Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Delivers Remarks at Citizens Union's "The Only Way is Up: A Citywide Discussion to Boost Voter Turnout in New York"

November 18, 2016

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Thank you so much, Dick – a big thank you for both a kind introduction and one that reminded me of younger, gentler time in my life.

[Laughter]

I was, once upon a time, a City Hall staffer in the administration of Mayor Dinkins. And Dick Dadey told the story exactly right – we were trying to get something done.

But what an interesting commentary on the world that even just a domestic partnership registry in 1992, I think it was, was considered a radical, troubling thing by many, and we had to fight so hard to find the pathway in New York City to get this done. And boy – Dick’s story has two counter-ramifications for me. One – it makes me feels old.

[Laughter]

Thank you, Dick.

And two – it is a reminder of the pathway of social progress, that a good people in the early 1990’s fought to establish the framework that would eventually lead to marriage equality. This is one – I’m riffing because it’s an important one but [inaudible] in history we are experiencing right now in the last – what has been ten days of our life that there is a temptation, and I understand it. When a major change occurs and there’s disappointment there’s a temptation for people to think history has ended and all the things we have learned and all the ways we went about our work suddenly were made moot. And it obviously is not the case.

When I think back to the vignette that Dick talked about, it’s almost 25 years ago, and think how systematically people worked to changed perception, to raise the bar, to understand that each toe hole lead to the next act of progress. Now, that day in 1992 when we were sitting there in City Hall Park, we were fighting for our lives just to get a domestic partnership registry. If one of us had to the other and said, guess what? 20 years from now there will be marriage equality for all and the Supreme Court of the United States will decide it with a Republican majority, the other one would have accused the speaker of using foreign substances.

[Laughter]

So, it is an affirmational point at a moment where a lot of us are concerned and troubled, looking for answers. And it’s just one issue playing out over decades. Look at that extraordinary progress as a reminder to us that that is how change is made. And even when there are set backs the same formula for change is just as pertinent. We’re just going to have to do it a different way.

So, Dick, I want to thank you because it’s also [inaudible]. Your story was generous was but it’s also a statement about the fact that – it’s that your life’s passion to form our city, to make our city a better and more inclusive place, to continue the extraordinary work of making our government more responsive to the people, more transparent and cleaner.

Another really important point – some people in this room may not remember it. By looking around, I bet there are some who remember it well. You go back in time 30, 40 years in this city, we had a huge and pervasive corruption problem in our City government. And that through [inaudible] Citizens Union had so much to do with addressing it over years and years – one by one these issues were addressed. The Conflict Interests Board was created. The Campaign Finance Board was created. So many wonderful checks and balances, and this City government today is so institutionally strong in terms of how we go about the work, the standards that are held, and the cleanliness compared to our past and compared to what we see in some other places in our nation.

That took a lot of hard work. That took a lot of hard work but it did come to pass. It came to fruition. So, there’s a lot to be proud of. There’s a lot to use as a ballast, as a foundation even in tough times.

I want to thank everyone for being here, and I especially want to thank everyone associated with Citizens Union because you have an extraordinary record of being the voices of reform – a conscious for the city for 120 years – but, today, an updated and very vibrant and contemporary version of the Citizens Union. And this conversation today could not be more timely. So, I appreciated that as well. This is exactly the conversation we have – beyond the results of any election we have to get to the core of how to make our democracy work better. These issues were laid bare once again on Election Day, and this is now precisely the correct time for concentrated and coordinated action to change, and I want to speak about that.

But let me thank, also, Anthony Crowell. Your comments were – I’m looking for where Anthony is. There’s Anthony, right in front of me. Anthony, your comments were very kind. So, I’m going to give you a thank you too because you were a great public servant for this city. And I think anyone who does the work and does it with integrity as you did – and you’re right, you’re not suddenly going to have a surplus of thank-yous in your life. So, I’m giving you a retrospective thank you.

[Laughter]

You could apply it back in history to any point you want. But thank you, also, for being the dean of this great law school and for having such a civic sensibility pervade this school. I’ve been here many times because you have guys have invited me many times to talk about the issues facing our city.

