The candidates challenging incumbents in District 1 of New York State’s Assembly and Senate, one a Republican, one a Democrat, and both in their 20s, were aggressive in attacking their opponents in back-to-back debates on Monday night, but the incumbents were largely if not entirely successful in fending off those attacks while portraying themselves as experienced and capable public servants.
The debates, hosted by the League of Women Voters of the Hamptons, Shelter Island, and the North Fork, had Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. and his Republican challenger, Peter Ganley, jousting over issues including abortion rights, crime, and health care, and Senator Anthony Palumbo and his Democratic challenger, Skyler Johnson, sparring over most of the same issues.
For Assembly
In his opening statement, Mr. Ganley, a former member of Representative Lee Zeldin’s staff and employee of the Suffolk County Board of Elections, called himself a “big supporter” of term limits and repeatedly charged that Mr. Thiele has “one foot out the door” and is “in the process of moving to North Carolina.”
That is untrue, Mr. Thiele, a 27-year incumbent, answered in his own opening statement. He has lived in Sag Harbor for 69 years, he said, “and I’m not going anywhere.” He and his wife are building a vacation home, he said, and “someday” he will “retire and spend a few months each year in North Carolina, because I’ve spent 30 winters in Albany.”
Mr. Thiele emphasized his experience, contrasting it with his opponent’s inexperience. “When you are the incumbent, this is all about ‘what is your record, what have you accomplished, what have you done for the East End of Long Island?’ “ He cited “creative solutions” to problems, including the community preservation fund, restoration of the Peconic Estuary, and, more recently, the creation of the South Fork Commuter Connection. “You don’t trust important jobs like this to somebody who’s never been involved in government at all,” he said.
Mr. Thiele also attacked his opponent on the recent United States Supreme Court decision that held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Mr. Ganley said that he would not support “massive, sweeping changes” to the state’s policies on abortion rights, but does favor parental notification for those under 18 and limiting third-trimester abortions to those resulting from rape or incest, or in which the mother’s life was endangered.
The Supreme Court, Mr. Thiele said, “did an incredible disservice” with its decision, undermining the concept of privacy “that extended to a whole host of other rights dependent on privacy.” New York is pro-choice, he said, “because the State Legislature has been pro-choice. Are you going to trust this issue to somebody who has a proven record, or somebody who says ‘I’m pro-life but will only make a few changes’?”
Mr. Ganley spoke of crime and criticized Mr. Thiele, who “voted for cashless bail,” which he said allows people who have committed violent crime to be released only to commit more crimes. It should be repealed, he said.
Mr. Thiele said that he does not support cashless bail, which was included in the state budget that he voted for. “I don’t think we should do major policy as part of the budget. I voted for the budget, but stated at the time that I did not support cashless bail.” He would have had to vote against every other provision in the budget for the sake of cashless bail, he said, adding that judges should have greater discretion with respect to bail.
“I don’t think he was allowed to vote no on cashless bail,” Mr. Ganley countered, accusing his opponent of having “voted with the speaker on everything. He voted for cashless bail. Just because it was in the budget doesn’t give you a pass.”
Mr. Ganley said that “man-made climate change is real” and a problem. The state has a role to “grab every grant,” he said, and as a resident who plans to spend his life east of Riverhead, he is vested in combating sea level rise and other impacts of climate change.
Mr. Thiele emphasized his past work with former State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle, a Republican, to “put together programs and funding” for climate change responses and spoke of his involvement in crafting the Environmental Bond Act, a referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot that would authorize $4.2 billion for climate change mitigation, flood risk reduction, open space, and water quality.
That, he said, would be the “first down payment” in addressing climate change, providing funding for the goals of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. “Now we have to implement them,” he said. “The bond act is that first step. And we have to be aggressive in going after polluters, the people who caused this.”
Responding to a question about helping local and state economies recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, Mr. Ganley said that “we need to lower taxes for small business,” calling the district unaffordable to many. “People my age are moving out because it’s hard to afford to live here. People of retirement age, like my opponent, are moving out of the state.” A “competitive tax climate” would entice businesses to the district, he said.
“We put a cap on the gas tax, accelerated a middle-class income tax cut, provided a substantial rebate to property owners,” Mr. Thiele said of the Legislature. “We provided grant funding for small businesses coming out of the pandemic, and have helped direct those to our local businesses here.”
“We need to crack down on the obvious corruption with campaign contributions in the state,” Mr. Ganley said. “I am the only one who’s going to put up a fight.”
Mr. Thiele said he supports public financing of campaigns, adding, “I didn’t hear Mr. Ganley say anything about that. . . . There should be a level playing field to run for office, and public financing contributes to that.”
Mr. Thiele said he supports universal health coverage, which “is better implemented on the federal level and should be done there.” The state has “expanded Medicaid as far as you can . . . and we get federal dollars for that. Health care shouldn’t depend on your job. My record has been supportive of all efforts for universal health care.”
Mr. Ganley said he supports “basic tiered health care for people who can’t afford it” and not a universal system. “But I am a supporter of making sure people who are sick can get coverage and it doesn’t bankrupt them.”
