This past weekend New Yorkers began to go to the polls to vote in the 2026 election. On the ballot there are elections for Congress, statewide offices, the state legislature, and many local offices. That last one is new – a new law moved many races for local office to even-numbered years in an effort to boost voter participation.

That’s not the only thing that’s new. Technologies – powered by Artificial Intelligence – will likely have an even greater impact than in previous elections.

Chatbots have the potential to make it much easier for voters to get the information that they need to choose who to vote for. Yet those same technologies have the potential to cause havoc in these elections.

With a week or so until the General Election, the intensity of the battle between Democrats and Republicans is reaching a fever pitch. It is this time – the last few weeks before the General Election – that some candidates resort to political “dirty tricks” to suppress turnout for their opponents while juicing up supporters to show up at the polls.

AI-powered technologies are now so advanced that it is extremely difficult for the public to figure out real electioneering from fake. Under New York law, altered, fake messages are supposed to come with a warning that they are not what they appear to be. Unfortunately, sometimes those warnings are missed by the casual viewer.

In an effort to combat voter confusion, the state’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has released its recommendations on how to consume political communications.

Let’s start with the basics. AI is not all knowing (at least not yet). Sometimes chatbots offer incorrect information. Just like the public should be cautious when using chatbots – most notably ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot – for research and problem solving since errors can occur, they should be careful when using these tools for gathering information in order to vote.

The concern goes beyond imperfect research. Malicious actors can use these powerful tools to try to actively influence the election. The public can’t rely on self-regulation by the tech companies – there is little evidence that major companies are doing enough to combat such dirty tricks.

So, it’s up to the voters to be conscious of the danger and adopt practical measures to minimize the possibility of being bamboozled by bad actors in political campaigns. Here are a few:

• Do not rely on AI chatbots to answer questions about elections or voting.
• Be skeptical of photos, videos, and audio circulating online about elections, candidates, or their campaigns. Remember that it may be fake.
• Do not assume something is real just because it looks or sounds real. AI fakes have evolved to the point that they may have no obvious flaws.
• Do not share content that seems suspicious without confirmation that it is real and accurate.
• Check any information on elections or voting that comes from unofficial sources and encourage others to do the same.
• Be mindful that the information in a phone call about voting or elections may be inaccurate or fake. Remember to verify information with official sources.
• Report false information about elections or voting, especially about when, where, or how to vote, to the OAG.

If you want detailed information on where to go to vote and when you can vote, use government websites, not chatbots. You can get that information by going to the New York State Board of Elections website, https://elections.ny.gov/ways-vote.

If you are not sure if you are registered to vote, you can check your voter registration status online on the SBOE website. October 24^th was the first day of early voting. Early voting lasts through November 1^st. The best way to know the hours of early voting and local polling locations – which are often different from those used for the traditional General Election Day voting – is to check with your local county board of elections’ websites.

The General Election Day is Tuesday November 3^rd during the period 6 a.m. through 9 p.m. (remember if you have voted during the early voting period, or if you voted by mail, you cannot vote again during the General Election). Don’t get fooled by those seeking to undermine your vote. Rely on trusted sources and show up to have your voice heard.

Quietly last month the New York State Democratic Committee transferred $10 million to Governor Hochul’s re-election campaign warchest. You heard that right: $10 million. And the move was entirely legal.

How did the State Democratic Committee get that much money? It’s the result of a loophole in the state’s campaign finance law that most New Yorkers have never heard of, but Albany’s “fat cats” know very well.

First some background.

New York’s campaign finance law sets contribution limits for those running for state and local office. For someone running for governor, the limits are no more than $9,000 per donor for a primary election (if there is one) and no more than $9,000 for the general. Contribution ceilings are supposed to limit donor influence on parties and candidates.

New York, like much of America, has a campaign finance system that allows the knowledgeable contributor to skirt the rules. In this case, contributors can donate to so-called “party committees.” These obscure committees are controlled by the leadership of the political party or legislative conference (or local political committees).

These committees receive few contributions, but the amount can be enormous. It is perfectly legal in New York to write a check for as much as $138,600 to a political party committee. In addition, the party committee then can transfer as much as it wants to the candidate of its choice. That’s how the State Democratic Committee, effectively controlled by the governor, was able to transfer $10 million to the governor’s re-election bid.

Who makes campaign contributions that exceed $138,000 – a sum beyond the average income for a New Yorker? It goes without saying that the wealthy and the powerful are the only ones capable of writing those checks. And it is precisely those entities that want something back from government.

A new report examined contributions to the party committees. Not surprisingly, Democratic Party-affiliated party committees – the party that dominates politics in Albany – collected the most money. Here’s some of the report’s key findings:

• During the last four and a half years (the most recent data available), of the nearly $117 million in campaign contributions to the political party committees, the state and legislative Democratic campaign committees received 72%. In every instance, state Democratic committees dominated their Republican committee counterparts.
• For the same period, among the largest sources of contributions were those that had business before government, with Political Action Committees (PACs) being the largest. PACs are almost always organized to provide electoral “punch” to groups that lobby state government.