I also want to thank Rachel Bloom, the Director of Public Policy and Programs at Citizens Union, for helping put this together.

And I want to note all the advocacy groups and Good Government groups and partners in the work we do – academics, all the people who care deeply about these issues and help bring them to light. Thanks to all of you.

I finally want to acknowledge, over here, my Special Counsel Henry Berger. Thank you for the great work you do. For a long time you’ve been working on these issues as well, and we thank you.

So, what did we learn ten days ago? We learned that we need electoral reform. This just in.

[Laughter]

Oh, wait. I should start at the beginning. We learned that the Electoral College is an arcane idea that doesn’t make sense in the 21st century.

[Applause]

And I would remind us – look, I think there’s – I’m going just do one big picture and come back right to the state and the city. If there’s two things we have to do in this country, and the work should begin now even if it will take years, one is abolish the Electoral College and have the popular vote decide who’s President of the United States.

[Applause]

How’s that for a simple idea.

Because this nation is not – there are differences by region, etcetera – but this nation is not the nation it was 140 years ago. It’s a pretty homogenized nation in many ways at this point, and the idea that a President of the United States can lose by over a million votes and still become President of the United States. That is not, I think, the intention of our democracy, and that needs work.

And then second – the repeal of Citizens United. Never to be confused with Citizens Union – repeal of Citizens United.

[Applause]

Those two actions – restoring the notion of the majority is – the majority, one person one vote; and restoring the notion that money cannot dominate the political process. Those two fundamental changes will supercharge our democracy and supercharge participation. They are years in the future, I’m quite eyes-wide-open about that but we should devote ourselves. And I think there’s a lot of people who would say after the year 2000 – all of us, we got that object lesson in Florida, and Al Gore winning by 500,000 votes and not taking office. We would probably would’ve been well-served to start a moment for changing the Electoral College 16 years ago.  Well, let us not make the same mistake twice.

Back to the local front – what we experienced on Election Day was simply unacceptable and it was also thoroughly avoidable and fixable. So, there was good news – more than two-and-half-million New Yorkers voted in New York City. Two-and-half-million people-plus voted. And that was over 600,000 more voters than 2012.

Now, that’s very interesting to me because I think a certain mythology has started to develop that the 2008 election, a powerful, dramatic, inspiring election was sort of the high water mark and we would never see anything but downward trend from there. So, I’m encouraged that we had the 2012 number surpassed this year. That is a good sign, and 600,000 more votes in one city is a very powerful number.

But, at the same time, people experienced unacceptable conditions in so many polling places. We had lines of as much as two-and-a-half hours in this city. I will do the shop-worn phrase but it’s worth it – the biggest, richest city in the country should not have to have people waiting two-and-a-half hours to exercise their right to vote. It’s absolutely unbelievable and unacceptable.

So, we know that the system, as it’s currently structured under our State law, literally cannot keep up with the reality of our modern democracy. It’s as simple as that. And one of the things we have to do in this country, but we especially have to do in New York State, is shape the foundations of things because this state, this theoretically progressive, modern state, when it comes to electoral laws, shows no evidence of being progressive and innovative and modern. It just doesn’t.

It’s backward. We are just backward. And I am a very, very proud New Yorker and I could recite the history of all the great things that come out of New York but when I look at our electoral laws, they are so arcane and it makes me wonder how they weren’t torn down a long time ago. And that says something about the power structures of this state and the things we have to look in the eye.

So, I am absolutely convinced that the time is now to make this change. And I’ve been blunt about this for several reasons. The time is now because of what people just experiences. The time is now because, boy, have we gotten a lesson in the fact that elections matter.

Whenever I went – I went around the country on behalf of my chosen candidate and I said, sometimes you get those folks who say, I’m not going to vote because all the candidates are alike. The two candidates are alike. People are – they just had a reason not to vote. I said, if ever there was an election where the two candidates were not alike, it was the one we just had.

But that being said, there’s still so many people who didn’t participate for a lot of reason but one of them was the fact that they had had such bad experiences with the voting process and that it was so cumbersome and so exclusionary.

