While Election Day is still a couple of weeks away, voting has started here in New York. For those of you old enough to remember the days of the lever voting behind a “Wizard-of-Oz” curtain, casting your ballot in New York has changed a lot.

The lever machines are out, filling in the paper-ballot bubble is in. Nowadays scanning machines quickly tabulate the paper votes, leaving a physical document that has your vote, unlike the old days when no such record existed.

And that’s not the only thing that’s changed. Instead of only being able to vote on the first Tuesday in November, New Yorkers can vote during an early voting period and can now cast their choices through the mail.

As a result, New York votes are now more secure and casting a ballot is much easier. And New York has moved near the national average in the election participation.

This year, New Yorkers can choose one of three ways to vote:

• In person (during the early voting period or on Election Day);
• By requesting an absentee ballot (if you will be traveling or due to an illness); or
• New this year – by requesting an early voting mail-in ballot without needing to provide an excuse.

For those who are interested in voting through the mail, this is the last week to register to do so. The mail-in ballot (that does not require an excuse) is new, so if you would like to vote this way, here is how.

Request a mail-in ballot online or visit your local Board of Elections office.  Mail-in ballot applications must be received by the Board of Elections by this Saturday, October 26th.  Your ballot will be sent to you immediately after your application is received and processed.

If you are mailing in your ballot, when you have finished voting, fold the ballot and put it in the security envelope. Sign, date, and seal the security envelope. Put it in the return envelope and mail it, postmarked no later than November 5th. Return envelopes already include postage and the return address of your Board of Elections.

If you do not want to mail your ballot, you have a few options: Hand deliver it to your local county Board of Elections office by November 5th before 9 PM. Bring it to an early voting site in your county between October 26th and November 3rd (hours and locations vary by county). Or bring it to a poll site in your county on Election Day (November 5th before 9 PM).

Once you have mailed in your ballot, after a few days you can then track your early mail-in ballot online.

If you haven’t registered to vote, you still have time. This Saturday, October 26^th is also the voter registration deadline. If you are not sure if you are registered to vote, you can check your voter registration status online.  If you are not registered yet, you can register online or visit your local Board of Elections office to pick up a voter registration form. But don’t delay, as noted the voter registration deadline is October 26^th.

October 26^th is also the first day of early voting. Early voting lasts through Nov. 3^rd. Polling hours may vary, and early voting sites may differ from Election Day voting sites. The best way to know the hours of early voting and the polling locations – which are often different from those used for the traditional General Election Day – is to check with your local county board of elections.

Registered voters may cast ballots during early voting. In addition to checking their voter status, the State Board of Elections website will provide the location for early voting and Election Day polling places.

The General Election Day is Tuesday November 5^th 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).

However you choose to vote, when you have received your ballot, vote for the candidates of your choice on the front, and flip over your ballot to vote on the question(s) on the back (every voter will have a statewide ballot proposal, and your ballot may also include local ballot proposals from your municipal government).

Wherever you are along the partisan divide, over the next couple of weeks you have your opportunity to have your voice heard. You can vote by mail, cast a ballot early starting this Saturday, or vote on the traditional General Election Day, November 5^th. As the saying goes, not choosing is choosing. Vote.

Last week the New York State Commission on Legislative, Judicial, & Executive Compensation held a public hearing to accept comments on whether to increase the current compensation for the Legislature and the governor. The compensation levels recommended by the Commission will take effect unless changed by the Legislature and the governor. Since June 2015, the Commission consists of seven appointed members – three chosen by the Governor, one by the Senate Majority Leader, one by the Assembly Speaker, and two by the Chief Judge of the state’s highest court, one of whom serves as chair of the Commission.

The Commission is considering pay raises to the highest paid governor and state lawmakers in the nation. New York State legislators have a $142,000 salary, the highest in the country, and due to an ongoing legal challenge, the Commission may place no limits on outside income. New York’s Governor is also the highest paid in the U.S.

The current limits were set as part of an end-of-the-year and after-election decision in 2022, when the governor and the legislative leaders cobbled together a deal to raise their pay. That agreement also added one twist to satisfy an angry public: limits on how much income lawmakers could make from outside sources.

The rationale for the outside income limits was the principle that elected officials cannot “serve two masters.” They must be accountable to only one: the public that they serve.

The idea that “moonlighting” by elected officials should be limited is not unheard of. For example, the Congress has long had outside income limits. The Congressional system was an outgrowth of the Watergate scandal and has a proven track record of being effective in removing outside conflicts.

When the Congress adopted its system, it observed that:

“. . . substantial outside income creates at least the appearance of impropriety and thereby undermines public confidence in the integrity of government officials.”