This system is not new and it’s one that benefits both political parties when they are in control.

In the 1980s a special commission examined party committee contributions. It concluded: “The Commission found that this creates an unhealthy climate of indebtedness, with some candidates owing their success to party leaders who are in turn dangerously dependent on large contributions from special interests and those doing business with the government.”

Forty years later, nothing much changed. Reformers argue that contributions to party committees must be dramatically lowered and that limits must be placed on transfers from state parties to their candidates. Until those measures are taken, the findings of the four-decade-old report will continue to ring true: meaning party leaders “dangerously dependent on large contributions from special interests and those doing business with the government.”

We’ve known since ancient times that exposure to lead is a public health threat.  Aging infrastructure, old paint in buildings, emissions from cars, and, sadly, drinking water, have all been sources of lead exposure in the United States.

But exposure to lead is of particular concern when it comes to children.  Their growing bodies act as a sponge when it comes to lead.  Lead found in drinking water, particularly in schools, is an especially pernicious threat.  There is no safe level of exposure to lead.  As a result, it is of critical importance that we eliminate as many sources of exposure as possible.  The well documented social costs of childhood lead poisoning include learning impairments, behavioral problems, lost IQ points and a range of serious physical ailments.  Prevention is the most efficient and effective response to the presence of lead in a child’s environment. Yet, as millions of children went back to school this month, they are in danger of being exposed to lead when they drink water at schools.

One decade ago, New York took its first steps in combating the threat of lead drinking water in the state’s school buildings.  In 2016, a law was enacted that required K-12 schools to test for lead in drinking water supplies and if levels were found to exceed 15 parts per billion (ppb), remediation was required.  In 2021, that level was dropped to 5 ppb and all public and charter schools are required to test every drinking water outlet at least once every three years.

Unfortunately, state data shows that it is urgent to move beyond testing and instead move toward prevention.  In a report examining the most recent test results available from the state Health Department, New York’s lead drinking water testing results were closely examined and the conclusions are stunning.  Despite ten years of “testing and fixing,” the new report showed that lead contamination in school drinking water from Montauk to Buffalo remains common.  The state data shows: 

• 12,500 water outlets at New York State public schools tested above the state’s 5 ppb threshold for lead; and
• 42% of school buildings across New York state (nearly 2,000 schools) reported at least one water outlet used for drinking or cooking had lead levels that exceeded 5 ppb.

In the Greater Capital Region and in the mid-Hudson Valley,

• 60% of school buildings in each Schenectady County and Schoharie County had at least one water outlet positive for lead above 5 ppb;
• Both Columbia and Hamilton counties ranked in the state’s top ten counties for the percentage of water outlets testing above 5 ppb. In Columbia County, 15% of all outlets tested above the state’s 5 ppb threshold, and 15% of schools in Hamilton County tested above that benchmark; 50% of the Albany County schools had drinking water samples contaminated with lead; and
• In the mid-Hudson Valley Region, Orange County schools reported 36% tested above the state limit, Ulster County with 24%, Dutchess County with 24%, and Sullivan County with 19%. 12% of Putnam County school buildings reported at least one outlet exceeding the state’s 5 ppb standard.

State law only requires that school districts repair water sources that test positive for lead at 5 ppb or higher.  But given the inherent variability of lead in water, only treating taps where water exceeded this level of lead during testing has left persistent contamination problems at many schools.  Furthermore, many other tested water sources contain lead below 5 ppb, so schools don’t remediate the problem in those places even though any amount of lead threatens a child’s health and children may be exposed to lead through other sources, such as paint at home and lead in soil on playgrounds.

Fortunately, this public health threat is solvable.  There is legislation pending in New York that would provide a reliable, cost-effective and immediately available solution to address this toxic health crisis. Senate bill 7777-A requires the installation of lead-capturing filters on all school taps used for drinking, cooking and beverage preparation. The state of Michigan already does this. New York should, too.

It’s that time of year when leaves are turning color, autumn is around the corner, and colleges have opened across New York. A college experience promises to dramatically impact students’ lives, often shaping their career paths and opening their minds to new ideas. Colleges help mold the state’s – and the nation’s – future civic and business leaders.

Colleges not only educate the adult leaders of the future, but they are also dynamic “economic engines.” These economic engines create jobs that stimulate and anchor local economies. Independent colleges and universities in New York State contributed an estimated $97 billion to the state’s economy and supported more than 400,000 jobs. The State University of New York contributes as well: SUNY’s economic impact in the state is $31 billion. For every $1 invested in SUNY, New York State’s economy benefits the equivalent of $8.67 and is responsible for nearly 2% of the gross state product.

These institutions (as well as the City University of New York) provide cultural and educational resources to the larger community, contributing to the quality of life in their communities. Both sectors – independent colleges and SUNY – exist side-by-side across the state and both contribute mightily to the state.

When New York State decided to expand the State University system in the middle of the 20^th Century, not surprisingly independent colleges were concerned that their finances would be undermined by the public sector. In order to assuage those concerns, the state made a promise to the independent sector to offset any financial difficulties with financial support.

