of the deals she has reached as governor, while Zeldin may find footing in questioning their details, whether tax breaks for a new Buffalo Bills stadium or a microchip manufacturer.

Talk of jobs and the economy will also necessitate discussion of how the two candidates plan to manage the $220 billion state budget in the face of forecasted deficits, the drying up of federal pandemic aid, and other fiscal headwinds. It could also include how Hochul and Zeldin plan to maximize the massive federal infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act, both of which promise many billions for New York to upgrade its built environment, adapt to climate change, and create jobs.

As much as the economy and inflation have been major focus areas throughout the race for governor and other elections in New York and beyond, all too often the discussion excludes what is often people’s largest expense: housing.

Hochul has a Cuomo-era housing plan that she slightly refashioned in her lone budget but she abandoned several of her main housing policy proposals that could help address the state’s major affordable housing crisis and says it will be a focus for her next year if elected. Zeldin has no housing plan whatsoever. It could be helpful to hear both candidates offer their ideas.

4. Vision, Anyone?
Speaking of no plan, the 2022 race for New York governor has been perhaps most defined by a lack of vision from both candidates.

Hochul put together an agenda for her lone state budget and legislative session and got a lot of it passed. She is running on those accomplishments and a handful of other actions she has taken in recent months, some in reaction to two major Supreme Court rulings on abortion and gun control. In sum, Hochul is running for her first full term to further uphold and implement what she has put in motion or continued or tweaked from the Cuomo administration. While there is indeed a lot to protect, manage, and implement, she has offered virtually no platform for next year, much less the next four years.

Meanwhile, Zeldin is running on an almost shocking lack of a policy platform, offering only a sketch of plans on a few top issues and virtually nothing on topics from housing to mass transit to climate change to CUNY/SUNY and more.

There are no shortage of additional topics the two candidates may be asked to address or proactively raise, from handling another covid wave and whether to require covid vaccination among schoolchildren and others to broader education policy and how the state can spur better results for its massive amount of school spending, and more.

It’s only an hour, but hopefully Tuesday night’s debate will not only showcase the candidates’ key differences to help voters make their choice but also address some of these areas where Hochul and Zeldin have been less than forthcoming as they seek to lead the state in the years to come.

Tune in, New York.

Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin

With under three weeks till Election Day, a set of recent polls in the New York governor’s race show U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin, the Republican nominee, catching up to incumbent Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul. They appear to indicate a growing possibility that New York could elect its first Republican governor since George Pataki won a third and final term in 2002, despite that such an outcome seemed like a big longshot just weeks ago.

But a deeper dive into polling trends shows that Zeldin continues to face an uphill battle and will have to shore up greater support among independents and moderate Democrats to have a shot at victory in a state where Democrats outnumber the sum of Republicans and independents and independents outnumber Republicans. Hochul, buoyed especially by New York City voters and women, while competing in the suburbs, remains the favorite, but is clearly in a less comfortable position than the glide path she appeared to be on earlier in the race.

Hochul, the state's first woman to be governor, has only been in the position a little more than a year and was not particularly well known across the state before taking office. While she has had a major fundraising advantage over Zeldin, she has not been campaigning aggressively, while Zeldin has been boosted by massive outside spending by national Super PACs. Hochul has largely focused on abortion rights and criticized Zeldin's conservatism and ties to former President Trump, even as her opponent has focused on issues that polling shows matter most to New Yorkers: the economy, inflation, and crime.

Recent Polling in the Governor’s Race
A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday (October 18) had Hochul with a 50-46% lead over Zeldin, the closest the two have come in polling in the last few months. The poll questioned 1,617 likely voters, with a 2.4% margin of error and a sample that many Democrats and some analysts questioned for under-weighting Democrats.

“In the blue state of New York, the race for governor is competitive,” Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Mary Snow declared. “Democrats have cruised to victory in gubernatorial races since 2006, but Governor Hochul's narrow edge puts Republican Lee Zeldin well within striking distance of her.”

However, a Siena college poll released the same day gave Hochul an 11-point lead, with 52% of the vote over Zeldin’s 41%. Siena polled 707 likely voters, with a 4.9% margin of error.

The two polls had different sample sizes and constitutions: Quinnipiac’s sample included 24% Republicans, 39% Democrats, 31% independents, and 5% other parties; Siena’s was 31% Republicans, 47% Democrats, and 17% independent and other parties. The latter appeared far more in line with past New York voting trends. While Hochul’s margin has shrunk in Siena’s polling of the race, her 11-point margin was in line with its prior surveys.

On Thursday (October 20), SurveyUSA released a poll that showed Hochul with a six–point lead, 47-41% over Zeldin, down significantly from its previous August 23 poll that had Hochul leading 55-31%.

A poll released October 13 by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion hewed close to Siena’s results, with Hochul ahead by 51-41% over Zeldin, but the lead falling to 8 points among those who said they will definitely vote.

“Although Democratic candidates for governor and U.S. Senate lead in very blue New York, the race for governor still bears watching," said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute. “Republicans say they are more likely to vote, enthusiasm for Zeldin among his supporters exceeds Hochul’s, and any shift to crime in the closing weeks is likely to benefit Zeldin.”

