Led by the President, there is a nationwide attack on the mail in voting option.  The basic thrust of these attacks is that voting by mail is prone to “fraud” and that the mail-in votes will not be counted or will be lost. 

The evidence that those claims are not true is overwhelming and compelling.

So how come we still hear it?

As Mark Twain is credited with declaiming, “A lie can travel around the world while the truth is lacing up its boots.”  As that saying makes clear, the problem of responding to lies has always been difficult.  But in our hi-tech world with a dizzying number of social media platforms all operating on their own codes of ethics and fact-checking standards, pushing out a lie is easy to do and can travel many times around the world before truth has even gotten out of bed.

Add to that the power of the Presidency – and its unique bully pulpit – and it is not hard to see how easily the message can stick.  The facts are clear, however, that such charges are simply not true and they have the pernicious effect of sowing doubts about the validity of the outcome of the election. 

So, let’s help truth to lace up its boots.

Studies have shown that all forms of voting fraud are extremely rare in the United States.  A national study in 2016 found few credible allegations of fraudulent voting.  A panel that President Trump himself charged with investigating election corruption found no real evidence of fraud before he disbanded it in 2018.

Five states currently conduct all elections entirely by mail: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah.  They report very little fraud.

Here in New York, a voter can get a mail-in ballot through the state’s “absentee voter process.”  Under the state Constitution, voters who cannot make it to the polls due to illness or travel can request a ballot to mail in.  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all voters can now request a ballot if they are concerned that they will jeopardize their health by voting in person.  All the voter must do is obtain an application for an absentee ballot and choose “temporary illness” as the reason.

Voters can obtain the application to vote by mail by going to New York State Board of Elections at https://absenteeballot.elections.ny.gov/ and fill out the online form.  Or a voter can contact their local county board of elections by phone, email, fax, mail or in person.

After successfully submitting the application, the voter will then receive the ballot in the mail.   When the voter receives the ballot they must fill out the ballot properly – the instructions on how to do it are precise and must be followed to a “tee” – and then submit it.  A ballot must be postmarked no later than Election Day, November 3^rd, and received by the local county board of elections by November 10^th.  Be sure to put the proper postage on the outer envelope—two $.55 stamps are recommended.  A ballot can also be hand delivered to the relevant county board of elections office by November 3^rd at 9 p.m. or during the early voting period’s polling hours.  Early voting runs from October 24^th through November 1^st.  If a voter wishes to drop off the ballot to an early voting site, the voter must return it during normal polling hours from October 24^th through November 1^st.  

Voters do have options if they don’t want to mail in their ballot.  The most obvious option is to vote the old-fashioned way, on Election Day November 3^rd.  A second option is to cast a ballot during the early voting period.  New Yorkers have a window of opportunity to vote from October 24^th through November 1^st under the state’s early voting law.  In order to find out where to vote, go to the State Board of Elections at https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/ or check with your local county board of elections.

There are a lot of safeguards in place to make sure that a voter’s ballot is legitimate.  Under New York State law, for example, the name on every absentee ballot must be checked against the board of elections poll books, which must be signed by the voter each year.  Each book typically has several signatures from past election days for comparison. 

The important thing is to have a voting plan in place.  Voting for our representatives is the bedrock of our democracy.  Efforts to sow doubt, mislead, or lie about the process undermine public confidence and damage our democracy.  Don’t let the liars win; cast your ballot – either through the mail or in person.  Let’s make sure that in the race for democracy, truth wins.

Utility giant National Grid has proposed a rate hike of 4 percent more for electric and 6 percent more for natural gas service that, if approved, would start next July.  Those proposals would boost the utilities revenues by $100 million for electric delivery and $42 million for natural gas delivery.  The plan has been the subject of a series of public hearings organized by the New York State Public Service Commission and has generated widespread concern.

And the plan has generated significant opposition.  Consumer and environmental groups have voiced opposition arguing that a pandemic is no time to raise utility rates, and that National Grid needs to do more to address climate change.

The consumer argument was bolstered by an analysis released by U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer.  Schumer’s office argued that National Grid’s upstate electric prices are already among the highest in the nation.  Schumer pointed to federal data showing that residential electricity rates in northern New York were 37 percent higher than the national average.  Commercial rates were 60 percent higher.  Schumer says National Grid is calling for the rate hike at the same time the company is reporting a 25 percent increase in pre-tax profits.

Schumer argued that the proposed hike comes on the heels of a $119 million rate increase that went into effect earlier this year – an increase that National Grid has deemed “inadequate.”

