New York State collects and spends an enormous amount of money.  Last year’s state budget, for example, exceeded $220 billion, second only to the state of California.  The state is also home to some of the loosest campaign finance rules in the nation.  Using the leverage of state spending powers to rake in campaign contributions has been a time-honored practice among New York’s elected officials. 

In light of this reality, oversight of state spending is an important check on the obvious abuses that can – and too often do – occur.  But governors resist having fiscal watchdogs.  Most recently, former Governor Cuomo successfully championed a measure in 2011 to curtail the oversight functions of the state Comptroller – the state’s top fiscal watchdog.  The former governor’s argument was that the Comptroller’s review of state contracting moved too slowly and that he needed quick actions on his plans for economic development.  The Comptroller denied that claim, but the then-popular governor steamrolled opposition and the Legislature agreed to reduce the Comptroller’s oversight.

In hindsight, that move proved the old proverb “haste makes waste.”

New York State’s Comptroller is a separately elected official.   The state Constitution established a separately elected Comptroller who is supposed to be free of interference from other governmental offices.  It is the Comptroller who is charged with monitoring the state finances.

The 2011 move had its consequences.  As a result of federal investigations into the Cuomo-era “Buffalo Billion” and other economic development actions, top aides to the former governor were sentenced to prison for shaking down campaign contributors who were interested in state government contracts – known as a “pay-to-play” scheme. 

Had the Comptroller retained his oversight powers, would that – and other – schemes have occurred?  Of course there is no way to know for sure, but people do behave differently when they are being watched.  Experience shows that stronger oversight reduces corruption risks; more lax oversight leads to the opposite.

During the recent legislative session, lawmakers acted to restore the Comptroller’s powers.  While the evidence of oversight omissions alone should have moved them to act, having a new governor likely played a role as well.

The governor has yet to say if she’ll approve the bill restoring Comptroller oversight.  Approval of the legislation would send a powerful signal that Governor Hochul understands the need for stronger independent oversight of contracting.  She has seen how the previous Administration’s preference for speed over accountability can lead to corruption. 

She also knows that it’s not just members of the previous Administration or only the executive branch.  Members of the Legislature have themselves been caught up in corruption investigations in which they were doing the bidding of campaign contributors as part of their “pay-to-play” arrangements.  Most recently, the former Lt. Governor was charged by federal prosecutors in a scheme to pay back a campaign contributor by directing state monies to his organization.  That matter is still pending.

Governor Hochul is currently building an enormous warchest in her effort to win the election this November.  According to reporting in The New York Times – the governor set a target of raising a total of $50 to $70 million by Election Day.  A mind-boggling amount of money in little over a year of being governor.

Also according to the Times, many of her campaign contributions came from those with business before the government.  The Times reported Hochul raised over $200,000 from the gambling industry, which is waiting for three new licenses to be issued by the state for casinos in and around New York City.

It’s easy to understand why the governor wants a huge campaign warchest – it will pay for an expensive campaign and ensure that donors think twice about funding her opponents.  But it does raise the policy question of what the state should do to ensure that the influence of campaign donors is not influencing the awarding of government contracts.

One way to ensure that such oversight exists hinges on how the governor chooses to act on the legislation restoring the powers of the state Comptroller.  Stating her support for the legislation will help re-assure public confidence in state governmental decision-making; staying mum will raise concerns that the bad old days may be here to stay.

New York voters are once again trooping to the polls this week.  In what can only be described as maddeningly confusing, primaries for some of New York’s representatives will be voted on through August 23^rd, the first primaries held during August in New York’s modern political history.

In June, primaries were held for Democratic and Republican candidates for statewide offices – Governor, Lt. Governor, Comptroller, and Attorney General, as well as for candidates for the state Assembly.  This go round includes primaries for candidates running for the state Senate and to represent New York in the Congressional House of Representatives. 

New York runs “closed primaries,” meaning that only voters enrolled in a political party can vote for that party’s primary candidates.  Traditionally, primaries are low turnout affairs and that was the case in June.  Given that at least some New York Democrats and Republicans who voted in June will assume that they’re done, it is widely expected that turnout will be even lower for the August vote.

And for voters in the Hudson Valley, this August vote adds even more confusion.  When Antonio Delgado resigned from the House of Representatives to become New York’s Lt. Governor, state law required a special election to replace him.

So voters in Congressional District 19, the seat that Delgado held, will choose a replacement for the remainder of his term, through the end of the calendar year.  That vote also is going on this week and into August 23^rd.  The candidates for that race feature Democratic Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan running against Republican County Executive Marc Molinaro.  As mentioned the winner fills in Delgado’s seat through the end of the calendar year.

