[ THEME MUSIC ] ON THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW," WE'LL CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE STATE'S NAISSANT SYSTEM OF PUBLICLY FINANCED ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, NARROWLY APPROVE BY STATE LAWMAKERS AT THE END OF THE LEGISLATION SESSION.

LATER IN THE SHOW, WE'LL DISCUSS A POTENTIAL UPDATE TO THE LOCAL ELECTION CALENDAR AND HIGHLIGHT UNFINISHED BUSINESS FOR THE STATE ASSEMBLY.

I'M DAVID LOMBARDO, AND THIS IS "NEW YORK NOW."

[ THEME MUSIC ] WELCOME TO THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW".

I'M DAVID LOMBARDO.

HOST OF THE CAPITOL PRESS ROOM.

FILLING IN FOR DAN CLARK.

BACK IN 2020, DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS AND THEN-GOVERNOR ANDREW COMO OKAYED A PROGRAM DOUGH SIGNED TO AMPLIFY SMALL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS USING GOVERNMENT FUNDS IN ORDER TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD IN STATEWIDE ELECTIONS AND MORE LIKELY, RACES FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

BUT BEFORE THAT SYSTEM COULD TAKE FULL EFFECT NEXT YEAR, DEMOCRATS AT THE CAPITOL RUSHED THROUGH A BILL EARLIER THIS MONTH WHICH COULD UNDERMINE THE PROGRAM IF SIGNED INTO LAW.

FOR MORE ON THE ISSUE, WE SPOKE RECENTLY WITH BLAIR HORNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP.

[ THEME MUSIC ] WELL, WELCOME TO THE SHOW, BLAIR.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

SO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE 2020 PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM CREATED BY STATE LAWMAKERS AND OKAYED BY THEN-GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO?

YEAH.

THE IMPETUS WAS GOVERNOR CUOMO'S WAS REACTING TO THE FAILURE OF THE MORAL ENACT COMMISSION THAT HE PULLED THE PLUG ON AND ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THAT COMMISSION-- AND BY THE WAY, IT HAD BEEN THE RECOMMENDATION OF EVERYBODY WHO HAD LOOKED AT THIS SYSTEM-- IS TO SHIFT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCES AWAY FROM RELYING ESSENTIALLY ON A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF BIG DONORS TO A SYSTEM THAT RELIES ON A LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL DONORS.

THE CORRUPTION RISK GOES DOWN.

YOU GET MORE PEOPLE ENGAGED IN THE ELECTIONS, AND SO THERE WAS A COMMISSION THAT WAS CREATED.

THEY LOOKED INTO THE ISSUE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE.

THEY CAME UP WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

LAWMAKERS PASSED IT IN 2020 AND THE IDEA IS SIMILAR TO WHAT NEW YORK CITY HAS HAD FOR 30 SOME ODD YEARS THAT FOR SMALL DONATIONS-- THIS IS A WAY TO ENCOURAGE SMALL DONATIONS-- THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC MATCH, JUST DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE CONTRIBUTION.

AND THAT WAS A WAY TO ENCOURAGE LAWMAKERS TO SEEK OUT THE AVERAGE NEW YORKER WHO DOESN'T TYPICALLY GET ASKED TO MAKE A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION EVER.

WELL THEN, WITH THE BILL THAT WAS APPROVED BY STATE LAWMAKERS IN THE WANING HOURS OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, HOW WILL THAT POTENTIALLY UNDERMINE THAT PROGRAM, ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO ACCESSIBILITY, YOU KNOW, INSURGENT CANDIDATES, THESE FIRST-TIME CANDIDATES AND THEIR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY ACCESS PUBLIC DOLLARS?

YOU'RE RIGHT.

THE PRIME BENEFICIARIES OF THE PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM WILL REALLY BE CHALLENGERS.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE HARDEST TIME RAISING MONEY TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND PART OF WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FINANCING IS SOME COMPETITION IN ELECTIONS.

SO THE-- YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF SESSION, WHICH IS ALWAYS SORT OF THE WE CALL IT WHACK-A-MOLE SEASON BECAUSE BAD THINGS ALWAYS POP UP AT THE LAST MINUTE.

HERE WAS ONE OF THEM.

THERE HAD BEEN NO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THERE HAD BEEN NO DEBATE.

THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING ACTUALLY UNTIL THE LAST FEW DAYS OF SESSION WHERE LAWMAKERS, THE LEADERSHIP BASICALLY JAMMED THROUGH A LAW, AND AMONG ITS PROVISIONS WAS PROVISIONS THAT BASICALLY MAKE IT HARDER FOR CHALLENGERS TO GET THE NUMBER OF DONATIONS THEY NEED TO QUALIFY FOR THE SYSTEM.

IT'S SET UP THAT YOU NEED A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DONATIONS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND IF THERE ARE SMALL ENOUGH DONATIONS AND IF THEY'RE MATCHABLE AND THEN YOU'RE IN THE PROGRAM AND LAWMAKERS DECIDE TO RAISE THE BAR ON THAT, TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR CHALLENGERS TO COMPLY.

WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT MAYBE THEN THAT THE ORIGINAL THRESHOLD IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT YOU NEED TO RAISE AND THE NUMBER OF DONATIONS YOU NEED TO COLLECT WAS TOO LOW AND THAT WE NEEDED A HIGHER BARRIER OF PARTICIPATION TO WEED OUT CANDIDATES WHO MIGHT NOT BE SERIOUS SO THAT WE'RE ONLY HAVING SERIOUS CANDIDATES UTILIZING PUBLIC MONEY?

THAT'S A GREAT ARGUMENT.

IT'S TOO BAD THEY DIDN'T DO IT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WHERE PEOPLE COULD RESPOND.

NOBODY REALLY KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL THE VERY END AND IN THE ALBANY WORLD, WHEN DEALS COME TOGETHER AT THE LAST MINUTE AND COOKED UP IN SECRET, THEY'RE USUALLY NOT IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST, AND SO IN THIS CASE HAD THAT ARGUMENTS BEEN MADE, HAD THERE BEEN A LEGISLATIVE RECORD, I MEAN, AFTER ALL, IT'S BEEN YEARS SINCE THE LAW WENT INTO EFFECT AND NOT A PEEP OUT OF THE LEGISLATURE OR THE GOVERNOR.

WE THINK IT WAS-- WE THINK IT WAS SORT OF A BAD DEAL AND IT WILL TURN OUT TO BE A WORST DEAL FOR CHALLENGES.

ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THE LEGISLATION THAT MOVED IN THE FINAL HOURS, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION HAS TO DO WITH WHAT YOU DO WITH CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE ABOVE $250, THIS MAGIC THRESHOLD FOR WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MATCHED, AT LEAST UNDER THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE PROGRAM, WHAT'S ENVISIONED BY DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS IN THE FUTURE NOW?

WELL, AND IT'S APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR AND THAT AT THE MOMENT IS AN IF.

WE'LL SEE WHAT THE GOVERNOR CHOOSES TO DO.

UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, THE CURRENT PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM, ONLY CONTRIBUTIONS UP TO $250 CAN BE MATCHED.

THE SMALLER THE CONTRIBUTION, THE BIGGER THE MATCH.

SO $50, $50 DONATION GETS YOU $12 FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE DOLLARS.

THAT'S 600 BUCKS.

IT'S A SLIDING SCALE THAT GOES DOWN AS YOU GO UP.

UNDER THE CHANGE THAT'S BEEN PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES AND BY ONE VOTE, BY THE WAY IN THE STATE SENATE, 3 OUT OF 63 SENATORS VOTED FOR THE BILL.

WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL FOR ALBANY.

VERY UNUSUAL, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LEADERSHIP IS HAMMERING TOGETHER A DEAL.

THAT THE $250 MATCH WOULD APPLY TO ANY DONATION.

IT DOESN'T MATTER THE SIZE.

AS LONG AS IT'S LEGAL, OF COURSE, THAT THE FIRST $250 WOULD BE MATCHABLE, AND THAT MEANS THAT BIG DONORS, PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE MAKING A $10,000 DONATION WOULD GET SOME OF THE CONTRIBUTION MATCH AND IN A SYSTEM WHERE YOU'RE USING PRECIOUS, CLEAN PUBLIC RESOURCES TO FUND ELECTIONS, ALL YOU'RE DOING IS DRAINING AWAY MONEY FROM THE INCENTIVE TO GO FOR SMALL DONORS TO HELPING REWARD FAT CATS IN ALBANY.

WELL, THERE IS THE IDEA OF A FAT CAT GIVING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO A CANDIDATE.

BUT WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, REALLY, BETWEEN SOMEONE WHO GIVES $300 AND SOMEONE WHO GIVES $250?

IS THAT THRESHOLD A MEANINGFUL ONE TO BEGIN WITH, THIS $250 BENCHMARK?

WELL, THEY PICKED $250, I THINK, OUT OF A HAT.

THE SYSTEM IN NEW YORK CITY IS $175, FOR EXAMPLE, AND WE HAD ARGUED IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF THAT WHOLE PROCESS IN 2019 THAT USE THE NEW YORK CITY SYSTEM AS YOUR MODEL.

IT'S ROAD TESTED.

IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOK FOR DECADES.

IT'S EVOLVED OVER TIME.

USE THAT AND THEY DIDN'T.

THEY DECIDED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING OF THEIR OWN.

SO THE $250 DONATION-- MATCHABLE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT, THEY PICKED OUT OF A HAT.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN $175 IF THEY FOLLOWED NEW YORK CITY, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN $300, TOO, BUT THEY CHOSE TO PICK $250.

