[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone and happy election day. My first words to you today are don't take any election for granted. If you haven't already voted, go out to your local polling place and do it. If you've heard on the news that your candidate is a seven to one shoo-in-- I know we've heard that, don't let that candidate lose because not enough people thought their vote mattered.

If you think your candidate has no shot, remember that in low turnout elections, surprising things happen. Either way, your individual vote matters and percentage wise, if you think about it, matters even more than in an election where turnout is high. Get out there and exercise your democratic right to vote lest we lose it by apathy. That's my little sermon, but I will say how different is today from last year on election day?

The future of humanity seemed to hinge on whether Donald Trump would be reelected one year ago. Technically one year ago tomorrow, November 3rd, but one election year ago, election day, a year ago today, this is obviously much less intense than that.

Think about how much would change if Governor Murphy is replaced by Republican Jack Ciattarelli in New Jersey or how much will likely change either way in New York when Eric Adams or Curtis Sliwa succeeds Mayor de Blasio.

With us now from either side of the Hudson river, either side of the Holland and the Lincoln tunnels, either side of the George Washington Bridge, either side of the Outerbridge Crossing, either side of that place just north of Nonna's Pizza, where you cross from Mahwah into Suffern, we have Brigid Bergin, WNYC senior political correspondent, covering New York and Nancy Solomon, WNYC reporter and editor, covering New Jersey.

She is also the host of our monthly call in show Ask Governor Murphy. Will it become Ask Governor Ciatarelli? Happy election day, Brigid. Happy election day, Nancy.

Nancy Solomon: Hey, Brian.

Brigid Bergin: Hey Brian, I'm going to say amen to that sermon you just gave. Get out there and vote, everybody.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, and I had to throw in that Mahwah Suffern thing because you don't always have to cross a body of water to go between New York and New Jersey, so just making that clear. Listeners, electioneering welcome here. 212-433-WNYC call in and say who you voted for and why, or how you voted on any of the interesting ballot proposals in New York.

If you need some last minute personal explaining services about the ballot questions or anything else, the three of us are your election day voters guide concierges. 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692. One group [inaudible 00:03:02] I'd be interested in hearing from is anyone listening right now who only made your choice for New Jersey governor in the last week. 212-433-WNYC.

There may be no swing voters left in all of America. Who knows? Maybe we won't get any calls like that, but as anyone listening right now who only major choice for governor in the last week, let us know what your ambivalence was about and what finally tipped you to one guy or the other. 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692. Brigid and Nancy, can we just do some of the basics first? What does the ballot look like?

What should people be prepared to see and to do fill it out properly when they go to vote today? Brigid, first for New York because there are issues-- I saw it on my ballot, like the ballot having two pages and one of the pages having two sides.

Brigid Bergin: That's right. I think it depends on where you are in the five boroughs, what other down-ballot contests. You might have judges, you may have-- for my ballot, I had two pages. You had to turn them over and on my particular ballot, those five constitutional questions were actually spread out across the backs of both pages. There was three on one page two on the other. I personally thought, "Wow, that's a little bit interesting and perhaps confusing."

I know speaking to people who have voted in other parts of the city, in some cases, on the back of their ballot you have all five questions. Then on the back of the second page of the ballot, perhaps you have some judicial contests. The takeaway that all listeners should take from this is that there are two pages that you need to flip over. Then when you go to actually vote, you have to put them in one at a time and that's how they are processed at the voting machine.

Poll workers are great, they should tell you that, but those are two pieces of information to keep in mind when you go vote in New York City today.

Brian Lehrer: One other detail about that. On mine, everything was on one piece of paper except an election for two judges, where there were only two candidates on the ballot. There's no real election there. The two people on the ballot will win and I almost thought, "Meh, why even put this through to be scanned?" Somebody telling me if you don't do that, then your whole ballot won't count. Is that true?

Brigid Bergin: I would have to confirm that with the Board of Elections. That does not sound correct to me, Brian, but I don't want to give an answer without checking on that information. The one thing that I think is also important to note is even if you choose not to vote for two people who perhaps you don't know much about, there's a write-in option and you have the opportunity on any of these ballots to perhaps write in another candidate and select those names that you write in.

Democracy allows a lot of options. Keep that in mind when you are making some of your decisions.

Brian Lehrer: Nancy, what will people find physically at the polls in New Jersey today?

Nancy Solomon: Well, we're still voting on machines like we always have, but this year, those machines are capable of printing out a paper backup for the first time in. I don't think there's any problem with the pages and turning them over and that sort of thing because it's the same type of machine that people are used to, I believe. I haven't been there yet. Then, on the ballot-- well, I think everybody by now knows the governor's running.