But due to redistricting, that seat’s boundaries shifted.  At the same time as Ryan and Molinaro are running against each other to fill the seat that is vacant for the rest of the year, they are both running in different districts to be their respective party’s nominees for this November’s general election.  Ryan is running for the Democratic nomination for a full term in the new 18th District, which encompasses a swath of the Hudson Valley, while Molinaro is seeking a full tern in the new 19th, which stretches west to include the cities of Binghamton and Ithaca.  (There is a special election for an open Congressional seat in the Rochester area as well.)

New Yorkers can’t be faulted for failing to keep this all straight.  The question is why is this the case?

The reason for two sets of primaries is the result of legal decisions that upended New York’s defective redistricting process.  Under the state Constitution, after the census is conducted every ten years, a Redistricting Commission is supposed to draw the new political boundaries to reflect changes in the state’s population.  A new approach was designed and advanced by then-Governor Cuomo and approved by voters in 2014.

Yet, there was a fatal flaw in New York’s redistricting program: The Commission was made up of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.  Many predicted partisan gridlock and sure enough the Commission could not agree on the new maps.

Instead they advanced two sets of maps – one drawn by Democrats and one by Republicans.  Under the Constitution, the Legislature is required to vote on the plan.  If they reject the Commission’s proposal, the Commission must react by drawing a second set of maps for legislative approval.  The equally-divided Commission failed to advance a second set of maps.  So, the Legislature – as seemingly allowed under the Constitution, drew its own maps, approved them, and Governor Hochul signed them into law. 

The state’s courts, however, ruled that action impermissible, meaning that the Legislature should have waited for the second set of maps – even if the Commission didn’t or couldn’t act. 

The courts threw out the Senate and Congressional maps drawn by the Legislature and then had an outside expert redraw new ones and moved those primaries to August to account for the delays while the cases moved through the courts.

The system for replacing elected representatives who do not finish their terms also stems from the Cuomo era.  During that time, Governor Cuomo would often hold special elections (replacing elected officials who no longer served) as part of a negotiated deal with lawmakers.  There were times when then-Governor Cuomo failed to call a special election for months in order apparently to secure some agreement with the legislative leaders.  Such delays left voters without representation in either Albany or Washington.

To respond to that tactic, legislation was ultimately approved that requires the governor to set the date for a special election within ten days of an elected official leaving office – such as Lt. Governor Delgado did.

Those Cuomo era changes – to redistricting and special elections – are the root causes of the confusing situation some voters find themselves in today.

In addition to the flawed ethics system, these election changes call out for reform when lawmakers return to Albany: a new redistricting system that relies on an independent non-partisan commission and a primary election system that encourages maximum turnout, not one that requires voters to go to the polls during the dog days of August.

This November, New York voters will cast ballots for Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, one U.S. Senate seat (senior senator, currently Schumer) and for Congressional Representatives in Washington, as well as lawmakers in the New York State Assembly and Senate.  New Yorkers also will have the opportunity to vote on an Environmental Bond Act that is critical to the state’s ability to meet its climate goals set in law.

While New York is considered a “blue” state – meaning that Democrats far outnumber Republicans – few things are a certainty in politics.  But with a 2-to-1 and growing enrollment advantage, Democrats have come to dominate New York State politics.  A Republican hasn’t been elected to a statewide position in twenty years – George Pataki’s election to a third term as governor in 2002.

But due to redistricting, elections to Congress are much more competitive than had been expected.  The new political district lines drawn by the courts for New York’s House of Representatives has resulted in what could be very competitive matches.

According to the Cook Political Report, New York State has more “toss up” House elections than any other state in the nation (four NY CDs: 3, 18, 19, and 22).  Right now, Democrats hold a small majority in the 435 member House of Representatives, meaning that these “toss-up” races – both in New York and the rest of the nation – may determine who controls that Chamber.

Given the narrow Democratic majority and the number of “toss-up” seats in New York, turnout this November could well determine overall control of the House of Representatives and the direction of the country.  No small matter.

Nationally, this is an important midterm election.  Whichever party wins control of Congress will have a major impact on the direction of the country during the final two years of President Biden’s term in office – on issues such as climate change, infrastructure, health care, voting rights, civil liberties, and more.  The actions of this Congress will likely also influence the 2024 Presidential election.

An important – and overlooked – change to New York elections may bring a large number of new and young voters to the polls.  Buried in April’s state budget agreement was language that requires local elections officials to place a polling site on virtually all colleges with dormitories.  The new law stated, “Whenever a contiguous property of a college or university contains three hundred or more registrants who are registered to vote at any address on such contiguous property, the polling place designated for such registrants shall be on such contiguous property or at a nearby location recommended by the college or university and agreed to by the board of elections.”