There have been outlier polls in the race as well. A poll released October 3 by The Trafalgar Group, a right-leaning polling firm, had Hochul and Zeldin neck-and-neck, with the governor leading just 44.5% to 42.6%.

The Big Picture
Nonetheless, the latest FiveThirtyEight model, updated October 20, gives Hochul a 98 in 100 chance of winning the race, predicting a 56.7% vote share for the incumbent over 43.3% for her challenger. That model looked at eight different polls in the race, including Quinnipiac and Siena, weighted by recency, sample size, and pollster rating.

The campaigns have both attempted to put a good spin on the polling.

“Despite $8 million in outside spending from right-wing groups pushing baseless lies, Governor Hochul maintains a double-digit lead against her opponent,” said Hochul campaign spokesperson Jerrel Harvey, in an October 18 statement, seemingly referencing Hochul’s polling average. He also insisted that though Quinnipiac’s poll “substantially undercounted Democrats,” Hochul still crossed the key 50% mark. “With just three weeks until Election Day, the governor isn't taking anything for granted and will continue to contrast her strong record of results with Lee Zeldin's MAGA agenda,” he added.

Zeldin hailed the results as proof that his campaign is garnering momentum. “We've consistently been gaining massive ground on Hochul as New Yorkers witness first hand her abysmal record on the issues most important to them - crime, the economy, corruption and more,” he said in a statement. “Every day, all day, we've been ALL IN, all across the state, communicating directly with voters about the issues that matter most to them. The polls have continued to show that our message is resonating, and on Tuesday, November 8th, New York voters are going to elect a new Governor to Save Our State and restore New York to glory.”

A Narrowing Lead
Zeldin, a conservative from Long Island, has indeed grown in the polls even as support for Hochul has largely remained stable overall. In an August 2 Siena poll, the first head-to-head poll conducted by the firm ahead of the general election, Hochul led Zeldin 53-39% (among 806 likely voters, with a 3.5% margin of error), meaning she lost only one point in the latest Siena poll while Zeldin gained two.

For Zeldin, his campaign message focused on public safety and the economy seems to be resonating with voters. Voters in the Quinnipiac poll said crime (28%) and inflation (20%) were their top priorities, followed by protecting democracy (14%). However, Republicans, Democrats and independents differ wildly on the issues. Among Republicans, 42% said crime was their top priority, 31% said inflation, and 6% said protecting democracy; for Democrats, 18% said crime, 12% said inflation, and 23% said protecting democracy; among independents, 31% said crime, 21% said inflation, and 11% said protecting democracy.

Hochul’s campaign has spent months blasting Zeldin on issues like his opposition to abortion, for questioning the results of the 2020 presidential campaign – Zeldin was one of four New York Republicans in Congress to vote against certifying the results of the election on the night of January 6, 2021 – and his downplaying of the Capitol insurrection prior to that vote.

Notably, Zeldin’s unfavorable rating among voters has been rising alongside his favorable rating as voters get to know him better. In the August 2 Siena poll, 31% of voters gave him a favorable rating compared to 28% unfavorable. In the September 28 poll, he stood at 31% favorable and 33% unfavorable. In the October 18 poll, he was at 37% favorable and 41% unfavorable.

Tom Doherty, a former aide to Pataki and partner at Mercury Public Affairs, said that Zeldin’s position on January 6 likely doesn't matter to voters who care more about bread-and-butter issues that affect their daily lives. And his almost singular focus on crime has worked to his benefit.

“So wages, gas prices, crime…taxes, those are things that affect us on a daily basis,” he said in a phone interview. “And that's what this campaign has really now come down to.” 

Regional Differences
The two candidates’ strength of support varies when comparing New York City, which is home to 42% of the state’s population, with the rest of the state. The city’s weight is also large in a gubernatorial race. Case in point, former Governor Andrew Cuomo won his 2014 race by a 14-point margin by handily carrying New York City while narrowly losing in the rest of the state to Republican opponent Rob Astorino.

Hochul had a 59-37% lead in the city in the Quinnipiac poll and a 70-23% lead in the latest Siena poll. Siena and Marist polls also show that her lead has been steady since August, while Zeldin has barely gained any support in the city. For instance, the August 2 Siena poll had Hochul leading in the city with 70-21%. For Republicans, hitting at least 30% in the city is seen as key to winning statewide.

In the suburbs and upstate, Zeldin has an advantage in most cases, according to the polling. Quinnipiac showed him with 52% in the suburbs compared to Hochul’s 44%, while they were almost tied in upstate New York, where Zeldin led 50-49%. (Hochul hails from the Buffalo area and is the first “upstate governor” in decades, she likes to say, possibly giving her some help in the vast region that is typically friendly to Republicans overall.)

In Siena’s survey, Zeldin led both: 49-45% in the suburbs and 48-44% upstate. Those numbers show progress for Zeldin who was down by five points (50-45%) in the suburbs in a September 28 Siena poll and up by just one point (45-44%) in upstate New York.

“Zeldin has a small lead outside of the city, but it's tight and the question is going to come down to turnout,” said Steven Greenberg, a Siena College pollster, in a phone interview.

