WFP and the Insurgents
Here's a funny thing: two most prominent insurgent candidates for state office this year, Grace Meng and Ken Diamondstone were both endorsed by the Working Families Party and have both faced residency challenges.
Last week, Meng withdrew her candidacy from the race to replace her father, Jimmy Meng, in a Queens Assembly district -- supposedly in anticipation of a residency related challenge. Diamondstone, currently facing his own challenge in court today, will soon learn if he will fall prey to the same technicality.
We asked WFP spokesperson Alex Navarro about this curious phenomenon:
Politicians without a strong reservoir of support in their communities will go to extremes to keep off other candidates that have a base. As a longtime activist, Ken Diamondstone has a strong progressive base in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. Of course Marty Connor is going to pull every trick out his Election Lawyer's hat to keep Ken off the ballot.Doesn't exactly answer the question, but at least it sounds good. —Nicole BrydsonWe're counting on the courts taking a realistic approach and leaning in the direction of the First Amendment interest in the lively debate this race promises on the best way to deliver affordable housing, better-funded schools, universal health care and more transparent, open and democratic government.
wait a second. grace meng, daughter of an incumbent is all of a sudden an "insurgent?"
What world are you living in? She was the heir apparent--LITERALLY!!!
WFP, while they may have noble intentions, are political animals with a clear cut policy agenda. they support candidtates that promise to advance that agenda. they're not "insurgent" they are pragmatic. see the spano race for evidence.
Since Meng has withdeawn, I;m curious as to how Navarro "the courts taking a realistic approach and leaning in the direction of the First Amendment interest"
Hey Yoda,
That comment was particularly directed to the Diamondstone issue.
- ASN
hey alex, it's not an election law technicality. The state constitution clearly says that you have to live in the district for a year to run for the the state legislature. Diamondstone and Meng may not even live in their districts now.
...and, by the way, good to know you don't even have an explanation for Meng's fake residence.
The first manedment apparently gives one the right to falsely register to vote at one address while filing an STAR tax refund form listing your real address as your primary residence. And, I thought free speech did not cover perjury.
The first amendment apparently gives one the right to falsely register to vote at one address while filing an STAR tax refund form listing your real address as your primary residence. And, I thought free speech did not cover perjury
since when did politicians' residency matter? delay just moved to VA and is still on the ballot in Texas, Santorum doesn't live in his district in PA and is rumored to live in VA.
if they know about the voters' concerns... who really cares.
28 year washed up incumbent or a dude who's lived 2 blocks from the district for 30 years?
It also doesn't matter for federal election in NYS, as it would have been legal for Yassky to have won the NY-11 seat if he still didn't live in the district at the time of the election. He would just have to of moved into it after winning.
10:56: Of course it doesn't matter in a federal election. The federal standards for office are set in the US constitution; the NYS standards for office are set in the NYS constitution. A lot of the state constitution is shear unmitigated crap, the budget section was written by Robert Moses and essentially prevents the legislature form legislating; nonetheless, it is controlling.
This just shows the hypocrisy of those who attack candidates who challenge petitions. These people aid and abet fraud. The Board of Elections do not check anything but the cover sheets after the petitions are submitted. Only a challenge by another candidate or a concerned voter results in things being checked for residency or even if the candidate being challenged has filed enough signatures -- let alone valid signatures. This is not silly stuff such as knocking a person off on a technicality -- although there is nothing legally wrong with doing that -- but fundamental compliance with the election law.
More like political candidate who fear lack of public support to uses these type of technicalities to knock off challengers.
I don't think not living in the district that you're trying to represent is a technicality. After all, we are talking about LOCAL races- the entire idea behind local gov't is that people living in a neighborhood should represent that neighborhood. Of course, living a block or two outside the district is a special (and a bit of an extreme case), but you have to draw the line somewhere. For example, if I live on the NY side of the border between NY and NJ, does it mean I am entitled to argue that I'm a resident of NJ to claim lower taxes because it's a "technicality?"