The size of the hike, particularly during a pandemic, could devastate lower income consumers.  In National Grid’s service area, as of August 2020, over 235,000 New York households served by the company were more than 60 days behind on their utility bills.  Many of these New Yorkers would have been at risk of shut off now, but are protected by a state shut off moratorium law. 

Moreover, environmental groups have lined up against the plan, as well.  Their critique focuses on the fact that the increase would help fund National Grid’s plans for more natural gas pipelines, which they view as the wrong approach in the era of climate change. 

They have a point.

The planet is rapidly heating up and that is primarily the result of the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil, and gas.  And the heating planet is causing catastrophic impacts.  For example, the ongoing wildfires in California have burned more than four million acres in 2020, over twice the previous record for any year and an area larger than Connecticut.

California has suffered five of its six largest wildfires in history this year as heat waves and dry-lightning hits coincided with drier conditions that climate scientists blame on global warming.

The world must move away from relying on power generated by fossil fuels.  No one is arguing that people should freeze in their homes or stop driving cars, but it is crystal clear that the world must stop investments in the expanded use of fossil fuels.  We can’t build out fossil fuel infrastructure and fight climate change at the same time.

Instead of proposing rate hikes that would support gas pipelines with a useful life well beyond New York’s 2050 goal of eliminating its greenhouse gas emissions,  National Grid should be focusing on efficiency measures and 21st century infrastructure, such as renewable wind, solar and geothermal energy; distributed resources and energy storage; and empowering consumers to further policy goals. 

When it comes to rate increases, this is not the time to further burden upstate residents with higher bills.  New York has been at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.  In addition to the once-in-a-century deaths and illnesses, the state’s economy has taken a staggering hit.  The economic dislocation has resulted in business failures, business interruptions and many New Yorkers furloughed or newly jobless.  The result is that many New Yorkers cannot pay their bills – even when it comes to essential services like heat and electric.

The Public Service Commission must reject the plan and instead have the company focus on maximizing low-income consumer protection and ensure that National Grid’s investments are focused on protecting the environment, not adding to the global warming catastrophe.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought into sharp focus America’s economic and racial disparities.  A stark example is in health care delivery: when it comes to access as well as quality, racial, gender, and geographic differences are enormous and growing.

Another widening disparity exposed by the pandemic is when it comes to access to technology.  On one side are the technological “haves,” including well off and young New Yorkers; on the other side are the technological “have nots,” poor, lower income and older New Yorkers.

Across the nation, the pandemic has shifted the workplace from offices to homes.  Too often left in the dust have been the essential workers or those who do not have the resources to afford digital access.  These workers may face greater health risks and job insecurity because they cannot work from home.

Over time the longstanding debate over the digital divide has tended to focus on education and with good reason.

Simply put, students cannot participate in remote learning if they do not have access to a computer and a reliable Internet connection.  What had been an advantage for students has become a necessity.  What are those students (and their parents) to do now? 

Persistent digital divides exist in communities – urban, suburban, and rural – across New York; in fact, more than one quarter of students in New York lack access to the Internet and/or appropriate devices to participate in remote online education.  One estimate is that over half a million New York students do not have Internet access at home. 

In New York there is a particularly distinct divide between urban and rural areas.  The more rural counties in New York tend to have less access to high-speed Internet service than do the more urban counties.  

New York is nowhere near the bottom of the nation, in fact the state ranked number two for Internet connectivity.  In New York, Internet infrastructure is not the biggest problem, cost is: 97% of New Yorkers have access to wired Internet, but only 70% of the state has access that costs $60 or less a month. 

There are a number of reasons for the digital divide.  Cable companies often do not serve remote rural areas and even some urban locales because it is too costly to run cables to areas with few customers.  Socioeconomic differences between people of different races, incomes and education also are reflected in access to the Internet.

Households that lack any Internet access are most prevalent in neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty.  In New York City, for example, Internet disparities track closely to socioeconomic factors like poverty.  Seniors are much more likely to be without a broadband Internet connection compared to the general population.  

While the public and policymakers are right to focus on the educational disparities the digital divide exacerbates, there is a cost to democracy, too.

Right now, virtually all state policymaking is done over the Internet.  State legislators participate in hearings and cast votes online.  Many public officials have closed their district offices.  Agency public hearings also are conducted over Internet platforms.  Those without Internet access or the necessary technology to participate in governmental proceedings are essentially locked out – of their own democracy.  And those least likely to have digital access are precisely those who need to participate in governmental decisions since they are most likely to be in need.