As Greenberg noted, in the 2018 election, the state saw 54% turnout, a high number compared to previous presidential-midterm elections. That year, New York City accounted for 34% of voters. In 2014, when statewide turnout was just 36%, the city accounted for 26% of voters, which is a major reason why Cuomo won by a higher margin in 2018 than in 2014.

“Historically, Republicans outperform their enrollment disadvantage, Democrats underperform their enrollment advantage,” he said. “New York City underperforms in turnout [compared to] upstate and, to a lesser extent, the downstate suburbs.”

Independent Voters
For any Republican to win a gubernatorial race, they have to consolidate support from independent voters with no party affiliation, who outnumber registered Republicans.

As of February 21 this year, there were 6.4 million registered Democrats, 2.8 million Republicans, and 2.9 million independents across the state.

While Zeldin has grown his support among Republicans and independents, he doesn’t have nearly the lead that may be required to overcome Hochul’s overwhelming support from Democrats. Zeldin will also have to make inroads with moderate and conservative Democrats to shore up support for his campaign.

As the Quinnipiac poll showed, Hochul leads Democratic voters 91-8% and, in Siena’s poll, 84-10%. Among independents, Zeldin led the Quinnipiac poll 57-37% and the Siena poll with a far narrower 49-40% (up from 44-42% since the August 2 Siena poll). 

“For Republicans to win statewide, whether it’s Lee Zeldin or any Republican to win statewide, they’ve got to do better than a nine-point lead with independents,” said Siena’s Greenberg. “They’ve got to be in the area of like 60%.”

“And he's got to cut into Democrats, which he's shown so far no ability to do,” he added. “I'm not sure how a Republican can win in New York if you're getting 10% or less of the Democratic vote.” 

The Gender Gap
With the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade, abortion has become one of the major issues in the governor’s race. Hochul, the state’s first female governor, has intensely focused her campaign on pointing out Zeldin’s opposition to abortion while touting the steps she has taken to strengthen reproductive rights in the state. It may be among the reasons she has maintained her polling lead.

As the poll numbers show, Hochul has earned far more support from women than men. In the Quinnipiac poll, she led among women by 57-39% while Zeldin led among men with 55-41%. Similarly, in the Siena poll, Hochul led among women with 61-32% and Zeldin led among men with 49-44%.

Election Day is November 8; absentee balloting has begun; early voting is October 29-November 6.

NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli (photo: DiNapoli campaign)

October 20, 2022 - Max Politics Podcast: Democrat Tom DiNapoli Seeks Another Term as NYS Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, the Democratic incumbent who has held the office since 2007, joined the show to discuss his reelection campaign, how he has fulfilled the responsibilities of the office, and his case for choosing him over Republican opponent Paul Rodriguez.

Listen to the conversation and let us know what you think, on Twitter @TweetBenMax. You can listen to the show through the embedded audio below or download the episode wherever you get your podcasts at Max Politics.

NYS Comptroller candidate Paul Rodriguez (photo: Rodiguez campaign)

October 20, 2022 - Max Politics Podcast: Paul Rodriguez, Republican Nominee for NYS Comptroller

Paul Rodriguez, the Republican nominee for New York State Comptroller, joined the show to discuss his campaign, vision for the office, and argument for choosing him over incumbent Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat.

Listen to the conversation and let us know what you think, on Twitter @TweetBenMax. You can listen to the show through the embedded audio below or download the episode wherever you get your podcasts at Max Politics.

Gov. Hochul & Mayor Adams discuss subway support teams (photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Governor's Office)

Governor Kathy Hochul's Safe Option Support outreach teams have helped find "bed placements" for 150 homeless individuals living in the subways in their first six months of operation, according to the New York State Office of Mental Health.

The figures, provided to Gotham Gazette after an inquiry, indicate some action by one of Hochul's first major mental health and public safety initiatives as governor, amid rising homelessness and street violence. They also raise more questions about whether the program is effective in getting people who need help off the subways, enrolled in services, and into housing.

"Our ultimate goal is to make sure that every New Yorker has a roof over their head and that they are safe," Hochul said at a January 6 press conference at the Fulton Street subway station with Mayor Eric Adams and Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell, just a week into the new mayor’s tenure and a day after announcing the SOS program in her State of the State agenda.

For "the first time we're going to create teams of trained professionals, who will be embedded here, who develop relationships, develop trust, and allow us to face the issue of chronic street homelessness with a plan," Hochul said.

The SOS teams are made up of medical professionals, social workers, and other service providers, and intended to work with city agencies to find placements and wraparound services for homeless individuals. A majority of the teams, which are administered by Coordinated Behavioral Care, a nonprofit contracted by the state’s Office of Mental Health (OMH), operate in Manhattan, with others in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.

The announcement by Hochul came amid concerns of rising street homelessness and a number of high-profile attacks on straphangers by unhoused people with serious mental illness. It was an effort that appeared to showcase the new governor as both a partner of the new mayor on challenging issues, and responsible for what happens on MTA mass transit, which she controls.

The purpose of the program is to meet the multiple psycho-social needs of chronically homeless people, including mental health support, and reduce obstacles that often prevent people from seeking services.

Hochul also acknowledged the inadequacy of the shelter system in meeting many of those needs.