The entire state legislature is up for reelection, so both your local assembly members, two assembly members and one state Senator will be on your ballot. In some towns, there are town council races. Some local races have moved from where they used to be in May to now in November. Many school districts have done that but some haven't, so it's not consistent across the entire state, but there will be a lot of school board elections today.

There are sheriff races, county freeholder-- oops, they're not called freeholders anymore, county commissioner races. Then two measures, sports betting, which would-- there's sports betting in New Jersey and this would extend it to college sports where the game is connected to a New Jersey school.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, really?

Nancy Solomon: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: I actually was unaware of that. You want to tell people about that? Some people may hear that for the first time, along with me who actually will be voting in New Jersey today and hear it either with some enthusiasm or with some alarm.

Nancy Solomon: Yes, sports betting has become a huge thing as we all know with DraftKings and all that sort of thing. It is not allowed with college sports and this would make it allowable in New Jersey for New Jersey's [inaudible 00:08:24] these colleges. I can't tell you I know a whole lot about it but I think it would work just like all the other sports betting works.

I guess there's been a lot of problems with college sports in terms of how those programs are run and whether questions around what kind of benefits and perks the athletes get and the influence of money on the entire university from those programs. I think there's some serious questions there about whether people want to support that one or not.

Brian Lehrer: Hey, listeners, I'm going to put this one out to you in addition to the questions we posed before. How are you voting on the sports betting on New Jersey college sports ballot question today? Do you think it's somehow putting college students at risk in any way, if they're on their school's teams to have people actually betting on them? They're probably in different financial circumstances as mere students for the most part than professional athletes who you might be betting on.

Who has a position on that? Pro or con, call us up, election year on that and help inform your fellow New Jersey voters in the process. 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692 or you can tweet. If you can do it in 280 characters, make your case @BrianLehrer. Brigid, you have famously reported on New York Board of Elections snafus and scandals like wrongly bumping thousands of people off the voter rolls in Brooklyn in 2016. We know some of the ways that they messed up the rank choice voting returns in the primary in June before they got them right. How do things seem to be going today?

Brigid Bergin: Well, I think we are not expecting an election with potentially-- I put a caveat on this, go out and vote, but we're not expecting the volume that we would see in, say, a presidential election. That's been a trend amongst the elections going back for quite a few years. I think one of the things I'm curious about is do we achieve the same turnout that we saw in say, 2013? We saw about 1.1 million people turn out to vote in 2013 when Mayor de Blasio was elected.

That's 26% voter turnout, Brian. Hopefully, we are going to see something. Last year, we saw like 3 million people turn out. That was more than 62% voter turnout. Hopefully, we'll see something a little bit higher, but something to watch for. In terms of issues, I think what we are likely to see are things that are related to places where there are closely fought contests.

We've already heard of some issues with some poll site problems, some traditional poll sites opening later than they're supposed to, poll workers describing some problems with instructions. A lot of those things tend to get worked out and the relatively routine parts of elections. Unfortunately, when you deputize several thousand people on a temporary basis for a single day, it's hard to do everything perfectly. There's a case to be made about ways to make it better.

We'll be watching for any issues related to problems at poll sites in districts that are competitive. For example, in Council District 32 in Queens, including parts of the Rockaways, and Ozone Park, Woodside, Woodhaven, those are where we're going to be watching for some of those issues. Then, just to clarify, in response to your initial question about that ballot, I checked in with my sources at the Board of Elections while Nancy was talking.

As I suspected, similar to if you just choose not to vote in a particular contest, whatever you do choose to vote in should count. If for some reason, you were to only submit the one sheet, that should still count. You should [inaudible 00:12:52] both sheets. You should make sure that you flip your ballot over. If for some reason, you decide not to select candidates in a particular contest, that should not invalidate your ballot.

Brian Lehrer: Good to know. Here's a caller on the college sports gambling proposal on the ballot in New Jersey. Michael in Chester, you're on WNYC. Hi, Michael.

Michael Winchester: Hi, Brian. Thanks for having me on. First time caller, longtime listener.

Brian Lehrer: Glad you're on. Did you look into this question and make a decision?

Michael Winchester: I didn't do enough research, to be quite honest with you. I think I would agree with your guests that I'm not as informed as I should be. As a general concept, I think if you are legalizing something that was illegal, you're taking power away from the shadow industry that ran it. Before, you had illegal sports books, and an illegal betting industry that could influence the actual sports themselves. By legalizing [inaudible 00:13:58] as a general principle, you're removing some of their power.