More than ever the ability to get help from the government is facilitated – if not dependent – on Internet access.  When the pandemic hit New York with full force, New Yorkers seeking unemployment benefits were directed to state websites.  With local state offices closed and telephone lines clogged, an Internet connection was a lifeline.  During this time much of healthcare and mental healthcare migrated online, as well.  And sadly, the Internet became the new way some said goodbye to loved ones through virtual funerals.

Of course, geographic limits existed prior to the pandemic.  But it was possible for everyone to participate.  Now there is another obstacle to that participation – an obstacle due to the digital divide. 

We did not need a pandemic to recognize that people on the wrong side of the digital divide are at a great disadvantage.  But now it is all too clear that without access to these technologies, too many fare ailing to receive the essential opportunities needed to participate in democracy.  In 2020, Internet access is like getting electricity to your home in the 1930s: It’s essential.

With Congress stalled on a bailout package, New York’s financial situation is becoming increasingly dire.  As the feds debate, in the meantime, the state is withholding support for local governments and non-profits that provide services.  That “withholding” can turn into cuts as local governments cut back on assistance.

First, some background.  Due to the pandemic, New York State is projected to bring in almost $15 billion less than it planned to spend.  The governor estimates that the state budget deficit over the next four years will exceed $60 billion.  The financial pain includes the yawning budget gaps of local governments and other public entities.  According to the governor, the state needs some $50 billion from the federal government to cure the state’s budget woes and provide relief to the MTA, Port Authority, and other agencies.

So far, the Cuomo Administration has “withheld” about $1.9 billion in payments to localities, school districts and nonprofits.  The Administration has been clear that the money being “withheld” could become permanent cuts if there is no additional federal aid.

That policy of “withholding” funds is part of a plan to drastically reduce state spending unless the federal government provides help.

With the opening of the school year, the Cuomo Administration was reportedly considering “withholding” a portion of its $3 billion payment to schools in September.  But before the Administration could act, the teachers union challenged that possibility in court.

That legal challenge was immediately followed by the governor’s office announcing it would in fact disburse all the September school aid.

The teachers union contended that the contemplated reduction in state school aid was an illegal cut—that massive cuts to schools undermined the state’s constitutional obligation to guarantee students get a “sound basic education.”

And while the harm to school children was, at least to some extent, averted for now, the larger question remains: How will the state address its budget problems?

While action by the federal government could ease the state’s financial plight, no one expects the federal government to eliminate New York’s—and the rest of the nation’s—budget deficits. 

So far, the Administration has not advanced a comprehensive plan to address its budgetary problems.  They have said that they will do 20% across-the-board cuts to services.  That would be both devastating and unfair.  After all, not all programs are of equal importance.

In terms of raising revenues, the governor has said little other than he is concerned that the wealthy and powerful will leave the state if their taxes go up.

So, if large cuts are devastating and the governor does not wish to ding the wealthy, how does the state balance its books?

Some proposals being floated would raise costs on middle income New Yorkers.  Last week, a plan was advanced that would increase the cost of heating homes and driving cars in New York.  Earlier this year, the governor proposed to keep raising public college tuition.  You get the picture:  If the wealthy threaten to leave, New Yorkers currently struggling to pay their bills will have more costs added to their burden.

Will the rich leave New York if taxes go up?  The governor says the wealthy—many of whom are riding out the pandemic from second homes—told him higher taxes will drive them out of state.  But what does history tell us?

It is true that a small number of very wealthy people already provide considerable revenues.  For example, in 2016, 32 percent of all of New York City’s reported income—more than $100 billion—came from just one percent of the City’s 2.6 million taxpayers.  Roughly 1,500 New Yorkers reported an income of over $10 million annually.  Would they really leave if state tax rates were raised to match those in California or if rates were like New York in the early 1980s (during the last fiscal crisis)?

Last week, New Jersey raised its income taxes beyond those in New York State.  New Jersey’s budget deal boosted taxes on people earning between $1 million and $5 million a year.  The Cuomo Administration noted that if one adds the income taxes charged by New York City (which has its own tax and where most of the wealthy have residences), the effective rate for them is comparable to New Jersey’s new rate.

Of course, that ignores the wealthy that live outside of New York City.  But the question remains, who will pay to make up the state’s recurring budget shortfalls?

If New York State matched New Jersey’s top rate that could bring in more than $5 billion, making up one third of the state’s annual budget shortfall. 