"Shelters can be a scary place for someone, especially during COVID and we tell people not to be in congregate settings," Hochul said. "That's why in conjunction with launching a very hands-on strategic approach to dealing with the people on the streets, I want them to have an option to go somewhere else that is safe and worthy of them."

To get there, Hochul set the five-year goal of creating or preserving 100,000 units of affordable housing, including 10,000 units of supportive housing, which come with on-site social services. The state budget adopted in April included $12.5 million for 500 scatter-site supportive housing beds "to more quickly transition those in crisis from the streets, subways, and shelters to stable housing," according to an Executive Chamber statement from April. But James Plastiras, a spokesperson for OMH, said a request for proposals to contract-out the beds that was intended for the summer was delayed and, as of early October, was "in the final stages of review."

Since the January announcement, the city's Department of Homeless Services shelter census has skyrocketed, in part due to an influx of migrants and asylum-seekers, reaching a single-night record of 62,000 earlier this month and leading to violations of court-mandated “right to shelter” standards.

Outreach workers on the streets and subways are not new in New York City and some of the SOS teams were repurposed from existing programs. The city's Department of Social Services has its own workers, both contracted and agency-employed, that do outreach throughout the system, especially at end-of-line stations.

According to OMH, the new teams use an approach called "Critical Time Intervention," which includes "addressing immediate basic needs" like food, clothing, and housing, help securing public benefits, and links to medical, behavioral health, and substance use treatment.

"We're going to utilize our police to do public safety and our mental health professionals to give people the services that they need…Safe Option Support team plan is going to do just that," said Adams, a former transit police officer, at the January announcement with Hochul and Sewell.

Replacing police with professional social workers was a long-sought goal of housing and police reform advocates. The concept gained traction during protests against police brutality in 2020 and the heightened visibility of street homelessness as the pandemic cleared public spaces of daily commuters.

On the campaign trail last year, Adams stumped on a public safety platform that included increasing NYPD presence in the subways and pairing police with mental health workers to help clear encampments and get people into services. He has eschewed calls to remove police entirely from homelessness and mental illness outreach.

The SOS program was billed as a hybrid model with the teams intended to work in conjunction with city agencies, including the police, health, and social services departments.

"These are individuals who work hand in hand with New York City outreach teams," Hochul said in January. "You don't need to be siloed or have turf battles, you're teamed together."

Adams echoed that sentiment in his Subway Safety Plan, released in February. "We are excited to welcome 12 New York State Office of Mental Health SOS CTI teams, which will be comprised of up to 150 staff, over the next few months to join us in this work," the proposal report reads.

But it is not clear how the ten currently-active teams have been working with the city, if at all. According to OMH, the 150 bed placements may include anything from shelter beds to safe havens and stabilization beds to long-term or permanent housing. It may also include connecting homeless individuals to DHS "Welcome Centers," which are temporary shelters beds intended for only a few nights' occupancy before individuals are rerouted to other options. Psychiatric beds were not mentioned as possible destinations, despite a $55 million push in the state budget this year to bring 1,000 new beds on line.

It is unclear how many of these 150 individuals ended up back on the streets.

It is also unclear how many people SOS teams have referred to the city Health Department for court-ordered psychiatric treatment under a statute known as Kendra's Law, which state lawmakers expanded earlier this year after a push from Hochul and Adams.

City Hall did not respond to multiple requests for comment about the program's efficacy or how it was working with city agencies. Coordinated Behavioral Care, the non-profit contractor, also did not return requests for comment.

Since the first team was launched in April, SOS workers have made 2,486 contacts with homeless individuals, often including multiple interactions with the same person, according to OMH. The data shows one person enrolled in services for every seven engagements with an SOS team.

Through October 7, the last date data is available, Coordinated Behavioral Care has gotten 385 referrals from outreach teams, hospitals, local service providers, caregivers, the NYPD, and the MTA. Of those, 378 individuals have enrolled in case management services.

"Governor Hochul's top priority is the safety of New Yorkers, and the deployment of SOS teams is part of our efforts to improve safety on our streets and in our subways," wrote Avi Small, a spokesperson for Hochul, in an email to Gotham Gazette. "The Governor will continue working with elected colleagues, law enforcement, medical professionals and the nonprofit sector to provide safety, support and resources."

Advocates for homeless New Yorkers said the program would miss its mark if it was focused only on engagement and not on expanding the services behind them.

"We've said many times that the issue is not so much the number of people doing outreach, it's what resources outreach teams have to connect people to," said Jacquelyn Simone, policy director at Coalition for the Homeless, a nonprofit.

"I worry a lot of the announcements, including the announcement around the SOS teams, seem to be focused on the optics and the visibility of unsheltered homelessness, rather than actually addressing real pressure points that are preventing people from accessing stability," said Simone.

She said the teams need to be able to offer a menu of housing options, which aren't always available. In the near-term, that means more low-barrier shelters (shelters without requirements like curfews) with private rooms in locations near where homeless individuals are living, she said. In the long-term, Simone said there needs to be greater investment in affordable and supportive housing.

Only 16 people were accepted into supportive housing from the street or another public place in the city's last fiscal year (from July 2021 through June 2022), according to newly-required reporting from the city’s Department of Social Services.