So, it’s time now with the energy coming out this election to begin with, and the sense of why democracy matters and participation matters plus the negative experience that people have had yet again plus the Bernie Sanders movement which, to their great credit, really put a spotlight on the question of electoral systems and what is fair and the need to create a simpler pathway for people to participate. And one thing I love about what Bernie Sanders did – you know, it’s, again, a bit stereotyped but it’s still not unfair – a generation of people got involved because of his campaign. I want that generation to stay involved. I want more to come in. But if they confront exclusionary voting dynamics it will discourage a very promising new generation from fully owning their democracy.

So, here’s what I think we have to do. We have to recognize the difference between active and passive disenfranchisement. So, if you go to North Carolina right now or Texas or Wisconsin there are overt, active efforts to strip people of their voting rights – to make it very difficult for people to vote as a systematic political strategy.

And, oh by the way, the people being targeted are overwhelmingly poor and people of color, so on top of that it has racial and economic underpinnings. That’s the overt kind of voter suppression. What’s happening the State of New York is passive and has been going on for decades. Make voting so difficult, make registering so difficult that the electorate is kept small and incumbents are favored. It’s as simple as that.

The power structure long ago decided that if you did something as troubling as to open up the process and actually engage the whole electorate unpredictable things might happen. They liked predictable. They liked the idea of incumbency guaranteeing office for life. So New York State doesn’t practice the overt kind, but it does practice the passive kind of disenfranchisement. And the proof is in the pudding. So many people who want to participate can’t find a way to do it effectively let alone those who we’d love to bring in but at the slightest challenge will veer away because so many are cynical in general about the political process and about government, and the minute they see something that says’ please go away’ to them they react to it.

Here’s the fact – almost two million eligible people in this state, two million people who could be voting are not registered. Now, perspective – two million people is a group of people greater than or equal to the population of 15 states in the United States of America. There are 15 states that have a population of two million or less. So this is a major, major thing that two million people are not even in the game, and I know for a huge percentage of that group it is because they can’t even figure out a straightforward way to register to vote, or they come to the realization that they’d love to participate and the deadline has already passed. One million almost of those folks are right here in New York City, and they would be empowered if we changed our state laws. So it’s time for New York State to get out of the dark ages, and we in New York City have a particular responsibility. We are 43 percent of this state’s population. We are the economic engine for the State of New York. We are the primary revenue generator for the State of New York. We have to own this change. We have to go all over the state with likeminded people and say enough is enough.

So then you would say okay – what would fix it? Early voting. Here’s one thing that would immediately fix it. Well, Bill, early voting that’s such a speculative, new idea.

[Laughter]

It’s unproven and untested certainly in dynamic environments like this. Good point except there are 37 states that are doing it right now – thirty-seven states including Texas including, Georgia including, Oklahoma. Big state like Texas is doing it. Conservative state like Oklahoma is doing it. We’re not doing it. Thirty-seven states are finding that it works just fine. Blue states and red states alike, it works just fine. And it encourages so many more people to participate. It takes away all the problems of disenfranchising people who are traveling or have two jobs and have tough work schedules or are students. It takes away all those issues. It makes voting something that people can envision as being easy and straightforward. It encourages participation. It’s staring us in the face.

Electronic poll books – a lot of that hassle we all have, a lot of that two and a half hour line came from people flipping through paper books looking like ‘oh you have to be in the line that N through Z, you’re in the wrong line.’ It’s 2016! We have computers.

[Laughter]

Electronic poll books would make a difference. Once again, clever audience you would say – this wide-eyed unproven technology, Bill, why would you bring it here? Because it exists now in 32 states and the District of Columbia, including Florida, Arizona, and Alabama – again, Florida big state; Alabama, conservative state. They do electronic poll books. Why shouldn’t we?