IN THAT PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THAT LEGISLATION, AT LEAST THERE WERE HEARINGS AND THERE WAS SORT OF A PUBLIC PROCESS EVEN IF A LOT OF WHAT WAS COOKED UP IN THE COMMISSION IN 2019 TO 2020 WAS DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

IS IT POSSIBLE, THOUGH, THAT BY CHANGING THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS ABOVE $250 AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM THAT THIS MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM?

BECAUSE WE REFERENCED THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC MATCHING PROGRAM AND THERE ARE OFTEN A LOT OF HEADACHES WITH THAT.

CANDIDATES GET FINED FOR MINOR VIOLATIONS IN THE PROGRAM.

SO COULD THIS POTENTIALLY MAKE IT EASIER TO RUN SOMETHING WHICH IS GOING TO BE BRAND NEW IN TERMS OF A STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION?

WELL, IT COULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR SURE BECAUSE THEN ANY CONTRIBUTION THAT COMES THROUGH THE DOOR IS MATCHED.

RIGHT.

AGAIN, THE DOWNSIDE IS THAT YOU ARE USING CLEAN PUBLIC RESOURCES TO FUND CANDIDATE-- TO HELP ENCOURAGE BIG DONATIONS INTO THE SYSTEM.

WE ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF BIG DONATIONS% THAT INCREASES THE CORRUPTION RISK.

WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK FAR BACK INTO NEW YORK STATE HISTORY TO SEE PLAY-TO-PLAY SCHEMES WHERE BIG CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS WERE RIGGING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS TO THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE WITH COMPLIANT PUBLIC OFFICIALS, THE BUFFALO BILL BUILDING COMES TO MIND IMMEDIATELY.

THAT WILL ALWAYS CONTINUE TO HAPPEN AS LONG AS SOMEBODY IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

BUT YOU WANT TO GET ON A SYSTEM THAT RELIES ON A LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL DONORS AND USE THE PUBLIC RESOURCES TO DO THAT.

LET'S GET AVERAGE NEW YORKERS ENGAGED IN CAMPAIGN FINANCES.

NOT JUST WEALTHY ONES.

YOU MENTIONED SMALL DONORS RIGHT THERE.

MY UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, IT'S NOT JUST SMALL DONORS.

IT'S IN-DISTRICT DONORS.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT PEOPLE WHO MIGHT GIVE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO A CANDIDATE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS WON'T BE MATCHED BECAUSE THEY MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE FROM WITHIN THE DISTRICT, OR DOES THE LEGISLATION ADDRESS THAT CARVE-OUT AS WELL?

I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THE IN-DISTRICT MATCH IS A DIFFERENT PART OF THE SYSTEM THAN NEW YORK HAS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THAT DOES MAKE THE SYSTEM MORE COMPLICATED.

THE SLIDING SCALE NATURE OF THE MATCH.

THE IN-DISTRICT, ISSUES.

AGAIN, IT DOES ENCOURAGE CANDIDATES TO TALK TO PEOPLE WITHIN THE DISTRICT, TRY TO RAISE MONEY WITHIN THE DISTRICT FROM AVERAGE PEOPLE.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN ALBANY, IT REALLY RELIES ON DONATIONS, HUGE DONATIONS THAT COME INTO THE SYSTEM AND WHILE THE SYSTEM IS BETTER BECAUSE OF THE 2020 LAW, THEY LOWERED THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, IT'S STILL FAR HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND THEY'RE EASILY CIRCUMVENTED THROUGH THE STATE PARTY COMMITTEE DONATIONS WHICH ARE AROUND $120,000.

DO YOU THINK THIS LEGISLATION, IF SIGNED INTO LAW, WILL HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT ON THE COST OF ACTUALLY ADMINISTERING THIS PROGRAM?

DO YOU ANTICIPATE IT WILL COST MILLIONS MORE TO ACTUALLY DOLE OUT PUBLIC MATCHING DOLLARS, OR COULD THE INCREASE BE TRIVIAL?

WELL, IT'S HARD TO KNOW UNTIL WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS, BUT THERE WILL BE-- THE CHANGES COULD MAKE IT-- IT CERTAINLY WILL COST MORE, RIGHT?

BECAUSE EVERY DONATION NOW WILL BE MATCHABLE, AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT, BUT AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, IT DOES NARROW THE SCOPE OF WHO CAN DONATE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE DONATING-- YOU HAVE TO BE A CONTRIBUTOR FROM WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN ORDER TO GET THE MATCH, AND SO THAT, I THINK, NARROWS THE SCOPE OF THE FINANCIAL DAMAGE, BUT THERE IS SORT OF A PUBLIC DAMAGE IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, BIG INSTITUTIONS, WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS ARE GETTING MATCHED WITH PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.

IF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS LATEST INCARNATION OF THE PUBLIC MATCHING PROGRAM WOULD BE NOTHING, DO YOU LIKE THIS VERSION OF THE PROGRAM BETTER THAN THE WAY ALBANY WORKED PRIOR TO THE 2020 LAW GOING INTO EFFECT?