There is no magic bullet.  New Yorkers will take a hit because of the state’s deficits.  The question for the governor though is who will bear the biggest share of that pain—low, moderate, and middle-income New Yorkers, or the wealthy?  On whose backs should the budget be balanced?  The way things are going, New Yorkers may not know until after the November election.

The massive fires on the West Coast are unprecedented in both their size and impact.  An area larger than the size of New Jersey is now burning in California, Oregon, and Washington.  Those fires continue to rage and the death toll continues to rise.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans are poised to flee their homes as the dangers grow. 

At least 24 people have been killed, with dozens more missing and more than 3,000 homes destroyed since the most recent fires began.  In the state of Oregon, half a million people were under evacuation orders as out-of-control fires advanced toward Salem and Portland’s suburbs.

California’s wildfires, driven by extreme blazes in August and September, have already burned more acres than any year on record.  There are now blazes burning in at least ten western states.

The air quality over the West Coast is now the most polluted on the planet and the toxic nature of the nation’s politics further clouds the public discussion around the fires.  Social media platforms are abuzz with false claims that the fires were intentionally set by extremist groups.  In reality, the fires burning across the Pacific Coast are the latest evidence of the harms from a rapidly heating planet, a heat that dries out forests and makes them more susceptible to fires.  Like the huge fires in Australia and the Amazon, these infernos are the most recent examples of an atmosphere choking on greenhouse gases.

In January, vast areas of Australia burned.  The skies turned orange, and smoke blanketed the country’s largest cities.  Entire cities were wiped out.  Now, across the Pacific, it is the skies over San Francisco, Portland and Seattle that have turned red and orange, with smoke blocking out the sun.

There is no question that 2020 will be one of the hottest years on record for the planet; currently it is second.  However, 2020 has been the hottest in certain parts of the world: including a large portion of northern Asia, parts of Europe, China, Mexico, northern South America, as well as the Atlantic, northern Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Those increased temperatures allow fires to burn more intensely and cause forests to dry out and burn more easily.  These intense fires are not started by climate change, but they are exacerbated by the effects of global warming.  Experts believe that fire conditions are now more dangerous than they were in the past, with longer bushfire seasons, drought, drier fuels and soils, and record-breaking heat.

The increased heat is diminishing mountain snow packs, leading to hotter and drier summers.  Eighty percent of California, 95% of Oregon, and all of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico are currently in drought.  Higher temperatures further dry out forest and rangeland soils.  Stronger lightning storms are igniting multiple fires at a time, and we are seeing the consequences today.

And it is not just fires that result from global warming.  Other climate-change impacts are accelerating too, in the form of more intense storms, melting glaciers, rising seas, and more.

The fact that our habitat is being destroyed by global warming has not, unfortunately, led to action by the Trump Administration.  In fact, their actions over the past three and a half years will make things worse. 

The Trump Administration has rolled back numerous environmental programs saying that they were unnecessary and burdensome to the fossil fuel industry and other businesses.  The Administration has weakened Obama-era limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and from cars and trucks.

And the oil industry is fueling that political fire, even though they know it is wrong.  According to reporting by The New York Times, last summer oil and gas-industry groups were lobbying to overturn federal rules on leaks of natural gas, a major contributor to climate change.  Instead of concern about how methane leaks from fossil fuel production significantly contributes to the climate crisis, the oil and gas leaders were focused on the public relations damage to the industry’s reputation.

For years, researchers have warned that drilling for the gas also causes sizable leaks of methane directly into the atmosphere.  Methane can trap more than 80 times more heat in the earth’s atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Research has shown that methane emissions from oil and gas production are far larger than previously estimated.

To address the issue, the Obama Administration had proposed new regulations that would have required, among other measures, that oil and gas companies install technology to detect and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines, and storage facilities.  That’s one of the programs weakened by the Trump Administration.

Dismantling environmental programs, pulling out of the Paris accords, and undermining climate science, have acted as an accelerant to the dangers from global warming. 

Since 2008, the fourth week in September–next week–has been considered “Climate Week”: a focus on the worldwide movement to halt the planet’s headlong rush toward catastrophe.  This year’s events will be more subdued due to concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic.  But even if the events are restrained, the activism needed to respond to the burning of the West Coast cannot subside.

The West Coast fires are the latest unmistakable alarm sounding that the deadly consequences of global warming are real and happening now.  We need a government that responds to the science.  For that to happen, the planet needs to sustain an unprecedented level of citizen activism.  If we collectively fail to respond today, what will be our excuse to future generations?