In the case of Grace Meng, her father is currently under federal investigation for election fraud. Furthermore, a central criticism is that, it's not that Grace just lives a block or two outside the district, but that the Meng family has only had a residential address in Flushing to exploit the Asian-American population electorally while enjoying the benefits of a swanker Bayside neighborhood. I don't think that's just a technicality... If true, I think it's a pretty big issue actually.
I wonder how much Meng and Diamondstone donated to Working Families Party coffers? Money seems to be a big factor in their endorsements.
Actually, Tine at 10:56, one does not need to live in a congressional district in order to represent it in Congress; one merely must be a resident of the state in which the district lies. At one point, in fact, Carolyn Maloney represented four members of Congress: Jerry Nadler, Tom Manton, Nydia Velazquez and Maloney herself all lived in her district, while serving as incumbent House members. Members do usually make a point of moving into the districts they represent, but that is for political purposes, not legal ones.
kkim,
You need to consult your CPA about legitimate tax shelters.
Bayside is swanker than Flushing. You've got to be kidding me.
Also the lines for district 22 are not immutable. They have been changing over time.
To suggest that the challenge was morally based and not just an opportunist looking for an easy win seems a little disingenuous.
Despite whatever Manhattan-centric idiocy 5:20 spouts, Bayside was never in the 22AD. It's not that close (think SoHo compared to East Harlem) and it's a different type of neighborhoos (again, so that you can understand: SoHo vs. East Harlem).
Flushing = East Harlem?
Bayside = Soho?
Are you even from NYC making statements like that?
Yes the district lines keep changing... every 2 decades! Give me a break.
And yes, perhaps I may need to consult my CPA but you're missing the larger point that the entire world is built on technicalities. If you're going to get into an argument about "what's the big deal about living 3 blocks outside the district" it can turn into a pretty ugly progression of logic... "what's the big deal if I live in New Jersey, I work 50 hours a week in Flushing, I should be able to run for Assembly there!"
Also, because district lines only shift every 2 decades, when elections for the state legislature take place on those years when districts are re-drawn, candidates are actually allowed to run from outside the district and move in post-election. It's been about 4 years since the district was last re-drawn though, I think that's enough time to move into the district if someone is set on representing the area.
Furthermore, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to say that there's some morally questionable behaviour going on. The bigger picture is that this not-living-in-the-district issue has been around since Jimmy was running. I think it's a significant moral problem... Jimmy is a person who cheated the election system by spearheading illegal voter registrations, and who lies on his forms about living in the district. Grace then decides to run while not living in the district as well. As a resident of the 22nd AD...my warning flags are just going up left and right.
Also, yes Bayside is swanker than Flushing.
I know both neighborhoods pretty well but you can always look at the numbers for each neighborhood.
Flushing: Avg. Annual Salary: +$39,835. The median home value is: $450,000. (according to state comptroller hevesi).
Bayside: Median home value: $530,000 (based on CNN Money). I can't find the avg annual salary quickly but just to give you an idea, the median was about 54k in 1999. (US Census).
Bayside was also a contender for one of the best places to live on CNN Money. It's a pretty well-accepted fact that Bayside is swanker if you're from the area.
If Bayside is swanker than Flushing, then why is every Asian in north Queens hanging out in Flushing on the weekends?
However, Grace does live in Flushing now. The issue is only how long she has lived at the Flushing address. It seems she didn't qualify for the 1 year mark by only a few weeks.
She, like most Asians in North Queens, probably grew up in Flushing. Since the Chinese language schools, martial art schools, piano schools, and cram schools are all located in Flushing. So to claim that an ABC that lived a zip code away most of her life is somehow unfamiliar with Flushing is disingenuous
The Meng family has been doing business in Flushing for over two decades; they are a fixture in community these days.
The issue is not a moral issue as you claim, but a technical issue. Because the spirit of the rule is not to prevent a person who has grown up and works in Flushing most of their lives.
One could question the morality of a political opponent that takes advantage of technicalities like this in a democracy.
This is a moral issue. Grace is an attorney who was running to become a state law maker. What does it say about her character if she thinks she is above the law?