BECAUSE I SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S POSSIBLY WHAT WAS AT STAKE HERE.

THAT THIS REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS IN THE LEGISLATURE, WHO WANTED TO KILL THIS, AND PROPONENTS OF IT WHO WORK IN THE SYSTEM AND FOUND A WAY TO MAKE IT PAL LETTABLE TO THE LEADERSHIP WHO MIGHT HAVE WANTED IT DEAD.

WE DID HEAR THE RUMBLINGS ON THAT DURING THE BUDGET, WHERE THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO SORT OF-- AT LEAST WE HEARD THERE WAS A PROPOSAL.

AGAIN, EVERYTHING IN ALBANY IS DONE BEHIND THE CURTAINS, SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

BUT IN TERMS OF-- THERE WAS AT LEAST SOME DISCUSSION OF TRYING TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FROM 2024 WHEN THE LAW GOES INTO EFFECT FOR THE FIRST ELECTIONS TO 2026.

YEAH.

I MEAN, THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES.

IF THE CHOICES ARE THE LOUSY SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW WITH A LESS THAN BETTER-- LESS BETTER VERSION OF THE LAW THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS, I'LL TAKE THAT.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH.

GOVERNOR HOCHUL IS GOING TO BE FACED WITH A PROPOSAL THAT WEAKENS THE EXISTING PROGRAM AND WE THINK SHE SHOULD VETO IT.

HOW WILL YOU JUDGE THE SUCCESS OF WHATEVER VERSION OF THIS PROGRAM FINALLY TAKES EFFECT IN 2024 FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE RACES IN 2026 FOR STATEWIDE RACES?

IS IT SOLELY ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTIONS?

IS IT SOLELY ABOUT WHERE MONEY IS COMING FROM?

WHAT WILL BE YOUR METRIC FOR JUDGING THIS?

IT'S HARD BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OTHER VARIABLES AT PLAY.

THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE.

I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT THE PARTY COMMITTEE LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED AND OF COURSE, THERE'S INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE CAMPAIGNS WHICH COULD DERAIL THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

THANK YOU, U.S. SUPREME COURT.

I THINK IT WILL BE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE MORE COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE DRIVER BECAUSE THE MORE COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS THERE ARE IN PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTIONS, WE THINK THE MORE ACCOUNTABLE LAWMAKERS WILL BE ONCE THEY GET INTO OFFICE.

WHAT IF THE ELECTIONS, THEMSELVES, AREN'T MORE COMPETITIVE BUT LET'S SAY, INCUMBENTS START RAISING MORE OF THEIR MONEY FROM WITHIN THE DISTRICT, FROM SMALLER DONORS AND ESSENTIALLY APPEALING TO THEM AS OPPOSED TO THE LARGER DOPERS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE RELIED ON IN THE PAST?

AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE GOOD, BUT THE MORE COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS ARE REALLY, I THINK, THE METRIC THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE INCUMBENTS LOSE, BY THE WAY.

INCUMBENTS HAVE ADVANTAGE.

THEY HAVE A RECORD TO RUN ON.

MANY OF THEM ARE VERY COMPETENT, HARD-WORKING ELECTED OFFICIALS AND SHOULDN'T LOSE, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE MORE COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS WHERE CANDIDATES, CHALLENGERS ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO RAISE THE MONEY TO TAKE ON AN INCUMBENT, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MEASURE OF WHETHER OR NOT, IN OUR VIEW, OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PROGRAM WAS A SUCCESS.

WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH BLAIR HORNER.

HE'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP.

BLAIR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

[ THEME MUSIC ] AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO ANOTHER BIG ISSUE TACKLED BY STATE LAWMAKERS IN THE WANING HOURS OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND LOOK AHEAD AT WHAT IF ANY, SURPRISES MIGHT HAPPEN WHEN THE ASSEMBLY LIKELY RETURNS TO THE CAPITOL IN A FEW DAYS.

TO DO ALL THAT, WE'RE JOINED BY BILL MAHONEY, A HUMAN ENCYCLOPEDIA, AND CAPITOL REPORTER FOR POLITICO NEW YORK.

[ THEME MUSIC ] WELL, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, BILL.

THANK YOU.

SO AT THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS PURRED THROUGH A BILL THAT'S BEEN KICKING AROUND THE CAPITOL FOR A FEW YEARS NOW THAT'S GOING TO ALTER THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION CALENDAR.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT CHANGES TO THE VOTING SYSTEM NEW YORKERS SHOULD POTENTIALLY BE PREPARED FOR?

WELL, THEY'RE MOVING MOST TOWN AND COUNTY ELECTIONS TO EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS.

TYPICALLY THROUGH MOST OF THE STATE AND MOST PARTS OF THE STATE, WE'VE GOT THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES AND THE STATE LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL RACES IN A COUPLE YEARS, AND THEN A COUPLE YEARS LATER, WE'VE GOT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACES AND THEN ALL THE LEGISLATIVE RACES.