In an announcement from the governor’s office later in January, the state said it planned to launch 12 SOS teams in New York City, four by spring and another eight by the summer. Eight more were planned to start elsewhere in the state by the end of the year.

According to OMH, the first four SOS teams were up and running in Manhattan in April and two more were converted from another program, Pathway Homes, in June. This summer, two more teams launched in Brooklyn, one in Queens, and one in the Bronx, with another expected to start this fall, a spokesperson said, for a total of 11.

Asked about the status of the twelfth SOS team promised for New York City, Plastiras, the OMH spokesperson, told Gotham Gazette the program is a work in progress hampered by workforce limitations.

"Despite a nationwide shortage of healthcare workers, OMH has successfully launched 10 SOS teams offering specialized services for vulnerable New Yorkers living with mental illness and experiencing homelessness, while demonstrating this new program’s effectiveness in linking these individuals to both housing and services," Plastiras wrote in an email. "OMH will continue our efforts to expand the impact of the SOS program."

This year Hochul and state lawmakers included $11.3 million in the budget to launch the program with annual funding of $21.5 million in the next fiscal year, which will begin April 1 2023. In June, as part of an announcement with New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and transit agencies on the reconstruction of Penn Station in midtown Manhattan, Hochul said the state would be expanding the SOS program as one of the development's homeless services offerings after public meetings with providers and other stakeholders.

The Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) has no record of any SOS contracts, according to a spokesperson.

"OMH’s SOS contracts are in various stages of the review and approval process within our agency, and by the Attorney General’s Office and OSC," Plastiras wrote. "Given the immediate need for these services, OMH amended existing contracts with providers to allow them to get teams up and running while new contracts are being reviewed and approved."

"Additionally, some providers have agreed to begin operations of SOS teams prior to receiving executed contracts or funding," he said. "The final contracts will include retroactive effective dates to reimburse providers for their services."

The implementation is a departure from Hochul's initial announcement in January, in which the governor said the contracts would go through a competitive bidding process. "I'm announcing that I'm signing an RFP to go out immediately to develop these teams," she said.

The Office of Mental Health would not say under what authority the state was amending contracts outside of the comptroller's oversight. 

"We are not amending contracts without OSC approval," Plastiras wrote in response to an inquiry. "The amended contracts, as well as the new contracts, will be reviewed and approved by the OSC. However, responding to the immediate need necessitated amending existing contracts to quickly launch the teams."

Outside Rikers Island (photo: William Alatriste/NYC Council)

New York State’s sweeping bail reform law first went into effect in January 2020 and has been subsequently amended twice since then in response to widespread opposition from law enforcement, Republican officials, and some moderate and conservative Democrats. Since its first passage -- through three consecutive legislative sessions and into this statewide election year -- bail reform has been a highly contentious issue, with heated political rhetoric often outpacing facts.

It is now among the top issues Republicans are focused on in this year's races for statewide elected offices, including governor, and all the seats in the House of Representatives and both houses of the State Legislature, with GOP candidates attempting to tie it to Democrats and increases in crime, while Democrats point to the lack of data to support those claims and adjustments they have made to the law.

But even amid constant debate and after passing the initial reforms and two partial rollbacks, the Democrat-dominated State Legislature has yet to hold a dedicated oversight hearing on the implementation and effects of the law. Such a hearing could serve to delve into data, dispel myths, and debunk outright lies about the law’s impact on crime, while serving as an accountability measure for all three branches of government for their roles in the passage, execution, and interpretation of the law.

The bail reform law, first passed in 2019 under then-Governor Andrew Cuomo without a legislative hearing on its development, removed cash bail as a possibility for most misdemeanor and nonviolent felony charges. It was meant in large part as an economic and racial justice measure to ensure that people did not sit in jail pre-trial simply because they could not pay their bail, unlike wealthier people with more means. In 2020, just three months after the law went into effect, it was revised to make more crimes bail eligible and then, this year at the urging of Governor Kathy Hochul, it was changed again to give judges more discretion in setting bail and adding a number of gun offenses to the list of bail eligible crimes.

But law enforcement officials, Republicans, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a moderate Democrat, and others have all called for more stringent bail laws in order to jail more defendants pre-trial. They have blamed the reforms for the increase in crime that has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and been part of a national trend despite limited data to support such claims.

Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, both Democrats, have strongly resisted those calls and have repeatedly pushed back. But they haven’t yet convened even a single dedicated hearing to try to set the record straight on bail reform, particularly after the release of the latest data from the state’s Office of Court Administration and Department of Criminal Justice Services, which showed that bail reform is not to blame for the major uptick in crime over the last two-plus years.

Though crime did significantly jump from 2019 to 2020 – as it did nationally during the onset of the pandemic – the new data shows that rearrests for defendants within 180 days of arraignment in New York City stood at 19% in 2019, rose to 22% in 2020 and dropped to 20% in 2021 (the data covers the first nine months of 2021). Outside of New York City, rearrests in the same category rose from 16% in 2019 to 23% in 2020 and then fell to 21% in 2021. Fewer individuals were released with bail set while most individuals were released on their own recognizance, and others under supervision or one or more non-monetary conditions.