In addition, the Congress bans income from any source for which the Congressmember has a “fiduciary” relationship. Being a “fiduciary” means putting the interests of your client ahead of your own. When you’re an elected official whose constituents’ interests are paramount, how do you do that when you have a legal duty to put your paying clients first? Can lawmakers serve two bosses? The clear answer is no.

The same potential conflicts that Congress addressed exist in Albany and the recent convictions of elected officials underscore how lucrative it can be for lawmakers to inappropriately use the powers of their public office for private gain. Beyond that, legislators routinely consider proposals that may have an impact on their outside business interests. A bright-line standard is therefore necessary.

Current law limits a Congressmember’s outside income to $31,800 above the applicable Congressional compensation rate.Notably, unlike the Congressional restrictions, the current New York State outside income limit does not ban income from activities in which the lawmaker has a fiduciary relationship with a client. As a result, New York’s stalled outside income restrictions are far weaker than the Congressional version and should be made stronger by the

Pay Commission – assuming that the courts ultimately allow the income ban to be in effect.

The outside income issue is not one for the Legislative branch alone.

New York’s statewide elected officials are paid at the highest rate in the nation, are full-time, and should not be allowed to do outside work. Yet, New Yorkers have seen that happen. The controversy surrounding former Governor Cuomo’s $5 million book deal underscores the need for meaningful restrictions on the outside income of the full-time, statewide elected officials (Governor, Attorney General and Comptroller).

Reviews by both the Assembly Judiciary Committee and the state ethics watchdog at the time, the Joint Commission On Public Ethics, alleged that the former governor pushed the staff of the ethics agency to approve the multi-million-dollar book deal and further alleged that the former governor used government resources in writing the book. Nothing of the sort should have been approved.

As the Pay Commission deliberates, it should recommend that any publishing contracts and other requests for outside income by members of the executive branch be subject to pre-approval by the full state ethics body – not staff – with the full text and conditions of approvals released to the public and prohibited if the publisher is doing business with the state.

New Yorkers know that providing reasonable compensation for public service is an important factor in making government work. Combating public cynicism, distrust and growing voter anger is as important a goal as identifying appropriate, defensible compensation levels.

That was the thinking when the governor and state lawmakers agreed to the current pay raises – making a clear linkage to restrictions on outside income. Until the legal challenge is concluded, the Commission should oppose pay increases for state legislators or statewide officials.

New Yorkers deserve elected officials whose only responsibility while in office is the public that they serve. Those elected to office cannot and should not serve two masters.

Last week, the Hochul Administration issued an edict that state agencies develop plans for a no-growth state budget for the next fiscal year. That order is typical: State agencies’ proposed budgets have been more or less frozen for years. Yet, the announcement by the Division of the Budget – the agency responsible for developing the governor’s executive budget – is an often overlooked first step in Albany’s annual budget “dance.”

The development of the governor’s budget plan goes on for months, with agencies’ budgets subject to review by the Division of the Budget, hearings on the plan, and then presentation to the Legislature in mid-January. The budget is supposed to be finalized by April 1^st. The current state spending plan budgeted nearly $240 billion.

The budget fight over next year’s plan will likely be intense. The budget forecast for the next three years predicts a cumulative three-year budget gap of $13.9 billion, with projected deficits of $2.3 billion next year, $4.3 billion the year after, and ballooning to $7.3 billion the year after that. Of course, these are all projections and are a relatively small percentage of the nearly one-quarter trillion-dollar state budget.

But the challenges will not end by addressing the potential revenue shortfalls.

Next year’s budget will face a myriad of other challenges. One is how will the state deal with the governor’s “pause” of New York City’s congestion pricing plan? The plan – which sets tolls for driving into parts of New York City – was supposed to go into effect at the end of June. The governor – citing concerns over costs – derailed the plan. She is expected to propose reducing the size of the congestion pricing tolls, but that will result in shortfalls in revenues that will have to be addressed in the state budget.

Another big item is education funding. Every year, how the state provides financial assistance to local school districts is a key component of the state’s final budget plan. The state’s assistance is allocated to districts based on a formula, known as Foundation Aid.

The current budget includes a measure calling for the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy think tank housed at the State University of New York, to assess the state’s Foundation Aid education funding formula and discuss potential modifications to how the formula works. Any proposed changes to the existing system will undoubtedly cause a ruckus in this year’s budget debate.

Another issue will be how the state funds higher education.

Last year’s budget made significant changes to the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and made college financial assistance available to many more students. TAP is New York’s largest need-based college financial aid grant program. The aid is based on income – the less you make, the more aid you are eligible for. TAP is available to students in the State University of New York (SUNY), the City University of New York (CUNY), and the independent sector. Aid is available for students attending full-time, part-time and in non-degree programs.