The deadline for those decisions was last week.  As of August 1^st, colleges with dorms housing at least 300 registrants must have a polling location.  How well that process played out is still unclear, but most college students with dorms should expect to see a campus-based polling place.

As a result, college student voters have an opportunity to significantly impact the outcome of the 2022 General Election in New York.  For the first time, all eligible students who live at a covered college campus will be able to vote at a poll site placed at (or near) their college campus.  Students will not have to make travel arrangements to get to an off-campus location, or vote absentee.  The result will be likely be a significant increase in college student voter turnout, giving students a greater voice and impact in the outcome of the 2022 Election.

The location of college campus poll sites matter.  Despite the constitutional right-to-vote, students have far too often faced obstacles to voter registration and participation across the state.  The unfortunate history of student voting has been one in which local elections officials too often seek to suppress participation.  Some counties target students by further splitting campus populations into multiple election districts or removing campus poll sites and moving others conveniently located for students.

On-campus poll sites and early voting have demonstrated success in other states.  For example, when Florida implemented early voting on some college campuses in 2018, they saw significantly higher rates of voter participation by young voters and Black and Hispanic voters.

Bringing poll sites to college campuses across New York is a significant victory for young voters and will have a measurable impact on college student voting.  As the climate crisis and other pressing issues make clear, young voters have an enormous amount at stake in elections: their future depends on the decisions elected representatives make today.  In New York for the first time, significant barriers to student voting should be removed so those voices can help shape their own future.

Another hot summer and fresh reminders all around us of how global warming is destroying our environment.  Unprecedented heat waves, huge wildfires, once-in-a-millennium droughts, all are examples of the impacts that a rapidly heating planet is having on the world around us. 

The decades-old predictions of how climate changes would destabilize the world’s climate have turned out to be accurate – and in some ways underestimated the negative impacts.

The heat, the droughts, the fires, the famines are all obvious examples.  But there are other threats that are less obvious.

After a blistering heat wave last week, lakes across New York State are warming up.  Warmer waters make it more likely that we all will use these freshwaters for our own recreation.  But that use, as well as the use of freshwaters for drinking sources, are under threat of an insidious poison – algal blooms.

The blooms are a blue-green slimy substance that floats in water.  Harmful algal blooms aren’t your typical green surface ooze that you may see on the top of lake waters.  While ugly to look at when at the surface, a bloom can also be dangerous, so much so that the state has a blanket policy warning to stay out of the water should there be evidence of one.

The heating planet drives the production of algal blooms.  Warmer temperatures prevent water from mixing, allowing algae to grow thicker and faster.  Algal blooms absorb sunlight, making water even warmer and promoting more blooms. 

While every algal bloom isn’t toxic – some algal species can produce both toxic and nontoxic blooms – toxic blooms can cause problems for swimmers and other recreational users in the form of rashes or allergic reactions.  People who swim in a bloom may experience health effects, including nausea, vomiting, headaches, respiratory problems, skin rash and other reactions.  There have also been reports nationwide of dogs and livestock dying shortly after swimming or wading in a bloom.

Heat alone doesn’t stimulate algal blooms.  As we know, climate changes have also caused stronger, more powerful storms, storms that release much more rainwater than in storms of the past.  Those incredible downpours swiftly flush whatever is sitting on the land directly into lakes, so instead of letting a natural filtration process take place, nutrients that would benefit the soil are washed into surface waters and wreak havoc in the water in the form of algal blooms.

The nutrients these blooms primarily rely on are phosphorus and nitrogen.  The algal blooms have increased due to a rise in nutrient runoff from sources such as soil erosion from fertilized agricultural areas and lawns, erosion from river banks, river beds, land clearing (deforestation), and sewage effluent.  All of these are the major sources of phosphorus and nitrogen entering waterways.  These nutrients coupled with warm, calm water is the recipe for an algal bloom.

Usually, algal blooms crop up in late summer and early fall.  This year, they have begun showing up in lakes across New York.  The DEC has identified 77 algal blooms as of the middle of July. 

To check out the New York lakes where algal blooms are a concern, you can go to the DEC website, which has a harmful algal bloom notifications webpage that it updates regularly.  You can Google “DEC algal blooms map” to see the listings and how to file a possible bloom siting.

While much of western North America has experienced droughts and wildfires, the northeast has largely avoided those catastrophes.  But we are enduing our own crisis in the form of algal blooms.  New York State has experienced a tenfold increase in the number of waterbodies experiencing a bloom over the past 10 years and $6 billion in mitigation expenses and lost economic value.