In New York City, the rate of failure to appear in court dropped from 15% in 2019 to 8% in 2020 and rose to just 9% in 2021. Outside the city, the failure to appear rate remained largely flat – 17% in 2019, 19% in 2020 and 18% in 2021.

“Our chamber has had a record number of hearings across the state including on justice system reforms,” said Mike Murphy, a spokesperson for State Senate Democrats, in an email. “The current ‘controversy’ is the result of political posturing and misinformation. Everyone understands the importance of increasing public safety, but succumbing to national Republican fear mongering around bail reform, misses the opportunity to adopt real solutions.”

“Facts matter. Study after study have shown that bail reform has had no effect on the crime rate. And while crime remains at historically low levels, the proliferation of guns on our streets is historically high. We need truth – not fear – to guide our responses to this crisis,” he added.

Senate and Assembly Democrats and the governor have all routinely made the point, backed up by data, that judges are often not setting bail even in cases where an alleged crime is bail eligible. Assembly Speaker Heastie said as much in an August interview on NY1. “If judges…are not asking for bail and they are releasing people on their own recognizance, you know, that’s the judge’s determination,” he said. “But then, the counterargument comes back to me, ‘Too many people are getting out, therefore you should give judges discretion.’ I’m like, ‘Judges already have discretion.’ It’s almost like a catch-22.”

At the time, Hochul suggested that judges need more training on the new bail laws. “​​If judges aren't using the broad discretion they have because they believe their hands are tied, I want to help assure them and educate them that changes were made," Hochul said during an August 4 news conference. "Despite all the rhetoric and politicization of this [topic], good changes were made. I know this because I fought hard for every single one of them.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration responded to Hochul at the time. “Judges have received extensive training on the bail reform legislation, including all of its amendments,” said Lucian Chalfen, the spokesperson, according to the New York Post.

While Hochul, Heastie, and others have often called out law enforcement officials for politicizing the issue of bail, the Legislature has not sought the possible clarity and accountability of a public hearing to take testimony from those officials or their representatives.

Speaker Heastie’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

Murphy’s point has been echoed by criminal justice reform advocates who find themselves vindicated by the latest data and say that a hearing on bail reform would simply serve as a public forum for the airing of grievances by its fiercest and loudest opponents.

“There is no need for a legislative hearing, because there is no legitimate debate to be had,” said Arielle Reid, supervising attorney with the Decarceration Project at The Legal Aid Society, in a statement. Reid said the data clearly shows that bail reform has not contributed to an increase in crime and “claims to the contrary are devoid of facts, and merely pathetic attempts to further a political agenda. Bail reform is playing out as intended, decarcerating local jails, keeping families and communities whole and bolstering public safety in every corner of New York State.”

A public hearing could, however, give legislators a chance to hear directly from law enforcement officials, give them an opportunity to present their own data, and also hold those officials to account for any misinformation they may be spreading. A clear example of that came in a legislative hearing in Albany in October 2021, when then-NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea backtracked on his repeated and unfounded claims that bail reforms were behind an increase in gun violence in the city.

As Heastie noted in an interview on NY1 last week, referring to OCA and DCJS, “[B]oth of those agencies said bail reform is not the reason why crime has increased.”

The Legislature regularly holds oversight hearings, whether by the Assembly, the State Senate, or jointly. For example, in early October, the Assembly transportation committee held a hearing “to Review Implementation of New York's Complete Streets Act.”

On Monday of this week, the Assembly sent a press advisory about a Tuesday hearing “to examine the current state of primary prevention programs, as well as potential direction for future development of programs” related to the state’s child welfare system. The hearing was set to a follow-up to a The Family First Prevention Services Act passed in 2018, and, per the advisory, the Assembly’s children and families committee was holding the hearing “to obtain input from various stakeholders to ascertain the effect of primary prevention on current and future issues facing New York’s child welfare system.”

There have been other occasions where the topic of the bail law was an intense subject of discussion such as state budget hearings, including when Mayor Adams testified before the Legislature for the first time as mayor this year. Adams, in particular, faced harsh scrutiny from legislators around his comments on bail, including from Assemblymember Latrice Walker, a Brooklyn Democrat who sponsored the original bail reform proposal. (Walker’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.) But those exchanges have been tangential, not the main focus of whatever hearing they were part of.

Likewise, in New York City, City Council members could press Adams administration officials on the mayor’s claims of connections between the bail law and public safety, the mayor’s calls for jailing more defendants pretrial as the city struggles to improve the deadly conditions in the Rikers Island jail complex, and related issues. The City Council last held a hearing on bail reform in 2018, before the proposed legislation passed the State Legislature. “There are no plans for a City Council hearing on this state legislation at this time,” said a Council spokesperson, in a statement.

Even after the bail reform law was somewhat hardened again this year, there were those who have pushed the governor to hold a special session to revisit it further. That includes Mayor Adams, who has spent much of the first year of his tenure focused on crime and repeatedly blaming bail reform for recidivism. “Our criminal justice system is insane. It is dangerous. It’s harmful. And it’s destroying the fabric of our city,” he said in August at a news conference, where he offered data on repeat offenders responsible for hundreds of crimes. “As a result of this insane, broken system, our recidivism rates have skyrocketed.”