To characterize this as a technicality is a huge mischaracterization. This is not like forgetting to check a box on a form or sign a document. This goes to the very heart of a representative democracy. If law makers, like the position Grace was running for, thought people who worked or spent a lot of time in a place could adequatelly represent that area, there would be a workplce exception to the residency requirement.
Antilles,
Your example clearly makes a technical issue, since by amending the rule it could state one needed to resides 6 months in a particular district to qualify for the position.
Because from a moral perspective does it make a difference if one resides in a district 6 months or 12 months?
Especially if the individual in question has been an active participant in the community for about 20 years.
Thus it is not a moral issue, but a technical one, which ironically these lawmakers can change at their own collective discretion.
Anon, 1:55pm -- technical means of or relating to technique. Grace did not make a procedural mistake. Instead she intentially or ignorantly violated a substantive law. So either she had bad intent to break the law or she's an incompetent lawyer who doesn't know how to read the law. By your logic, violations of all laws are technical violations because the legislature can always change any law.
Moral may be the wrong word to describe Grace's boo boo, but it definitely was not a technicality. Her morality will be tested though if she chooses to endorse Julia Harrison, who infamously said in 1996 that Asians were rich invaders, thieves, blah, blah, blah. But it sounds like Julia was describing someone like Grace. Let's see how much principle Grace has to not endorse someone who is a bigot against people like Grace and her family. that will be her moral test of character.
And why should Grace Meng endorse Young?
Harrison has an axe to grind with Liu.
Again, I don't think it's disingenuous at all. All the reasoning that you have put forward is entirely speculatory. First, and rather unimportantly, the fact that, by your observation, everyone in North Queens hangs out in Flushing on the weekends does not attest to the quality of life in the areas. Going by all conventionally accepted measures of welfare, Bayside is simply a richer neighborhood. The tendency of Asian-Americans to frequent Flushing can be attributed to say, the number of venues that cater to Asian American affinities.
Furthermore (and much more significantly), whether you grow up a zipcode away or an area code away, the law states that you must fulfill certain obligations to garner a salary from the money allocated to, and to represent the people living in AD22. Unfortunately, running a business in an area and being a real resident of that area are two very, very different things.
It's ridiculous that your line of reasoning goes something like this: "Grace's dad does business in Flushing. Grace is a young Asian American. Lots of young Asian Americans like to hang out in Flushing because there are Asian preparatory schools, cafes and martial arts schools there. Therefore, Grace's exposure, knowledge of, and experiences must be equivalent to that of a real resident." The issue is not being "familiar" with Flushing, the issue is whether or not you're a resident of the community. Of course, you can claim "technicality" to this. But this statement from another post pretty much hits the nail on the head:
"So either she had bad intent to break the law or she's an incompetent lawyer who doesn't know how to read the law. By your logic, violations of all laws are technical violations because the legislature can always change any law."
This is not even to bring up the fact that her claim of living in Flushing as of right now, is pretty dubious.
Finally, while I am not claiming that she's too young to be a competent and able assembly member, I think it's pretty funny to claim that an early-thirties year old woman has been a major component of civic life for the past 20 years. Unless you're referring to Assembly Member Meng's activities as well which include election fraud. In one ridiculous instance, something like 12 of Mr. Meng's fellow businessmen who reside well outside the district were registered as voters in the same storefront. (I guess you'd think that's a technicality as well...but guess who ran his campaign that was bedeviled by scandal and major allegations of corruption...that's right Grace!).
kkim,
So in your opinion if a person sleeps in 22AD, but works in Midtown, goes to school in the Bronx, and spends the weekends in the Hamptons...this individual is more qualified than someone who spends their waking hours in 22AD.
Sounds like a pretty well thought out law, when those lawmakers put that one in the books.
The difference in lifestyle and income between Bayside and Flushing are insignificant. Perhaps if one looked to Great Neck or Manhasset, there is an obvious class difference between residents.
Speculating into her intent is akin to pushing air. But the facts are plain. She didn't qualify by a few weeks.
Why would she be challenged on this issue? Because it is an easy win for Ellen Young.
Being so adamant about the "morality" of issue, not only insults people's intelligence. But just makes Young's camp look a bunch of political hacks.