Brian Lehrer: People are betting on Rutgers football, let's say. Anyway, this just brings it in to the legal regulated economy. That's your argument?

Michael Winchester: Correct.

Brian Lehrer: Michael, thank you very much. We may get a different point of view from Alexis in Red Bank, who says they're a cheerleader at Rutgers. Alexis, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Alexis: Hi, good morning. I was a cheerleader at Rutgers College. I cannot believe that the state would allow betting on a college team. I think it's reprehensible. I do disagree with the other caller. I think that once you start marketing betting just like the DraftKings, and all of the advertising that's going on now, it gets stuck in people's heads. In New Jersey, I've noticed a proliferation of these commercials.

I have a 16-year-old son. He likes fantasy football, and all these different things. I'm like, "This is horrendous." They shouldn't have commercials for smoking, which they don't anymore, for alcohol, and now the betting.

It's like we create addictions, and then we try to find money in the budget to cure the addiction. I think it is so degrading to think that people would bet legally on a Rutgers football game.

Brian Lehrer: Did you also vote against marijuana legalization?

Alexis: Well, I have a brother-in-law that is a psychiatrist. He wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, I believe what he believes. You decriminalize without legalizing, so you don't need to go to jail for it. There shouldn't be marketing to children and commercial venues, because actually, teenagers and people that start smoking marijuana early do have different parts of their brain that are stunted.

Brian Lehrer: Alexis, thank you very much. Pretty consistent on that point, not wanting to vote to legalize anything that could be potentially addictive, or habit forming in a damaging way, says Alexis in Red Bank. Let's go to Evan in New Brunswick, who's on this too. Hi, Evan.

Evan: Hi, there. I just wanted to shed some light on the whole college betting thing because my roommates are pretty big into the sports betting scene. I think people should be clarified that we can bet on basically any other college sports team except for Rutgers games currently under the laws. I think why not just allow it to Rutgers games too?

Brian Lehrer: I see. The current ban you're saying and forgive my own ignorance on this. The current ban is only on in-state college athletics.

Evan: Correct, only games involving Rutgers.

Brian Lehrer: If you want to bet on DraftKings-- I've never done any of this legal sports betting. If you want to bet on DraftKings or one of those sites on Ohio State versus Michigan, you can already do that. Is that what you're saying?

Evan: Yes, correct.

Brian Lehrer: All right, very interesting. Thank you very much. One more on this then we'll move on. There's so much else on the ballot. Rosario in Elizabeth, you're on WNYC. Hello, Rosario.

Rosario: Hi, Brian. Good morning. I would be voting against the college betting because anything that just perpetuates the divide between how college athletes are compensated for their efforts and their work and how many industries benefit off of their effort and their work is just ridiculous. This is a step in the wrong direction. Before we make it any easier to benefit off of these athletes, we would have to make sure that these athletes and their family have fair compensation for what they do.

I'll leave it at that. I'll [inaudible 00:18:15] off here. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. Listeners, there you have a sampling of a few callers on the New Jersey college athletics sports betting ballot question. Obviously, if you haven't done your own homework yet do your own homework before you come to your conclusion. There it is. We'll get to some of the New York ballot questions and certainly more about the candidates and some of the other things that are going on today on election day as we go here.

Nancy Solomon covering the New Jersey election for us. Anything you want to say just put a bow on this portion of the conversation about that sports betting ballot question.

Nancy Solomon: That was fascinating, Brian. I really haven't done any reporting on it. I read my ballot but I haven't gone out and interviewed anybody. I just learned more than I knew and I just think that was a really interesting range of opinions and ways to see the issue on both sides. I've never done any sports betting and I've never covered sports betting, so it's a world unknown to me.

The one thing that was left on the table that wasn't said was so you've never done any legal sports betting, what about illegal sports betting?

Brian Lehrer: [laughs] I have never done any illegal sports betting. It's just not my thing. That was a very-- see, folks. This is Nancy Solomon being the journalist that she is. She had me say, "Oh, I've never used these legal sports betting sites." Of course, I can anyway because I live in New York. Yes, picking out that little detail as if perhaps even if in the off chance that I was making a distinction there without saying it that I did illegal sports betting, so there you go. We're going to take a break right here, then we're going to continue. We will get to the New Jersey governor's race and some of Nancy's reporting on that, back to the New York mayor's race and some of Brigid's reporting on that and many more of your calls on any aspects of these things.

We will also get to the New York ballot questions, which is probably the most confusing thing for New York voters right now. Especially ballot proposal number one on redistricting, where a lot is really at stake there. Even potentially control of Congress is at stake on New York ballot proposal one if you really want to extrapolate the potential ramifications out. We'll get to all of that. Stay with us, Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Bet on that.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC on this election day 2021 with Brigid Bergin covering the elections in New York, Nancy Solomon covering the elections in New Jersey and John on Staten Island. John, you're on WNYC. Hey there?