Finally, same day voter registration – same day voter registration would encourage so much participation. It would tell people that they are welcome. It would simplify the entire process because it would take away the very first barrier, and I think the barrier that bothers me the most – an artificial bar set for even getting in the game. It simply says if you want to take a stand and participate in democracy, just show up. You know – you know my call and response by now, so I will tell you. It’s in 13 states and the District of Columbia including Idaho, Wyoming, and North Carolina. Again – this is not about ideology. It is not about geography. All sorts of places are implementing these reforms, and it’s going perfectly well. Okay, you’ve now gathered the punchline. New York State has none of these three things. None. The next biggest state that has none of these three reforms at all is Kentucky.

[Laughter]

No disrespect to Kentucky – just a size comparison, a much small state. Big, innovative, strong New York State has none of these things, and you would have to go a whole long way around the nation to find the handful of states that have not a single one.

Then we get to the Board of Elections. You can groan.

[Laughter]

The Board of Elections answers to the State of New York. In effect, under State law, obviously, the party system governs it. But now, it’s not working and I have said, benevolently, give me control of the Board of Elections and I’ll give you a modern agency that can run elections.

Not sure the State of New York wants to do that. But at least what the State of New York can do is give power to the executive director and let the executive director be a professional manager and stop making so many decisions flow through a partisan board that has proven its inability to get this job done.

I’m going to support the State legislation to achieve that and I’m going to reiterate everywhere I go my offer of $20 million American dollars – cash currency. $20 million to the Board of Elections to be able to implement the reforms immediately in terms of training of poll workers, improving salaries of poll workers, using more modern managerial techniques. I will give them $20 million if they will agree to these measures, these reforms and make themselves accountable for the implementation.

I have put that offer out months ago and I have still not gotten a response from the Board of Elections. I will say this is the only agency I have ever heard of that did not say yes to an offer of $20 million.

[Laughter]

So, I’ll conclude with this – there is a status quo that is not working for a lot of people in this city, in this state, in this country. There is so much more we have to change. But the very time that people feel this – they feel frustrated, they want changes, they want to see their democracy respond to their needs, they want to believe they hit the log-jam of electoral laws that exclude them thus confirming their anger of the status quo.

We have to be the ones to break through. I think this is one of those historical moments. It is our time. The momentum is with us – all of us who want reform. Now, we have to take this battle to Albany once and for all. And I hope you will join me in that.

Thank you.

[Applause]

Dick Dadey: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for [inaudible] –

Mayor: How do I really feel, Dick?

[Laughter]

Dadey: And particularly for your excellent research in comparison – comparing New York State to the others. I would like to give you a job on the Citizens Union staff –

[Laughter]

Mayor: Right about now I might take that job.

[Laughter]

Dadey: Thank you very much for always being a part of the fight but actually stepping up now and taking more visible [inaudible] position.

Mayor: Thank you.

Dadey: And this needs – make sure that our democracy works better for all New Yorkers. So, just two quick questions. One is – we talked a little about some of the institutional barriers, policies, and laws and what have you that keep New Yorkers from voting. What can we do [inaudible] creating more societal pressures and creating greater civic responsibility of an obligation of voting? One thing in particular is why can’t we return to the classroom civics education – a civic curriculum, you know, [inaudible] Participation in Government – PIG –

Mayor: Don’t like the acronym.

[Laughter]

Dadey: What can you do? What can we do to help educate our young people more about their responsibilities as members of this democracy?

Mayor: Well, I would say a little of the medium is the messenger. I think a robust reform movement would actually be very engaging to young people because you could see – Bernie Sanders is one piece of the equation but I want to use him as an object lesson here. What he was doing spoke to high school students, college students, and many of all generations but the point being that that energy can be created once people see an open door. So, I think if we had a vision of reform in Albany – if we say things like same-day registration, early voting, things that are really going to open up the system and empower people, I think that unto itself will energize a lot of young people who want to be a part of that movement for change because they know it’s for them. I think on top of that, I agree, I think there’s an updating of what used to be called civics education that’s necessary.

I’ve been talking to Chancellor Fariña about this, and she feels this too.