WHILE MOST OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL ELECTIONS ARE IN THE ODD-NUMBERED YEARS IN BETWEEN BUT THIS BILL GOING TO GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S DESK WOULD MOVE THE TOWN AND COUNTY ONES, A GOOD CHUNK OF THEM TO THE EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS.

WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN FOR CITY ELECTIONS OR VILLAGE ELECTIONS?

SO MOST CITY ELECTIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BE HELD IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS, AS ARE SOME OTHER THINGS, THEY HAVE THESE RULES LIKE SOME OF THE JUDICIAL RACES AND COUNTY VA RACES, THOSE ARE TRICKY TO MOVE.

SO THEY'RE MOVING THOSE NOW, BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NEXT YEAR THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE SENT TO VOTERS THAT WOULD MOVE THE REMAINDER OF THESE ELECTIONS TO EVEN,-NUMBERED YEARS SO WE WOULD HAVE NO MORE ELECTIONS IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE IN THE YEARS ENDING IN TWO, FOUR, SIX, ET CETERA.

AND WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THIS?

AT LEAST WHAT IS THE RATIONALE THAT DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS ARE SAYING PUBLICLY?

WELL, THEY SAY THEY IT WOULD SAVE PEOPLE MONEY, AND IT WOULD SAVE COUNTIES AND TOWNS AND BOARDS OF ELECTIONS MONEY.

ALTHOUGH SOME ELECTION COMMISSIONERS SAY THAT'S A TRIVIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.

WELL, IT DEPENDS ON IF THEY ACTUALLY GET THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSED BECAUSE PART OF THE GOAL IS IF YOU HAVE ELECTIONS ONCE EVERY OTHER YEAR, THEN YOU'RE SPENDING BASICALLY HALF AS MUCH RUNNING POLL SITES AS YOU ARE IF YOU DO IT EVERY YEAR, BUT WE WIND UP HAVING-- BUT UNTIL WE DO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, WE'LL STILL HAVE ELECTIONS EVERY YEAR.

RIGHT.

IT'S NOT GOING TO SAVE ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER UNLESS THAT PASSES AND THAT'S A PRETTY OPEN QUESTION, WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGISLATION PASSES THAT NEXT YEAR AND THEY'D HAVE TO PASS IT AGAIN IN A FEW YEAR AND THEN SEND IT TO THE VOTER FORCE A REFERENDUM.

SO WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO SAVE ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER UNTIL THAT QUESTION IS ANSWERED.

BUT I HAVE TO ASSUME THERE'S AN EXPECTATION OF HIGHER TURNOUT IN THE ELECTIONS THAT WOULD BE MOVING FROM ODD YEARS TO EVEN YEARS JUST BECAUSE TURNOUT IS TRADITIONALLY MUCH HIGHER FOR EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS THAN ODD YEARS.

THAT'S PART OF THE ARGUMENT THAT BOTH SIDES, TO A DEGREE, HAVE BEEN MAKING.

YES, WOULD YOU HAVE MUCH HIGHER TURNOUT.

MORE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT A PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND SHOW UP TO IT THAN THEY DO ABOUT THE COUNTY CORONER'S RACE WHICH MIGHT BE ON THE BALLOT IN AN ODD-NUMBERED YEAR.

SO THAT MEANS EVERYBODY WILL BE SHOWING UP.

EVERYBODY WHO IS VOTING IN THESE HIGH TURNOUT ELECTIONS WILL ALSO BE PARTICIPATING IN SOME OF THESE DOWN-BALLOT ELECTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ONES HELD IN 2023 MIGHT SEE 10, 20% TURNOUT.

THAT WOULDN'T BE TOO SURPRISING.

BUT IF THEY WERE HELD IN 2024 WHEN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE IS ON THE TOP OF THE TICKET THEY WOULD HAVE 50, 60% TURNOUT, BUT TO SOME OF THE OPPONENTS, THAT'S ALSO SOME OF THE REASON THIS MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD THING.

THE THEORY BEHIND HOLDING THESE ELECTIONS IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS IS PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE DISTINCT FROM THESE PRESIDENTIAL RACES AND THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES.

IF YOU HAVE A PRESIDENTIAL RACE ON THE TICKET NEXT YEAR AND LET'S SAY IT'S DONALD TRUMP VERSUS JOE BIDEN, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ONLY RACE PEOPLE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE FIGURING OUT IN DEPTH WHAT'S GOING ON WITH, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN BOARD RACES HAPPENING AT THAT SAME TIME.

SO THESE RACES MIGHT GET DROWNED OUT IF THEY'RE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THESE HIGHER PROFILE ONES AND PEOPLE MIGHT BE SHOWING UP TO THE POLLS WHO JUST HAVE NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH WHATSOEVER ON THEM AND JUST CASTING BALLOTS BASED ON WHO THEY VOTED FOR WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

WHILE PART OF THE THEORY FOR OVER A CENTURY IN NEW YORK HAS BEEN THAT THE PERSON YOU ARE ELECTING TO RUN YOUR TOWN SHOULDN'T BE ELECTED JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A POSITION.

