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.

Scenes of massive wildfires and extreme heatwaves in Europe, Canada, and the Western United States (among other areas) are the most recent examples of a worsening climate. While here in New York we have been largely spared of these catastrophes – outside of unhealthy air quality days and heat waves – there is no doubt that global warming and the resulting climate catastrophes are, and will continue to be, a staple of our lives.

The costs to New Yorkers will go beyond the damage to the public’s health and environment; it will hammer our wallets too.

A recent report by the think tank Rebuild By Design estimated the expected taxpayer costs from climate damages to New Yorkers. The report, Paying For Resilience in New York State, examined the period 2015 through 2050. The Rebuild By Design researchers developed an inventory of approximately 700 in-progress, recently completed, and planned adaptation federal, state, and local projects in New York State. The report only examined public sector initiatives and did not include costs to individuals, businesses, and the private sector.

In other words, the impact on New York taxpayers. The report found that New York State is projected to surpass half a trillion dollars on infrastructure spending related to climate change by 2050. And that number is conservative.

The report broke down the expected costs by region. The New York City and Long Island metropolitan area will suffer the biggest costs due primarily to its coastline facing the ocean. Sea levels have risen by nearly one foot in the past century and are projected to increase another 1 to 2 feet by midcentury. Real estate and infrastructure are phenomenally expensive downstate, and the expected flooding (and other climate-related events) will result in a whopping price tag of about $400 billion!

But upstate regions will not be spared. The Hudson Valley will face estimated costs of $7.7 billion. New York’s Capital District will experience climate costs that exceed $860 million and the Mohawk River region will need to spend over $653 million.

The report’s authors stressed that their estimates are conservative. The report does not include future inflation, ongoing maintenance costs necessary to keep climate infrastructure functioning effectively and only examined projects whose costs exceed $1 million. And that doesn’t even include the cost of future disasters — a cost that can easily reach hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars.

As mentioned, some of these costs are expected to be covered by the federal government. But a lot will not and that means more taxes, reduced services, or both – unless other funding streams are established.

New York has tried to establish a program that would require the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to cover some of those costs. In late 2024, Governor Hochul signed a law requiring those companies to help pay to repair damage caused by extreme weather. The rationale behind the law is that the burning oil, coal, and gas warm the planet, which is worsening storms and heat waves.

Called the Climate Change Superfund Act requires those companies to pay $75 billion over 25 years into an account for infrastructure repairs and upgrades, as well as recovery efforts after disasters. But in 2025, the Trump Administration challenged the law effectively putting the interests of the immensely profitable largest oil companies ahead of the interests of New York taxpayers. The President’s effort was joined by “red” states’ Attorneys General and the oil industry.  

That case is being heard this summer. New Yorkers could soon learn if Big Oil will shoulder some of the costs from our worsening climate, or whether they will have to pay billions more.

Echoing the Trump Administration’s false claims about election security, and seizing on a new revelation that a New Jersey computer glitch allowed 400 non-citizens to vote in that state, top Republican officials in New York have called for legislation that requires certain forms of identification when registering to vote and claimed that Democrats would “steal” the election for governor.

“Stealing” an election is, of course, a criminal act, and there is no evidence to support the claim. Campaign rhetoric aside, what is the debate about and what would it mean to voters?

The first argument is that there is widespread voter fraud occurring now. As a result, the President is pushing for Congress to approve 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 mandate 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 “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.”

The “problem” that the SAVE America Act is supposed to “solve” is the demonstrably 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. 

That said, the New Jersey revelation deserves attention. Here’s the background: A week ago, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill disclosed that a “software error” at the Motor Vehicles Commission led to roughly 6,600 noncitizens getting added to the state’s voter rolls. About 400 of them voted, she said. The “software” error was in New Jersey’s “motor voter” system, which allows individuals to register to vote while they are signing up for state services (like getting a driver’s license.). Governor Sherrill said that the non-citizens didn’t intend to register to vote and there’s no indication the votes affected the outcome of an election. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the “software” error in the program doesn’t exist in New York since our system is run differently.

While there has been no evidence that the problem identified in New Jersey is found anywhere else in the nation, humans, and software, make mistakes, so programs should be run with oversight and auditing that minimizes the impact of those errors.

Another of the arguments for the Voter ID requirement is that “You need an ID to open a bank account, board a plane or buy alcohol.” While this argument may also sound appealing, there is a vast difference between opening a bank account and New Yorkers’ right to vote.

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.

The nation deserves free and fair elections in 2026, not one that has been undermined by our elected officials in Washington or in Albany. If we remain vigilant, we can continue to have free and fair elections without creating barriers to voting that turn a fundamental right into a privilege enjoyed by far fewer Americans.