In the current year’s budget agreement, for the first time in decades the state increased the income eligibility to $125,000 and increased the size of the minimum award from $500 to $1,000 – essentially updating those amounts to cover the loss in purchasing power due to inflation.

Unfortunately, the budget did not do enough to reverse the erosion of state assistance that has contributed to the decline of too many New York colleges and programs.  Despite the improvements to TAP, the state budget does not include an increase in the amount of the maximum award for the neediest students.  The maximum TAP award still does not cover the full tuition costs of students attending SUNY and CUNY.  

The budget contained, essentially, flatline funding for SUNY and CUNY.  Moreover, despite a growing financial crisis in the independent sector of higher education, the budget made a major cut in funding to the program providing state assistance to independent colleges and universities (Bundy Aid).

The failures in that budget plan will be a big debate in the budget for the upcoming fiscal year.  Not only are New York’s colleges and universities important to educating the future civic and community leaders of tomorrow, they are important economic engines today.  Cuts to higher education, for both the public and independent sectors, harm the state’s economic vitality.  For example, CUNY graduates stay to work in New York at higher rates and studies have shown that for every $1 invested in SUNY, the economy reaps $8 in benefits. College should be affordable for all, providing access to one of the greatest economic equalizers for those who seek it. 

Of course, the necessary increases in the TAP program run headlong into the constraints of the budget shortfalls, as well as the likely spending hikes needed for mass transit for New York City, changes in education funding, and the rest of the state agencies’ spending. Yet, even with those pressures, investing in higher education – both in terms of affordability for students as well as assistance for the institutions themselves – will result in heightened economic activity and a more educated citizenry.

How the governor views the importance of those goals and balances funding priorities will soon be made clear in her January budget plan. At that point the budget dance will be front-and-center.

After a year or so of relative calm, New York’s political world was shaken by the federal indictment of New York City Mayor Adams. While the action was not altogether unexpected – the Mayor and his top aides had been under investigation for quite some time – nevertheless it was the first time that a sitting New York City Mayor was indicted.

The feds allege that Mr. Adams, both before and during his time as Mayor, used his influence to benefit special interests. In particular, the federal indictment alleged that the Mayor received overseas trips and illegal campaign contributions from Turkey in return for political favors. The Mayor is also accused of illegal campaign financing activities allowing him to receive $10 million in City public matching funds via “straw” campaign donations (contributions that are given by one person in the name of another).

The Mayor has pled not guilty and has repeatedly denied having acted illegally, arguing that the indictment is “entirely false, based on lies” and that he will not “resign, he will reign.” He is, of course, presumed innocent until the charges are heard in court. Despite increasing calls for his resignation by some elected officials and advocates, he is entitled to have his side of the story told.

The Mayor, at least publicly, argued that he became a target because of his criticism of the Biden administration’s response to the migrant crisis.

The cloud over City Hall extends to other high-ranking New York City officials who also are under scrutiny by the feds. Adding to the Administration’s problems is that several key senior officials – including the police commissioner, the schools chancellor and the mayor’s top lawyer – have recently resigned. And the probe is ongoing as federal and state agents seized the phone of the Mayor’s chief adviser after the indictment dropped.

While this is not the first time that Mr. Adams has faced questions about his actions, this is by far the most serious. If convicted, Mayor Adams could face up to 45 years in prison.

So, what is next? There are three scenarios of what could happen. The most obvious is that the Mayor could resign. If he does, the next official in the line of succession is the Public Advocate. The New York City Public Advocate is selected in a citywide election and under the New York City Charter would become the interim Mayor (if he cannot accept the role, the other citywide elected official, the New York City Comptroller becomes the interim).

That position is only for an interim basis. The City Charter establishes complicated options for how the interim Mayor should call for a special election to replace an elected Mayor who resigned. However, the Charter makes it clear that the interim Mayor must “Within three days of the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, the person acting as mayor shall proclaim the date for the election.” That special election date would most likely (as of now) have to occur within a couple of months. The newly elected Mayor would then face re-election at the end of the existing term, November 2025.

The New York City Charter does offer a path for removal of the Mayor by action of the City’s political leadership. While this provision has been untested, it works like this: Under the City Charter, an “inability committee” can be formed to remove the Mayor. That committee consists of five positions: the corporation counsel (the City’s top lawyer), the City Comptroller; the City Council speaker; a deputy Mayor picked by the Mayor; and the longest serving borough president. At least four members must vote to remove the Mayor. If removed, the Mayor is replaced by the Public Advocate.

The third option is one that impacts Albany. Under state law, Governor Hochul has the power to remove the mayor of any city in the state – including New York City. Also according to the City’s Charter, “The mayor may be removed from office by the Governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the Governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.”