THEY'RE PART OF THE SAME PARTY AS THE PERSON WHOSE POSITIONS YOU LIKE ON ISSUES LIKE ABORTION AND IMMIGRATION, YOU SHOULD LIKE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE THE BEST PERSON RUNNING THE PARKS AND PLOWING THE SNOW.

IT'S DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT JOB RUNNING A LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAN RUNNING A NATIONAL ONE.

WELL, THERE'S A LOT TO UNPACK IN THAT ANSWER WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS.

IN SEEING A POTENTIAL INCREASE IN TURNOUT, WHAT WILL THAT MEAN FOR THE LIKELY PARTISAN MAKEUP OF THESE EVEN-YEAR ELECTIONS COMPARED TO THE ODD-YEAR ELECTIONS?

WOULD WE EXPECT TO SEE A DIFFERENT BREAKDOWN OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS VOTING IN LOCAL ELECTIONS THAN MIGHT BE VOTING RIGHT NOW?

IT'S TOUGH TO SAY AT THIS POINT BUT ONCE-- LIKE THERE ARE MORE DEMOCRATS WHO SHOW UP IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE'RE A BLUE STATE.

BUT ONE THING THAT IT MIGHT LEAD TO A DECREASE IN IS CROSS-BALLOT VOTING.

WHERE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO MIGHT VOTE FOR THEIR TOWN BOARD MEMBER BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW THE JOB THEY DID RUNNING THE DOG PARK OR SETTING UP A NEW DOG PARK OR GETTING THE PLAYGROUND FIXED.

THEY MIGHT BE RUNNING AS A REPUBLICAN BUT THE VOTER MIGHT BE A DEMOCRAT, BUT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS PARTICULAR PERSON AND THE WORK THEY'VE DONE ON THESE HYPERLOCAL ISSUES, THE PARTY LABEL DOESN'T MEAN AS MUCH IN SOME OF THESE ODD-YEARED ELECTIONS, BUT IF WE HAVE ALL THESE MILLIONS OF EXTRA PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO THE POLLS WHO ARE JUST VOTING STRAIGHT DOWN THE PARTY LINE THAT COULD LEAD TO THESE CROSS-BALLOT VOTERS BEING MUCH LESS A PART OF THE ELECTORATE AND THAT BEING LESS OF A FACTOR IN THESE LOCAL ELECTIONS.

AND WHAT ABOUT VOTERS WHO MIGHT JUST NOT MAKE IT ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BALLOT IN FUTURE?

BECAUSE EVEN RIGHT NOW, IN RECENT YEARS, WE SEE PEOPLE TURN UP FOR THE GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.

THEY MIGHT TURN OUT FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY VOTING FOR WHATEVER IS THE FURTHEST DOWN THE BALLOT RIGHT NOW, WHETHER THAT'S A STATE LEGISLATIVE RACE OR SOMETHING ELSE.

SO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THAT ELECTION, WHETHER IT'S TOWN SUPERVISOR OR SOMETHING ELSE EVEN IF THEY HAD GONE OUT TO VOTE?

THERE ALWAYS IS FALL-OFF THE FURTHER YOU GET DOWN THE BALLOT, AND WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE, BUT IT COULD BE SOME VERY LONG BALLOTS.

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN SOME RACES IN NEW YORK WHERE THEY STRUGGLED TO FIT THEM ALL ONTO ONE PIECE OF PAPER.

IF YOU'RE ADDING ALL THESE ODD-YEAR ELECTIONS, THEN WHO KNOWS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS WITHOUT DOING SIZE SIX FONT ON THEM OR SOMETHING?

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE LIKELIHOOD OF VOTERS NOT HAVING THE CAPACITY TO TAKE IN ALL OF THESE RACES.

I THINK ABOUT MY OWN EXPERIENCE, COVERING RACES FOR LOCAL NEWSPAPERS, AND THAT WAS DIFFICULT IN AND OF ITSELF TRYING TO DO EVEN AND ODD-YEARED ELECTIONS.

I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE THE CAPACITY TO COVER EVERYTHING UP AND DOWN THE BALLOT.

YOU'RE QUITE AN ELECTION GURU OF YOUR OWN COVERING ELECTIONS FOR POLITICO NEW YORK.

DO YOU THINK YOU COULD FIGURE OUT ALL THIS?

DEFINITELY MORE COMPLICATED.

EVEN SOME YEARS, SOMEBODY WHO SPENDS MOST OF MY LIFE DEALING WITH THESE ELECTIONS AND PAYING ATTENTION TO POLITICS, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I'M LOOKING UP THE TOWN BOARD RACES AND THE TOWN BOARD CANDIDATES A COUPLE DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAY AND READING THEIR PROFILES AND TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF IT.