John: I want to talk briefly about the ballot propositions on the backside of the ballot or wherever they are on your particular ballot. Number one bothered me. There were too many things in it Too many things that for it to be a fair ballot proposition. I would've much rather seen it broken down into perhaps four or five separate ballot issues so that you could vote on yes or no on one or no on the other, but you had them all lumped together.

This, I think, was either done deliberately to try to push some stuff that might not be popular through, taking the bad with the better, or it was done out of sheer ignorance of what they were doing. I found it to be a very difficult issue whether I was going to vote yes or no on it and I finally voted yes because I thought there was more good in it than bad.

Brian Lehrer: Tell us, and we are going to break this down in response to your call because you're exactly right. There are several provisions of that one ballot proposal and it has the good government groups divided. Some are for it and some are against it on exactly the grounds that you were laying out. Some think the good outweighs the bad, some think the bad outweighs the good. What finally tipped you to yes?

John: I felt there was more good in it than bad, but only just.

Brian Lehrer: Well, what was the best thing that drew you to that side ultimately?

John: There were so many things. I don't remember what they all were. I read it like three weeks ago and then I voted on the 23rd.

Brian Lehrer: You voted early as soon as you could. John, I'm going to leave it there. You've set this up beautifully for us. Brigid, where do you want to enter on this conundrum that I'm sure John on Staten Island is not the only person who has.

Brigid Bergin: Absolutely. Why don't I start by just mentioning some of the elements of this proposal and the point that John raised is the point that I think that's what the good government groups are saying. Often that this is those who support it, describe it as an imperfect solution and those who oppose it are bothered by some of these aspects of it. Really quickly, this is all related to the redistricting process.

Which is the 10-year process that we do pegged to the census count, where we redraw the lines for our congressional and state legislative districts, and then eventually our city council districts. This particular question would cap the total number of state senators at 63. It would require that the counts include people who are incarcerated be counted at the address where they lived before they were incarcerated for the purposes of redistricting.

It would move the timeline up, which is something that I think people who are supporting this particular question would point to as one of the main reasons they're supporting it. It would bump things up by about two weeks for when the redistricting plans need to be submitted to the legislature. Then when there is one party control of both legislative houses, it would change it from requiring a two thirds vote to a simple majority to approve those maps.

Now, that is probably one of the things that people are concerned about because they fear that that gives the party in control too much power. In this case, the Democrats, the League of Women Voters, Citizens Union are among those who are opposing it. Common Cause and NYPIRG are among the groups supporting it, in part, because they like the fact that the number of state senators are capped.

They think that that would prevent future legislative bodies from attempting to gerrymander by adding additional districts. They support the people being counted who are currently incarcerated, potentially somewhere upstate, being counted in the districts where they live. When we think about the services and the representation that those people are included in that count. What John raised is the criticism that you most often hear about this ballot question.

There is so much jammed in there, but people who support it often point to the timeline in particular for this. There is some concern given the fact that we have primaries in June, that they need to get this process done, they need to get lines set before the petitioning process starts and it's a lot of work. Even two weeks could make a big difference in terms of getting the process done. I think those are the some of the things that voters will have to weigh, but it's a lot.

My colleague, David Cruz, wrote a really great explainer for Gothamist that's up and tries to break that down. He's been really digging into this redistricting process. We're going to keep following it for our audience throughout the coming year. It's a complicated thing, there's always a concern that the parties have too much control over it and we'll be watching public hearings that are going to be starting across the state where people can weigh in on some of these initial proposals for district lines.

This is not a storyline that's going away anytime soon.

Brian Lehrer: Some of these individual provisions are very popular, especially among Democrats. Like where state prison inmates are counted. For example, if you have Attica Prison way upstate, but half the inmates are from New York City, well, Attica gets a lot more representation than it probably deserves, especially those people can't even vote. The other people who live in Attica who would then be seen as having a greater concentration of population in their area would get more voting power.

The people in New York City, where many of the inmates might be from, would get less. That's one example. Another one would protect the undocumented or not even just undocumented, but any non-citizen immigrants, including legal immigrants from being excluded from the population count which we remember President Trump tried to do that last year and he didn't get it through.

This individual provision says if some immigrants are not counted by the federal census for redistricting purposes, they would at least be counted by the state as actual human beings who live here. Those are some reasons that Democrats in particular like this ballot proposal number one. Some of the criticism that that goes against democratic interests are that it would weight the redistricting process too much toward the partisan.

