Republicans have a lot to worry about in the upcoming 2026 election. Historically, the party that controls the White House takes an electoral pasting in the mid-terms. Given the current razor-thin majority that allows the Republicans to control the House, a November vote consistent with the historic record of most mid-term elections could flip it back to Democratic control. 

A House controlled by Democrats would be a big headache for the President on multiple fronts. 

Given the President’s weak and worsening polling numbers, last year he concocted a scheme to boost Republicans’ electoral chances with a call for red states to approve mid-decade changes to Congressional lines to boost Republican chances of victory.

That effort has largely fizzled since Democrats responded with their own redistricting campaigns to boost their chances in blue states. The outcome has been largely seen as a wash.

Last week, the House Republican leadership advanced a new effort to impact the 2026 election. The House approved, with the President’s support, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which, if it were to become law, would require proof of citizenship for people to register to vote at a state level for federal elections and mandates that voters show a form of photo ID when voting on election day or when requesting a mail-in ballot.

While most Americans think that’s a good idea in the abstract, the actual details and likely impacts of the legislation have not been adequately aired or debated. For example, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center:

“Although at least one of these documents are in theory available to most citizens, not all voters have them readily available.”

• Nearly one in ten eligible voters do not have, or do not have easy access to, documentary proof of citizenship.
• More than half of registered voters do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name.
• And over 10 percent of registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate.

In addition, as the Bipartisan Policy Center further noted, “birth certificates often lack information that matches a person’s current identity. For instance, someone who has changed their name through marriage or court order may need to present a third document (such as a marriage certificate) to join their proof of citizenship…Even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task, one that election officials and motor vehicle departments often do not have the resources or training to perform.”

These concerns are echoed by other nonpartisan groups, from the Brennan Center for Justice, which argued that the House bill would “Block Millions of Americans From Voting,” to the League of Women Voters, which noted “It is already illegal for noncitizens to register and vote in federal or state elections. [The SAVE America Act] simply creates another barrier to voting.”

The “problem” that the SAVE America Act is supposed to “solve” is the false claim that there is widespread voter fraud in the nation. Report after report have shown that it is simply not true that there is a significant problem with fraudulent voting and that it alters the results of elections. In fact, leading experts have argued that the nation’s elections are secure. Requiring voters to jump through verification “hoops” does nothing more than deter citizens from voting during a time when increased voter turnout should be encouraged. 

Given the filibuster rule of the U.S. Senate, it is doubtful that the SAVE America Act will be taken up. But one never knows for sure.

The House’s approval comes close on the heels of the President’s discredited call for the Congress to “nationalize” voting, his plan to issue an executive order on voting identification, and an “unusual” meeting called by the FBI to meet with state elections officials right after its raid to seize 2020 election data stored in the state of Georgia.

Add the redistricting effort to the constant lies and propaganda around the fictitious theft of the Presidential election in 2020 and it’s not hard to see a pattern; one of a possible strategy to undermine the results of the 2026 election.

Americans live in a democracy. Casting a ballot should be secure and as easy as possible. The SAVE America Act does little more than suppress voter participation for the millions of Americans who may not have the documentation required. Here in New York – where voting is a constitutional right – we should expect House members who supported this measure to provide verifiable proof of a substantial problem that justifies their support.

The nation deserves free and fair elections in 2026, not one that has been undermined by our elected officials in Washington.

With great fanfare, last month Governor Hochul unveiled her budget plan. Legislative budget hearings are underway and there is a growing debate over how to finalize the plan. But the governor still has budget cards to play. Under New York’s Constitution, the governor has up to 30 days after her budget submission to make changes. Usually, those changes are technical – like errors in drafting or mistakes in analysis of the fiscal impacts of her plans.

Once her amendments are advanced and lawmakers finish hearings, the budget is supposed to be finalized by the end of March.

Last week, however, there were media reports that the governor is considering making significant policy changes in her budget in the next couple of weeks. Specifically, those reports have focused on concerns that the governor will use her 30-day amendments to weaken New York’s Climate Law.

First, some background. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Law”) was approved in 2019 and was designed to set the state on a path toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this Century. The “net zero” goal is consistent with the standard set by the world’s climate scientists – who have warned that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global heating, all nations need to adhere to the net zero goal.

New York’s Climate Law set benchmark goals designed to guide policymakers as interim steps to meet the targets advised by the world’s climate experts. Those interim goals commit the state to generate 70 percent of its electricity from renewable power sources and achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 – just four years from now.

New York’s law is based on the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels endangers the planet and that the world must wean itself off of these power sources by the middle of this Century. Indeed, failure to do so will cost the state more than complying with the Climate Law. The increasingly likely failure to meet the Law’s interim climate goals would be a failure of will, not the targets themselves.  New York’s goals are attainable. For example, Germany, with its cloudy days and cool climate expects to generate nearly 15% of its electricity by solar. While New York State generates a paltry 5%.

In addition, the European Union recently reported that it will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50% by the year 2030. That goal was set as a midpoint measure to meet the science-based goal of virtually eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. If the EU can do it, we in the United States can, too.

Part of the rationale for scaling back the Climate Law’s goals is not wanting to add to the already high cost of electricity in the state. New York’s residential electricity rates are high relative to the nation’s. But that has been true for years. For example in 2018 – the year before the state climate law was signed – New York’s residential electricity rates were ranked the seventh-highest in the nation. Now they are ranked eighth highest. Still high to be sure, but the impact of the Climate Law’s passage didn’t make a meaningful difference.

Yet, the well funded propaganda campaign advanced by opponents of the Climate Law have had an impact: The Hochul Administration is in retreat on the state’s climate-fighting initiatives. In the past year, for example, the Hochul Administration has delayed implementation of the All Electric Buildings Act, stalled the carbon pricing “cap and invest” program, and failed to keep up with benchmarks of the Climate Law.

Yet, if energy costs are rising everywhere and New York’s relative energy cost ranking is unchanged, how can the problem be the state’s Climate Law? All across the nation energy costs have risen faster than inflation since 2022, with greater increases ahead. The causes include load growth from data centers, increasing electric transmission and distribution infrastructure and maintenance costs, extreme weather, and supply chain disruptions – not New York’s law.

New York needs to invest in clean, safe, predictable, renewable energy as stated in the Climate Law. It is cheaper and less ecologically destructive to build out solar production than gas facilities. New York’s failure to boost solar production is leading to higher energy prices.

Electrifying New York through solar production and battery storage will lead to lower energy prices and is a more appropriate response to the climate crisis, which we have seen is wreaking havoc in communities everywhere.

There is little we can do in the near term about the expenses resulting from upgrading our old electric grid and protecting it from extreme weather and rising heat that are the products of a worsening climate. Bailing out on the Climate Law will do nothing to significantly change New York’s energy costs, but it will make the state complicit in the ongoing climate catastrophe. Try explaining that to our grandkids.