BUT MOST VOTERS, ARE THEY GOING TO GET AROUND TO THAT IF THAT'S ON THE BALLOT AT THE SAME TIME THEY'RE TRYING TO VOTE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE OR THE GUBERNATORIAL RACE AND MAKE SENSE OF THESE HIGHER PROFILE CONTESTS GOING ON?

THE SUPPORTER SAYS VOTERS ARE VERY SMART AND THEY WILL FIGURE THIS OUT.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE IF THEY ACTUALLY ARE.

WELL, FINALLY ON THIS TOPIC.

IS THERE AN EXPECTATION THAT GOVERNOR HOCHUL WILL SIGN THIS BILL?

BECAUSE AT LEAST IT'S PERCEIVED TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS VERY HELPFUL FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOWN THE BALLOT.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.

YES, THE DEMOCRATS ARE DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS IN THE LEGISLATURE.

SHE'S KIND OF IN THE UNIQUE POSITION OF BEING THE ONE GOVERNOR IN STATE HISTORY WHO HAS THE MOST EXPERIENCE IN TOWN AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

SHE WAS ON THE HAMBURG TOWN BOARD AND ERIE COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR A WHILE.

NOBODY ELSE COMES CLOSE TO THE DECADES SHE HAD IN THOSE JOBS.

SO SHE'S KIND OF GOT THIS UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE IN HOW THIS MIGHT IMPACT THINGS.

SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS A WEEK AGO WHEN THIS BILL WAS FIRST COMING UP AND SHE SAID THAT IT WOULD DEFINITELY HELP TURNOUT IN THESE RACES.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S GOING TO BE MORE RECEPTIVE TO SOME OF THE CRITICISM THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THESE TOWN AND COUNTY OFFICIALS WHO SAY IT WILL DROWN OUT THEIR RACES.

MAYBE IT WILL FIND A WAY TO RESONATE WITH HER WHEN IT'S SITTING ON HER DESK.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.

WELL, FINALLY, LOOKING AHEAD, THE STATE ASSEMBLY IS LIKELY TO RETURN IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO TAKE CARE OF SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, ESSENTIALLY TO TACKLE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MOVE THROUGH THE SENATE BUT DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WHAT, IF ANY, SURPRISES ARE YOU EXPECTING WHEN LAWMAKERS RETURN TO ALBANY, OR ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT CATCHING UP ON THEIR OVERDUE HOMEWORK?

I DON'T THINK THERE CAN BE TOO MANY MAJOR SURPRISES, AT LEAST BECAUSE THE ONLY THINGS THE ONLY THINGS THEY CAN DO NOW THAT MATTER, UNLESS THE SENATE SURPRISES US ALL AND ANNOUNCED THEY COMING BACK TOO, ARE BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING BACK, TOO, ARE THE BILLS THAT THE SENATE ALREADY PASSED.

SO SOMETHING LIKE A HOUSING DEAL, THEY CAN'T REALLY DO ONE IF THE SENATE'S NOT IN TOWN BECAUSE THE SENATE WOULD NEED TO PASS IT, AND THE SENATE HAS NO PLANS TO COME BACK ANYTIME SOON.

SO IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION OF LOOKING AT THE BILLS THAT THE SENATE HAS ALREADY PASSED THAT THE ASSEMBLY HASN'T GOTTEN TO WHICH IS A PRETTY LONG LIST OF BILLS.

I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT 800 BILLS OR SO AND FIGURING OUT WHICH ONES OF THESE THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHEN THEY'RE AROUND.

AND THERE ARE SOME BILLS THAT WE ANTICIPATE, BILL, GET DONE, THINGS THAT WERE ON THEIR SO-CALLED DEBATE LIST SO THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY HAD PLANNED ON TAKING THEM UP, BUT THERE ARE ALSO MORE CONTROVERSIAL, SO-CALLED ONE-HOUSE BILLS THAT ADVANCED IN THE SENATE BUT WERE CONSIDERED TO BE DEAD IN THE ASSEMBLY.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK ABOUT IS SOMETHING CALLED COVERAGE FOR ALL, WHICH IS BASICALLY ENSURING THAT THE STATE WOULD USE LEFTOVER FEDERAL MONEY TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE TO UNDOCUMENTED NEW YORKERS.

IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT THEY MIGHT TAKE ON SOMETHING MORE CONTROVERSIAL LIKE THAT?

WELL, WHILE WE'RE SPEAKING NOW, AND GRANTED WE HAVE A FEW DAYS AND THERE'S TIME FOR THINGS TO CHANGE RAPIDLY AROUND HERE.

WE COULD GET A SURPRISE WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY IN TOWN, BUT AS OF NOW, THERE'S NO CLEAR SIGNS, BUT THEY'RE ALSO NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THEIR AGENDA'S GOING TO BE.