But, as the data shows, rearrests for those released on their own recognizance dropped from 18% in 2019 to 16% in 2020, while for those on supervised release and other conditions increased from 39% to 40% in that same time.

Another major critic has been U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin, the Republican nominee for governor in this year's election, who has used public safety as a wedge issue in his campaign against Hochul. Republicans across the state are again running against bail reform, as they have in elections around the state over the last few years, including successes in New York City and on Long Island last year.

Democrats like Senator Michael Gianaris, among the staunchest defenders of the bail reform law, say they’re always taking steps to balance the law with the need for public safety.

“There's situations like the changes we just made, and we're always trying to learn and improve, where someone who is repeat offending over and over and over again while they're out, obviously should be treated differently and we have now taken steps to deal with that circumstance," Gianaris said in a July interview on Gotham Gazette’s Max Politics podcast, speaking of the changes made in the April state budget, "but the overall issue of whether we should require people to pay for their freedom before they're convicted of a crime is, once you scratch the surface and actually learn about it, pretty clear where justice lies."

At the heart of the dispute over the bail reform law is a disagreement over the data, with both opponents and proponents claiming that it supports their conclusions.

“Albany’s cashless bail laws continue to endanger every man, woman and child in New York State,” said State Senator Rob Ortt, the Senate Republican Minority Leader, in part in a statement to Gotham Gazette. Ortt said the latest numbers confirm “what every New Yorker already knew: criminal activity has increased.”

Peter Kehoe, executive director of the New York State Sheriff’s Association, echoed Ortt’s view of things, insisting that “it is important” to hold a public hearing on bail reform. “The state is putting out statistics, which they tout as showing that [crime] is at least no worse than it was prior to bail reform,” he said in a phone interview. “What they have is a system that's not working. And so I think if they had hearings, and they really were interested in finding out what is happening and how to make it better, we could help them come up with a good reform statute that still protected the public,” he added.

“I think our experience is quite to the contrary,” Kehoe said of the state data. “The statistics don’t match up with what law enforcement is seeing in the streets. And I think if legislators are going to rely upon the statistics, they're not getting an accurate picture of really what's going on out there.”

Washington County District Attorney J. Anthony Jordan, president of the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, similarly said in a statement, “Any time significant changes to our laws and public policy are made a concomitant and thorough follow up must also be undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of the changes and look at further necessary amendments or adjustments.”

Jordan went further, saying that the Legislature should be examining the various criminal justice reforms approved in recent years, including those related to discovery reform and raising the age of criminal responsibility. “Public hearings where legislators, stakeholders and interested residents can better understand how these new laws are being implemented around the state can lead to significant improvements and adjustments to those laws,” he said.

Note - this article has been updated.

Rooftop solar panels (photo: Gabriel López Albarrán)

October 13, 2022 - Max Politics Podcast: The Environmental Bond Act Ballot Proposal and Other Key Climate Issues

Proposal 1 on the 2022 general election ballot is a statewide referendum on the $4.2 billion Environmental Bond Act, which New York voters will approve or disapprove this fall. Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters, and Amy Chester, managing director of Rebuild by Design, joined the show to discuss the bond act and other major New York climate issues.

Listen to the conversation and let us know what you think, on Twitter @TweetBenMax. You can listen to the show through the embedded audio below or download the episode wherever you get your podcasts at Max Politics.

Then-Gov. Cuomo and Lt. Gov. Hochul (photo: Governor's Office)

Since Kathy Hochul became governor in August 2021, 47 people have given the maximum amount – $69,700 – directly to her campaign, according to campaign finance filings through October 3.

In total, the governor's campaign has brought in $46 million in her first 14 months in office. That massive sum will not be as easy to accumulate in future elections thanks to a new state campaign finance system that will lower individual contribution limits and establish a small-dollar public matching program for state-level offices.

The system, intended to help reduce the influence of big money in politics by amplifying the value of everyday donors, will match small donations to participating candidates with public funds, allowing them to rely less on large checks from wealthy individuals and special interest groups. It will also lower contribution limits across the board, making it more difficult, by design, for politicians to raise huge sums of cash from individual contributors.

The new system, passed in 2020, goes into effect immediately after Election Day this year for the next state election cycles and will apply to statewide offices -- Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Comptroller -- and the entirety of the State Legislature, 63 State Senate seats and 150 Assembly seats.

Then-Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed the system after a commission they had established outlined many of its parameters. Cuomo, a prodigious fundraiser who vastly outspent his opponents, insisted the new rules not go into effect until after the 2022 election, when he expected to win a fourth term as governor. Hochul has only continued this style of massive fundraising, including from many wealthy people with state business, trouncing her primary opponents in spending and raising flags among government watchdogs.

In the 2018 election cycle, Cuomo raised $37.5 million and spent $36.3 million.

Advocates can't wait for the new system to go into effect.

"One of the best things about the design of this system is that it gives the most power to the smallest donations, meaning the people who most need the government to start representing their interests finally have a real say," said Karen Wharton, an organizer with the grassroots advocacy group Citizen Action of New York, which was among many groups who pushed for the creation of the new campaign finance system somewhat modeled on New York City’s long-standing program.