We have to figure out something that is universal across our school system, and I don’t have the plan yet. We have to figure out something that is a combination of less sappy, traditional message, but one that’s blunter and edgier about the ramifications of not participating, and the power of participation. And that could be not just going and voting once a year, but showing our young people what civic participation more broadly on issues, on local concerns, what impact it has. I think we have to find a methodology for connecting more and more young people to some kind of local effort for change. Not just charity or do-gooding, which is great unto itself. But something where they want to seek a change or a reform and are given an opportunity to learn how to do that. I’ve seen that in different examples in different schools, but I have not seen it applied consistently.

Dadey: My final question is from the audience here. [Inaudible] speak about opening up the system – the exclusion of independent voters and arbitrary early registration deadlines prevent millions of New Yorkers from voting in municipal, state, and presidential primaries this year. Would you be willing to put a referendum on the ballot to create open primaries in New York City and enfranchise voters who are not?

Mayor: So I don’t believe in open primaries. I’m going to be very straightforward about it. I think that the party system matters.

[Applause]

It’s absolutely normal there’s going to be differences on this one. But what I would say – I think there is a change we need that you could buy into, whether you believe in open primaries or not. So my simple example is this – and I think it’s a great debate to have. Party identification is still the leading determinant of political action in this country to the extent that the parties to people are identifiable and have a meaning. I think if you’re a member of a party, it means you’re a stakeholder, and you’re working for a certain outcome in that party. I think the Democratic primary process this year, whatever one might say – and I’m not going to partisanize this proceeding – but whatever one could say about the joys and sorrows of the Republican primary process, the Democratic presidential primary process was very high-minded, substantive, meaningful, and engaging to people because people were deciding the direction of the party that aligned with their core beliefs. That is, to me, sacred unto itself.

What’s wrong right now is if you want to participate in a party – well first of all, all of the things we talk about – for a lack of same-day registration, for example. If you want to participate in a party whether you’ve been in it or not before, and you are a new registrant, or you come in from another state, right now it’s difficult just because registration is difficult. And same-day registration would erase that problem immediately. It is Election Day, you show up – doesn’t matter if you just moved in from elsewhere, it doesn’t matter if you are a first-time voter – you show up, you declare your party, you can participate. That’s the way it should be.

If people want to switch – I don’t want the reality you see in some of the early presidential primary states of selective switching for strategic reasons. I mean I literally have been in these states where people walk in the door in the morning as a Republican, become Democratic for the day, and then go back to be Republican at the end of the day. That doesn’t make sense to me because it is not right for someone who never had an intention to be a stakeholder and be involved in a party to try and alter the outcome of that party’s primary. That’s my worldview.

I think it’s great if someone genuinely wants to go from party member to independent, or independent to party member, or one party to another that they have an opportunity to do that with some buffer time. Not – in this state, it’s like a year, which is crazy. I don’t think it should be the day of. I think there should be some reasonable buffer time that requires you to be serious about the decision you’re making. So I think that’s another reform that would open things up.

Dadey: And just to end on that –

Mayor: Please.

Dadey: It was – [inaudible] the experience in California where an open primary-like system produced two women of color to be the nominees for the United States Senate in the general election.

Mayor: Yep.

Dadey: I mean that was magnificent. Opening up the system didn’t keep people out, but actually provided New Yorker – Californians – to select between two women of color. It was a historical moment.

Mayor: Yes, but I will be cold in my response that it’s an outcome –

[Applause]

The outcome [inaudible]. The outcome was fantastic – both in terms of two women of color running against each other, and I think Kamala is going to be a fantastic senator. But, here’s why I caution. Not only is California is unique, something we all can agree on.

[Laughter]

California at this point in history is a one-party state, which made that outcome possible. I think if you went back a few decades to the very contentious dynamics in California, and you said well people were jumping in and out of parties to try and change the shape of that party’s outcome. You know, you know – and people have seen this – there have been efforts to, for example, people go to another party to push a more extreme candidate, hoping that the other party will nominate the more extreme party so there original party will do better, right? That’s what I don’t feel good about. But I see what you’re talking about. I think let’s all at least agree that if people want to make those choices to move, they should have an easier way than what we have now that wouldn’t allow it to be the day of the election, but they should have an easier way to [inaudible].

Thank you everyone.

[Applause]