New York State established the Unrestricted Aid to Independent Colleges and Universities (known as “Bundy Aid”). Bundy Aid directs financial support to independent colleges. The program was established in 1968 with the goal of providing an answer to the question “how the State can help preserve the strength and vitality of our private and independent institutions of higher education….” In response, the state decided that “the moderate but real level of need calls for direct assistance from New York to private colleges and universities.”

Once a vital component of independent colleges’ finances, the program has been decimated by cuts over the past four decades. The peak state support occurred during the 1989-90 fiscal year, when nearly $114 million was appropriated. During the current fiscal year, that amount has been reduced to under $20 million. If New York had merely kept pace with inflation, the amount of Bundy Aid would be around $260 million – not less than $20 million.

The result? Not surprisingly, many colleges – usually small ones – have seen their finances become damaged or worse. According to New York education officials, over the last 18 years, New York has lost seventeen independent colleges, universities, and other degree-granting institutions. Ten of those seventeen shut their doors in only the last few years, throwing their students into educational uncertainty and potentially, entire communities into economic insecurity. Recent examples of colleges closing includes the College of St. Rose in Albany, N.Y. and Wells College in Aurora, N.Y., both in 2024. In 2023, two other colleges closed their doors.

Those campuses are, unfortunately, not alone when it comes to financial concerns. In a recent review of private colleges conducted by Forbes magazine, nineteen of New York’s 72 colleges and universities (26%) scored poor financial grades (C- or D).

Why should we care?

As noted, colleges not only educate the leaders of the future, but also provide reliable, productive economic development support to communities all across the state. There are also cultural hubs, which enrich those communities. Based on its track record, New York’s elected leadership hasn’t considered the independent sector of higher education an important component of the budget. But as independent campuses close and others struggle, New York’s decisions are costing jobs and economic activity. It’s long past time for New York to honor the promise made in 1968 and restore support to the state’s struggling independent sector.

Labor Day weekend marks the unofficial beginning of the campaign season. Of course, candidates have been hitting the hustings for months and primaries have already been held, but with most Americans more interested in summer barbecues, vacations, and fun in the sun, candidates know that voters only now start turning their attention to the upcoming elections.

In less than two months, in fact, New Yorkers will be able to start going to early voting polling centers and submitting mail-in ballots– that is if the President’s efforts to derail mail-in voting fail.

Running for office is rough-and tumble and “mud” is often “slung” as the candidates battle for advantage. However, until recently serious challenges to the manner in which elections were run were few and far between.

President Trump has been a leader in the challenging of election results – in his view, only elections that he wins are ones that are valid. When he loses he falsely claims it is due to a “rigged” result. He has raised the same false claim when his allies lose. This isn’t just bad sportsmanship and being a “sore loser,” it’s dangerous for democracy.

Mimicking that line has emerged nationally when candidates lose elections and the specter of a “rigged election” is floated before votes are even cast. That claim has been raised already in the race for New York Governor.

In an effort to blunt the possibility of a claim that an election has been “stolen” in New York, civic organizations last week urged candidates for federal and state office to “join in a bipartisan effort affirming the importance and the integrity of the outcome of the state’s upcoming elections.”

The groups pointed out that ‘Every elected official swears to support and defend the federal and state Constitutions. That promise hinges on a commitment to abide by the certified results of elections, without regard to party or power. Comments by candidates for office that echo assertions – without evidence – that previous elections have been ‘stolen,’ or otherwise raise such concerns, undermine that commitment.”

The groups spotlighted New York’s election security system that allows challenges to election results and contains mechanisms for the audits of results and recounts. They highlighted that New York law is backstopped by the use of paper ballots that can be counted in the event of a challenge. 

In the statement, issued by Citizens Union, Common Cause/NY, the League of Women Voters/N.Y.S., New York City Bar, NYPIRG, and Reinvent Albany, the groups urged that “candidates for New York office safeguard the integrity of the state elections.”

The groups’ clear concern is that the lies directed at how elections are run not only causes voter confusion but undermines Americans’ belief in their own democracy. In short, the groups said, those lies are a cancer in our democracy.

Since the beginning of the nation, New York’s electeds have honored the decisions by voters regardless of who prevails. The groups argued that New York’s candidates for office must commit to that principle ahead of the 2026 elections — defending state certification, recognizing certified winners, and opposing any effort to cast doubt on the integrity of New York’s system.

The New York Constitution clearly states that there is a right to vote; it is a “right,” not a privilege. There is no such provision stating that there is a right to open a bank account, or to buy alcohol. As with any other “right,” policymakers must, from time to time, ensure that obstacles to the exercise of that right are as few as possible to guarantee that right is realized and isn’t being infringed upon by outdated laws and/or the failure to implement technologies that could better enfranchise voters.

By clearly urging candidates to state their support for the election verdict rendered by a majority of the voters and publicly challenge claims of election fraud, the groups are setting a standard that they hope those running for office will embrace. Candidates’ endorsement of this standard will also help convince New Yorkers that they should be confident in the outcome of elections and by extension their own democracy. Few things could be more important this election season.