THIS COVERAGE FOR ALL BILL, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS ONE THAT CONCEPTUALLY IS PRETTY POPULAR WITH DEMOCRATS BUT SOME OF THEM ARE WORRIED THAT THEY COULD USE THESE FEDERAL FUNDS TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE FOR THESE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WITHOUT COSTING THE STATE REALLY ANYTHING IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT THEN A COUPLE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, ONCE THERE'S NO FEDERAL FUNDS LEFT, THERE WILL STILL BE THIS PROGRAM AND THEY'LL BE FORCED TO EITHER CUT OFF HEALTH CARE TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OR START PAYING A LOT OF MONEY THAT COULD GO TO OTHER THINGS.

THERE'S SOME SIGNS THAT SOME DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT AT THIS POINT.

SO WE'LL SEE WHAT THEY WIND UP DOING, BUT THAT IS AN OPEN QUESTION.

THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR, LIKE A BILL THAT WOULD LET NEW YORK CITY SET ITS OWN SPEED LIMITS THAT PASS THE SENATE.

THERE'S A BIG PUSH FOR THE END OF SESSION TO GET THE ASSEMBLY TO TAKE A VOTE, BUT THERE WERE NO SIGNS THAT WAS MOVING IN THE ASSEMBLY EITHER.

WELL, THIS RETURN TO ALBANY ALREADY REPRESENTS OVERTIME, SO TO SPEAK AT THE CAPITOL, BUT DO YOU ANTICIPATE DOUBLE OVERTIME IN ALBANY IN TERMS OF MAYBE A SPECIAL SESSION IN THE FUTURE WHERE THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT TACKLE SOME OF THESE BIG ISSUES THAT PEOPLE WERE PUSHING FOR?

MOST NOTABLY, SOMETHING ON THE HOUSING FRONT.

IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE.

THIS SESSION, IF THEY HAD WRAPPED UP A WEEK AGO THURSDAY, LIKE THEY INITIALLY PLANNED, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE EARLIEST THEY GOT OUT OF TOWN IN A NON-ELECTION YEAR SINCE 1972.

SO THEY WERE KIND OF WORKING OFF THIS CONDENSED SCHEDULE AS IT WAS.

THE BUDGET DRAGGED OUT ALL THE WAY TO MAY.

SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE A TIME AT THE END OF SESSION TO REALLY HASH OUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK FROM LEGISLATORS THAT THERE WAS SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS THAT THEY DIDN'T GET AROUND TO HASHING OUT.

SO IF THERE ARE TALKS OVER THE SUMMER, MAYBE THEY CAN COME BACK AND DO SOME THINGS.

THERE'S DEFINITELY LOTS OF THINGS THAT ACTIVISTS WOULD LIKE THEM TO DO, BUT THERE IS ALSO KIND A SENSE THAT ALBANY IS A BIT BURNT OUT AFTER THE NON-STOP RUSH OF THINGS WE'VE HAD, WHERE USUALLY THE ODD-NUMBERED YEARS ARE THE QUIET YEARS ON THE CALENDAR BECAUSE ALL THESE LEGISLATORS ARE ON THE BALLOT IN THE EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS, BUT THE LAST TIME WE HAD AN ODD-NUMBERED YEAR, WE WERE STILL IN THE HEART OF THE PANDEMIC, AND WE HAD CUOMO IMPEACHMENT STUFF GOING ON, SO THERE WAS NEVER REALLY A BREAK.

SO A LOT OF LAWMAKERS ARE KIND OF WORKING ON FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS NOW WITHOUT HAVING A DOWN TIME JUST BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED RECENTLY, AND THE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS THIS YEAR KIND OF BURNT THEM OUT.

AT LEAST AS OF NOW, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ENERGY LOOKING TO THINK THAT THEY MIGHT TAKE ON THESE NEW THINGS, BUT THEY'LL CATCH THEIR BREATH AT SOME POINT.

THEY MIGHT HAVE TALKS AND WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FALL OR WINTER.

WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH BILL MAHONEY OF POLITICO NEW YORK.

THANKS SO MUCH, BILL.

THANK YOU.

[ THEME MUSIC ] AND THAT'S OUR SHOW.

FOR MORE "NEW YORK NOW" CONTENT, INCLUDING PAST EPISODES AND SPECIAL ONLINE PROGRAMMING, HEAD TO OUR WEBSITE, NYNOW.ORG, AND WHILE YOU'RE THERE, YOU CAN ALSO SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER WHICH PROVIDES A QUICK AND COMPREHENSIVE ROUNDUP OF STATE GOVERNMENT NEWS FROM THE WEEK BEFORE AND GETS YOU EARLY ACCESS TO THE SHOW.

WHAT COULD BE BETTER?

UNTIL NEXT TIME, I'M DAVID LOMBARDO.

DAN CLARK WILL BE BACK WITH YOU NEXT WEEK, I PROMISE.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >>ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "NEW YORK NOW" IS PROVIDED WNET.