"So in your opinion if a person sleeps in 22AD, but works in Midtown, goes to school in the Bronx, and spends the weekends in the Hamptons...this individual is more qualified than someone who spends their waking hours in 22AD."
No I am not. But, I see it as highly doubtful, first of all, that candidate Meng actually lives in the district. I also believe that laws exist for a reason. For any law that exists out there you can concoct any number of hypothetical situations in your head that make the law seem perverse, but ultimately there's a reason it exists. The reason this particular election law exists is to ensure that a person, as a resident of a neighborhood, can represent his or her own neighborhood in the local government. If you wanted to apply your logic to any law... why should theft be against the law? Shouldn't very impoverished people be allowed to steal from the more well off in society? Isn't it morally wrong that some starve as others guzzle gas in their fuel-inefficient, secondary cars? We answer "no" because we live in a society with order, and the fact is we accept that there will inequality for the freedom and meritocracy of a (more or less) free market. In the same way, we acknowledge that there may hypothetically be circumstances like the one you described, but we need a law like this one to ensure that for example, outsiders with money do not go around exploiting communities. Furthermore, the election law really isn't that stringent. It allows for people to move in and out of districts and run where they choose to take up residence. All they have to do is live there for a specific time period to show that they're actually residents. I think it was more disingenuous for candidate Meng, assuming she actually does live where she claims, to move in and hope that no one would realize that she was in fact, ineligible to run.
Furthermore, if we don't go by the law of residence how can we assess candidates and their eligibility to represent a district? That leaves things terribly ambiguous and things open to more political manipulation. That said, there is nothing special about the Meng family and they are not above the law. We can't expect to go around and have an even-handed and fair assessment of candidates and how vested they are in each neighborhood based on intangible things like "involvement over the past 20 years."
Perhaps calling the act of running as a candidate in spite of not having fulfilled eligibility requirements, strictly immoral, may be a bit strong. However, given that candidate Meng has been involved in a campaign that was mired in claims of corruption, and whose state of residence is highly doubted, she should at least have waited until she actually fulfilled the election laws.
Kkim,
Election laws and regulation are almost as complex as laws governing taxation. If an aspiring candidate resided at a particular location for 50 weeks and the rule requires 52 weeks, what is the significance of the infraction. Most observers question the intent of the challenge. To maintain order seems somewhat of an exaggeration.
But of course your view makes perfect sense from a Jon Stewart point of view. The rampant carpetbagger from Bayside must be stamped out. For the sake of maintaining order in 22AD, people from 19AD are not welcome. Good thing that Clinton woman is a born and bred New Yawker.
Not to mention challenges were made to all the other candidates. Are you trying to claim that Young is the keeper of order for all of 22AD? That all the other candidates are agents of chaos and confusion....
This was clearly a case of political opportunism for the Young camp and not a case of Meng camp sending 22AD into anarchy.
I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the election laws are too complex for the Meng camp to follow. Every year, candidates who have not passed the bar manage to comprehend and adhere to the law. To claim that they're just too complicated is basically to say that the candidate is an incompetent attorney, and furthermore doesn't have the scruples to make sure he or she follows the law by consulting a person who does understand them.
Would it not make sense for a serious candidate for office, moreover one whose own father has had his own share of election law problems, and whose professional background is as an attorney, to make sure that there is nothing questionable about her own candidacy?
Laws inevitably must draw a line in the sand somewhere and to claim that laws you don't like are all "technicalities" is rather nonsensical as Antilles already pointed out.
Furthermore, no I'm not claiming all other candidates are agents of choas and confusion... But it is a case of a candidate who was very aware of the law and instead of doing something productive or waiting a bit until she was eligible to run, (after all NYS Assembly terms are an all-too-short 2 years), held its breath and hoped no one would notice it was violating election law! This is what I'm claiming is morally questionable.
It's basically a case of someone who knows the law(who in this case is an attorney, which makes it even more egregious), breaks the law, and when is caught claims the law is a bad law. It's a pretty bad argument to throw out there retroactively. Two weeks or two years, the time to bring to light something you don't like about the law is not after you've tried to pull a fast one and have been caught.