According to Chisun Lee, an elections expert at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, contribution limits and public matching have the potential to increase civic engagement. "Candidates will have the option to spend more time connecting with the people they want to represent instead of courting big donors," she told Gotham Gazette.

The Brennan Center has pointed to other jurisdictions that have enacted a public matching program, like New York City and Washington, D.C., which have seen an increase in the number of candidates who are women and people of color since implementing their systems. And studies show that women and people of color running for Congress rely more on small-dollar contributions.

Experts widely agree the system will limit the potential for pay-to-play politics by making it more difficult for well-heeled donors to pour money directly into campaign coffers. But the new system won't require officials, like Hochul, to return already-amassed sums.

When the new system goes into effect after the 2022 general election next month, contributions from individuals will be capped at $18,000 for statewide offices, still higher than many reformers wanted. In just over a year, 518 individuals gave more than that sum to Hochul's campaign committee.

"Ultimately, we expect the new law to increase the number of competitive primaries in senate and assembly races and empower candidates who raise small donations in their districts," wrote John Kaehny, executive director of the good-government group Reinvent Albany, in an email. "Currently, many state legislators get most of their campaign contributions from businesses and unions trying to influence state action."

"We expect the new rules to have the least effect on statewide races, and ironically, may even benefit Governor Hochul – if she wins her first election – because she has amassed such a huge warchest under the current rules," Kaehny told Gotham Gazette.

The new system establishes a public matching funds program that candidates for state office may opt into, similar to New York City's model. Participating candidates for statewide office will receive six tax dollars for each eligible campaign dollar raised. Candidates for State Legislature can get anywhere from an 8-to-1 to 12-to-1 match depending on the size of the donation. Only contributions between $5 and $250 are match-eligible and they must come from within the state, or the district in the case of legislative candidates.

To qualify for the public match, candidates must show they have a viable fundraising operation to begin with. Gubernatorial candidates must raise half-a-million dollars from 5,000 separate in-state donors. Candidates for the other statewide office must bring in $100,000 from 1,000 in-state donors. And candidates for State Senate must raise $12,000 from 150 in-district contributors and candidates for Assembly must raise $6,000 from 75 in-district donors (those thresholds are reduced for lower-income districts).

The system will cap public matching funds at $7 million (across a primary and general election season) for statewide offices – a figure dwarfed by the massive sums already in Hochul's campaign account. The match for Senate candidates tops out at $750,000 and for Assembly candidates at $350,000 for each the primary and general election.

There is no limit on how much a candidate can raise or spend as long as they adhere to the lower individual donor limits.

Some contributions will not be matched, including from corporations, lobbyists, and campaign vendors. But, unlike New York City's system, there is no prohibition on raising funds from people with state business. Hochul has recently come under scrutiny for doing just that: awarding a lucrative $637 million state contract to a major campaign donor, tech magnate Charlie Tebele, after she had suspended competitive bidding requirements. Hochul has denied having personal involvement in the deal.

The system will require participating candidates to take part in at least one public debate for each election in which the candidate receives public funds. The question of whether Hochul and her Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin, will participate in a debate and how many has been a point of contention this cycle, with Hochul agreeing to only one debate, while Zeldin continues to push for more.

The new program will do nothing to limit the huge amount of independent expenditure and Super PAC spending that pours into each election, which is protected by the 2010 Citizens United decision as a form of free speech.

It will be in effect for state legislative elections in 2024, the next gubernatorial and other statewide races in 2026, and any special elections held after this November. A new Public Campaign Finance Board, housed within the State Board of Elections, will administer the program.

This is the last election under the old rules. Hochul has made the most of it. As part of the prolific 14-month fundraising spree, the governor has raised $11 million in the last three months alone. That spree came after her campaign spent $26 million on the primary, far more than any of her Democratic opponents. As of the early October filing, Hochul had almost $10.9 million on hand. She has continued to aggressively raise and spend ahead of Election Day, November 8.

Zeldin, on the other hand, has raised a total of $19.4 million – less than half of Hochul's total haul – as of the early October filing, including $6.4 million in the last filing period (from mid-July to early October). He had about $4.5 million left to spend as of the filing, while he continues to raise as well.

Far more of Zeldin's fundraising has been from small-dollar donors, according to their campaigns. Last week, Hochul's campaign reported 60% of her contributions were from donors giving under $200, compared to the 91% announced by Zeldin's camp.

Neither the Hochul nor Zeldin campaigns responded to requests for comment for this story about how the new system would impact their approach to fundraising.

State law requires New York to establish a campaign finance fund to pay for the public match though it does not specify how much it should hold. The state commission that made the first attempt at establishing the system in 2019 – before courts struck it down on jurisdictional grounds leading lawmakers passed a bill to create it – would have set the fund at $100 million per four-year election cycle.

This year, Hochul and legislative leaders set aside $10.5 million for the new campaign finance board's operations and another $10 million for public matching funds. That fiscal year ends in March 2023 and there will need to be further discussion in the state budget ahead about funding the program for the bulk of the 2024 elections. New York City paid out $127 million in matching funds in the 2021 election season, though its system has different criteria and thresholds.

"Whether the new program realizes its potential depends on sound implementation by the state agency in charge, sufficient funding in the next state budget, and, above all, public awareness," said Lee of the Brennan Center.