Which means in this case, giving the Democrats too much power over it rather than some neutral redistricting process. That's good for Democrats. That could even affect how congressional lines are drawn. In a closed Congress, that could affect control of Congress. If you want to just push you to Democratic Party interests, vote yes on that. If you think it's a bad idea because you want a more nonpartisan redistricting system in New York, then vote no or that provision would encourage a no vote on that.

Hopefully, that's a little bit clarifying. You know what? I said, electioneering welcome here, because it's election day. We do allow people to call in, encourage people to call in with how they're voting on things. I'm going to take a call right now from Susan Lerner, who is the director of the good government group Common Cause who is supporting a yes vote on New York ballot proposal number one. Susan, thank you very much for calling in. Of course, you're often here as a guest. Now, you're on as a caller.

We have limited time for this, so go ahead and make your best 60-second case for a yes vote on ballot proposal one.

Susan Lerner: Sure. Brian, thank you so much. It's really shocking to me the misrepresentations that are out there about prop one. Everybody who talks about prop one completely ignores the fact that or everybody who opposes prop one ignores the fact that there is an even breakdown in the redistricting commission between the Rs and the Ds. What the proposition does is it ensures that there's one uniform role, one uniform standard for approving maps no matter who wins the election.

We're not in the election nullification business in our country. We don't look to enshrine the minority, we look to allow the voters to have a choice, but the commission itself is evenly split between Rs and Ds. What the proposition does is it sets a 60% uniform standard for the approval of the map at the commission level and makes it easier for the legislature to adopt the maps once the commission agrees.

It's fascinating to me that people who push for this commission now seem to have no faith in it and are only complaining about what could happen at the legislative level. You need one uniform standard for the approval of maps, period.

Brian Lehrer: The people who think this gives whichever party is in power-- currently the Democrats, too much power to control the district in process, say this would take out a requirement that one head of the commission be Republican, one head of the commission be Democrat and give too much power to the legislature to appoint heads of it who are from whichever party they choose.

Susan Lerner: Well, that's not accurate.

Brain Lehrer: It really is a vote for partisan districting and against nonpartisan districting. You disagree with that.

Susan Lerner: I totally do because it's not the legislature who chooses the executive directors, it's the commission. Brian, how many times have you and I had discussions on air about how we need to remove partisanship from our hiring in the Board of Elections. Why are we trying to enshrine partisanship in our redistricting while we're trying to get rid of it in the Board of Elections?

The co-executive directors should be chosen based upon their skill. Not that the fact that one is registered as a D and one is registered as an R. What if you have a really competent person who's good at drawing maps who is not affiliated with either party? Under the current constitution, you can't hire. That's partisan hiring at all points.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. To put a pin in this one and tie it up, Brigid, and Susan Lerner, we really appreciate you weighing in and your work at Common Cause in general. Brigid, there's a factual dispute here really as to whether ballot proposal one would make redistricting more partisan in New York or make it less partisan in new New York. That's what it sounds like to me.

Brigid Bergin: I think depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer. Certainly, we know that some of the state's Republicans are very opposed to it because they argue-- certainly since they are not in power now also, that this is among the valid proposals that will hurt their party. I think that there are some real concerns about the current state of the redistricting process in terms of whether or not it is built.

The timing will work based on what needs to get done. Some people who I've spoken with who are supporting it, taking out the partisan versus non-partisan debate, they are supporting it in part just because they say it needs to happen in order for redistricting to be completed in a timely fashion this year and that is the rationale that they had given for supporting it.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Well, we are out of time for now. As it turned out, we spent most of this conversation talking about the redistricting ballot proposal in New York and the sports gambling ballot proposal in New Jersey. We really didn't even get to the governor's race or the mayor's race.

I think we did a useful thing because these are the things that have a lot of repercussions potentially, no matter which way they come out, that people are confused about, that people haven't read into as much. You know by now who you're voting for mayor or governor almost certainly. Hopefully, we provided a service, but if you want to hear more about those candidates, Brigid, what are you doing at eight o'clock tonight?

Brigid Bergin: I feel like going on the radio to talk to you.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. I think we could work that out. Nancy, what are you doing at eight o'clock tonight?

Nancy Solomon: Same.

Brian Lehrer: Okay, good. Join Nancy Solomon, Brigid Bergen, also Kai Wright, also reporters out at headquarters and me for election night coverage beginning tonight at eight o'clock here on WNYC. Brigid and Nancy, thanks a lot for this morning, the start of your long day.

Brigid Bergin: Thank you.

Nancy Solomon: Thanks, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.