The Governor’s power is broad but largely untested when it comes to the removal of a New York City Mayor. Historically, it has only been used for that purpose once, when former Gov. Franklin Roosevelt initiated removal proceedings against a former Mayor, who resigned prior to action. That power, however, has been used for the removal of other local officials.

Yet, such an action by the Governor would add another explosive issue to an agenda that includes what to do about congestion pricing, the state’s upcoming budget and its potential deficits, her involvement in the election of Democrats this November, and of course, her day job – running state government.

How Governor Hochul juggles all of this is important to all New Yorkers. But most importantly, as the Governor herself stated, when it comes to the charges against the Mayor, “We must give New Yorkers confidence that there is steady, responsible leadership at every level of government.”

New Yorkers couldn’t agree more. Let’s see how this all plays out.

For more than two decades, New York State has greatly restricted the use of tobacco products. The rationale at the campaign’s start – and to this day – is that tobacco smoke can harm both the health of smokers and can harm the health of non-smokers. Experts say that there is no safe exposure to tobacco smoke, either by the smoker or the non-smoker who inhales it.

Essentially, current state law bans smoking in all but an individual’s private spaces. No one can smoke in indoor public places, in workplaces, and in many outdoor areas. Smokers can usually smoke within their own homes (although restrictions increasingly exist in apartment dwellings) and in their own cars (although there are calls for banning that when children are riding in the car).

Research has shown that as a result of these restrictions, there has been a significant reduction in heart attacks and respiratory ailments.

A recent report documented that there has been a notable reduction in cancer incidence and death in New York. There are, of course, many reasons for this. Better screening, increasingly effective treatments, and a greater use of vaccines that can keep cancers from starting.

Yet in many ways, New York’s reductions in cancer deaths can be traced to the state’s smoking and tobacco use restrictions.

It is well known that smoking causes respiratory cancers. Over 90 percent of lung cancers are the result of smoking. Were it not for cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, lung cancer would be considered a rare illness. Instead, it continues to be the single biggest cancer killer. There are other cancers caused by smoking. Over 85 percent of larynx cancers are from smoking. More than half of all mouth cancers are the result of smoking. The same is true for cancer of the esophagus and bladder.

But smoking can raise the risks of other cancers as well. Kidney (16.8 percent), cervix (9.9 percent), pancreas (10.1 percent), stomach (16.3 percent), liver (26.5 percent), and colon (10.7 percent) cancers all have a notable number that are the result of smoking. All but one of the cancers mentioned above have seen reductions in deaths since 1990. The one outlier is liver cancer. (Alcohol is another contributing factor in liver disease.)

According to experts, nearly half of all cancer deaths are caused by smoking.

As there has been a demonstrable reduction in cancer deaths over time, that reduction (other than liver) coincides with the dramatic reduction in smoking rates. And those reductions are the result of policy interventions, most notably the legislation restricting tobacco use.

Yet, despite those policy interventions, New York’s smoking rate is only the twelfth lowest in the nation. Had New York followed the advice of the nation’s experts and its own independent advisors, more lives could have been saved.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers states scientifically-based best practices for reducing tobacco use. The CDC recommends that New York State spend between $142 million and $203 million annually on its tobacco control efforts.

New York has never spent the money recommended by the CDC. In fact, its highest spending levels were in 2007, 2008, and 2009, before the state started cutting back. The biggest program cuts occurred during the former Andrew Cuomo Administration, which essentially set a spending ceiling that was half what it had been.

Nothing has changed since then. With its budget frozen, the tobacco control program has shrunk even more due to inflation. According to an independent review of the state’s tobacco control funding, New York’s budget is “only 17% of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) recommended level for the state, even as New York faces ongoing health and economic effects from tobacco use. The low funding levels in recent years have posed challenges for the Program to make progress across its areas of focus.”

Why does New York fail to follow the expert advice of the CDC? It can’t be from a lack of money. The state budget totals $237 billion. It also can’t be that the state doesn’t collect enough from tobacco users – through taxes and other revenues – to fund efforts to help them quit and to keep kids from starting. The state recently increased its cigarette tax by $1, making it the highest in the nation.

New York annually collects nearly one billion dollars in tobacco taxes and has received billions more over the term of a litigation settlement (the Master Settlement Agreement) with Big Tobacco.

New York State has the money to adequately fund its tobacco control efforts, but it chooses not to. As a result, more lives are harmed.

Governor Hochul should in her upcoming budget follow science and invest a portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars the state gets from smokers into programs that will help them kick the addiction and keep kids from starting. Rejecting scientifically based funding recommendations and starving the program will result in the needless misery and early deaths of far too many into addition to more expensive health care for everyone.