In his closing statement, Mr. Ganley again asserted that Mr. Thiele “is in the process of moving out of the state,” “is checked out,” and “doesn’t have an independent bone in his body.”
Mr. Thiele also returned to his opening themes. “I have a track record,” he said, referring to environmental, transportation, and water quality initiatives. Mr. Ganley, he charged, had not offered one specific proposal, “nothing but generalities, personal attacks. . . . I have a track record; Ganley has a trash record.”
For State Senate
In the most dramatic exchanges of the debate, Mr. Johnson, who works for New Hour for Women and Children LI, which supports current and formerly incarcerated women, forcefully attacked Mr. Palumbo, a former prosecutor and assemblyman, on abortion rights, noting the senator’s 2019 “no” vote on the Reproductive Health Act, which codified abortion rights within 24 weeks of pregnancy, to protect the woman’s life or health, or if the fetus is not viable.
“I’m a less-government-is-more kind of guy,” Mr. Palumbo had said in answering a question about the state’s position on abortion rights. Women will always have the right to choose in New York, he said.
Mr. Johnson said his opponent “tried to run away from his record” and that abortion remains legal in the state “because we keep electing people who will keep it legal. See what happens in states that do not have legislators that will act on the best interests of their constituents. . . . If you are ever given a chance to vote to ban abortion in New York I have no doubt you will.” Citing a 2019 article on riverheadlocal.com, he charged that Mr. Palumbo “voted against protecting reproductive rights.”
“You know that’s not true,” Mr. Palumbo replied. “It’s a lie.” He said that he has always supported the right to abortion “to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape and incest.” But in the article Mr. Johnson referred to, Mr. Palumbo complained that the bill he voted against would allow abortions “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health” after 24 weeks, allow a non-physician to perform an abortion, and not require the presence of a physician “who can care for the baby should it be born alive.”
“Abortion is legal because we have had legislators preventing extremists,” Mr. Johnson said. “We need to elect people who are pro-choice, not people who will waver on their record and lead to the death of women so they can score political points with their base.”
They also clashed on gun policy. Mr. Palumbo said he had voted for the Red Flag Gun Protection Law of 2019 and for mental health background checks, but “what is spiking crime” is “the fact that we’re not prosecuting. . . . The best way to prevent gun violence is to actually prosecute gun violence.”
Mr. Johnson charged that Mr. Palumbo voted against banning domestic abusers from buying firearms. It is “very concerning to me,” he said, “that you think someone convicted of attacking their spouse should be allowed to have a gun.” It is “critical that we elect people who believe in common-sense regulations that most people believe in.” New York should create a coalition of neighboring states “so we don’t have a flow of guns coming into New York from out of state.”
Mr. Palumbo said he voted against the bill Mr. Johnson was referring to “because it did exactly nothing.”
The candidates were in agreement on climate change, both calling for passage of the Environmental Bond Act. Mr. Palumbo spoke of working with Mr. Thiele in the Assembly to jointly support initiatives including extending the community preservation fund to 2050 and allowing up to 20 percent of its money to be used for water quality programs.
Mr. Johnson said he is endorsed by Assemblyman Steve Englebright, chairman of the Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation, and the Sierra Club. “I want to see greater reliance on renewables” and a transition away from fossil fuels, he said. He wants to electrify bus fleets and “make sure we see greater producer and manufacturer responsibility when they pollute, and make sure they clean it up.”
Mr. Palumbo said his first bill as an assemblyman was in support of first-time homebuyers and spoke of a recent forum in which an East Hampton teacher said they are one of just two in the school who live in the town, the others commuting from points west. “I think less government is more,” he repeated. “We need to reduce mandates we have on small businesses, we need to do what we can to try and create more affordable housing” with the community housing fund, the creation of which voters in four of the five East End towns will decide on in November.
Mr. Johnson said he wants to ensure that “we’re not focusing on giant tax breaks to corporations that are coming here anyway.” He said that voters should “elect people bringing home funds for affordable housing, not just building giant megastructures,” and charged that Mr. Palumbo “does not believe billionaires in our district should be taxed,” which Mr. Palumbo angrily denied.
“They should pay their fair share,” Mr. Palumbo said. “The problem is . . . we lose that revenue because those folks are moving out. We have the largest out-migration of any state in the union. . . . When you overtax them more than any state, they have the means to move. They have done that, and taken their tax revenue with them.”
That is just a Republican Party talking point, Mr. Johnson said. “If they’re really going to leave,” he asked, “why do we have 123 billionaires and not zero? . . . We have a very large amount of ultra-wealthy, and it’s critical they help us pay for programs . . . allowing everyone to live their lives on Long Island.”
Throughout the debate, Mr. Palumbo portrayed himself as a maverick, at times voting against his Republican colleagues. “I vote for what is best for my district,” he said. “My record speaks for itself.”
“This election will be between pro-choice and pro-life,” Mr. Johnson said in his closing statement, “between the middle class and renters and those who believe that those struggling to keep homes have no place on Long Island.”