While we all must do everything possible to reduce the world’s reliance on fossil fuels and aggressively embrace energy efficiency programs and alternative energy sources, due to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, the planet will continue to heat up.  There is not much that New York can do to reduce the damage that has already been done and that is fueling the current rising heat of the planet.  But when it comes to protecting surface waters and drinking water supplies, the state has to do a lot more to reduce the runoff from agriculture, landscaping and wastewater sources.  New York must be proactive about protecting drinking water supplies and recreational waters.  The costs for prevention are cheaper than the cost of remediation and illness.

It’s hard to be optimistic about today’s world.  The planet feels like it’s in tatters.  There’s the escalating climate crisis that has left much of Southern Europe in flames, regions of the U.S. with dwindling water supplies, heat waves claiming lives worldwide, and the threats from rising sea levels; an ongoing pandemic that shows no signs of relaxing its deadly grip; and an unprovoked savage war launched by Russia.  These are just some of the present threats to public safety and the economy.  With all that’s going on, the impulse to ignore rather than act on these difficult problems is understandable.

But ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.  Action is the appropriate and necessary response.  While a pandemic had been predicted, it nevertheless caught the world unready.  Systematic underfunding of public health programs – and stockpiling the necessary equipment to handle pandemics, like face masks, gloves, and gowns – resulted in more carnage than if we’d been prudently prepared.

Even when it comes to war, not electing people who coddle the Russian war machine can help.

Clearly governmental preparation and competence are central to reacting to the inevitable crises that arise.  Yet, even then, efforts can fail.

For example, scientists have known for decades that the burning of fossil fuels would lead to global warming that could threaten civilization as we know it.  However, instead of alerting the public to these dangers, the fossil fuel industries made it worse by their  deliberate misinformation campaigns to undermine the science and then to install climate denier toadies into public offices. 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sounded the alarms earlier this month on an often overlooked issue with its report on the number of American deaths caused by antibiotic resistant “superbugs.”  According to the CDC more than 30,000 Americans died in 2020 from these killer “superbugs.”

The CDC tied some of these deaths to the COVID pandemic.  According to the CDC, the number of deaths caused by infections impervious to antibiotics and antifungal medications rose 15 percent during the first year of the pandemic compared to 2019.  Much of the increase was the result of doctors and nurses struggling to treat seriously ill patients whose disease they did not fully understand.  Experts have speculated that the recent growth of antibiotic-resistant infections due to overuse and misuse during the pandemic has wiped out whatever gains had been made to slow the growth of these “superbugs.”

Like the climate crisis, public experts have been warning of the threat of antibiotics resistance for decades.  In 1968, a paper published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine detailed how more than a dozen patients and a nurse at a facility became infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, more commonly known as MRSA.  It was the first documented MRSA outbreak in the United States and the doctors concluded that “it seems reasonable to predict that [MRSA] will become more widespread in the United States and may present some clinical and epidemiological problems in the future.”

A half century later, the researchers’ conclusions have come true.  MRSA is widespread and other more dangerous “superbugs” threaten our health.

Antibiotics are miracle drugs.  They treat common infections and make possible modern medical interventions such as chemotherapy, organ transplants, and surgeries. Before antibiotics, more soldiers died of their wounds than died on the battlefield.

But these life-saving drugs are being taken for granted and many bacteria have become resistant to them.  Given enough time, bacterial evolution will render every antibiotic ineffective.  According to experts, unless new medicines come on the market, by the year 2050 more people will die from “superbugs” than die of cancer.  Unless science comes to the rescue, we are entering into a post-antibiotics age.

The future of new medical breakthroughs is, as of now, looking bleak.  According to the World Health Organization, development of new antibacterial treatments is inadequate to address the mounting threat of antibiotic resistance.  Since 2017 only 12 antibiotics have been approved, 10 of which belong to existing classes with established mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance.

So what to do?  The public health strategy should be focused on reducing the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, thus slowing the evolution of “superbugs” while scientific research can catch up.  The world’s and nation’s experts have argued for a “One Health” approach to coordinating programs to reduce the speed of the “slow moving pandemic” of the rise of “superbugs.”

Yet no state has embraced the “One Health” approach.  Legislation has been introduced to require New York to establish one central coordinating entity to battle “superbugs.”  Enactment should be at the top of the list of “must dos” for the next governor.

New York State has often stepped up when national policies have failed.  It has done so on climate policies, it can do so again on fighting “superbugs.”

Action, not ignorance, is what we should demand of those we elect to lead.