Jumaane Williams, Jenifer Rajkumar face off in debate on PIX11
NEW YORK (PIX11) — With polling numbers showing New Yorkers have a clear favorite for public advocate, one Democratic lawmaker will try to upset incumbent Jumaane Williams for the office.
Williams and fellow state Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar will take the debate stage on June 5 at 7 p.m.
The debate will air live on PIX11, PIX11.com, and the PIX11+ smartTV app starting at 7 p.m. The primary election is on June 24.
Williams was elected public advocate in 2019. He is currently about a 51% favorite among Democratic voters in New York, compared to 6% for Rajkumar, according to an April poll by Empire Report.
During his tenure, Williams has passed key bills to fight housing discrimination, increase taxes, and protect New Yorkers in the workplace, according to his campaign.
Prior to becoming the public advocate, Williams fought against the NYPD's use of stop and frisk by sponsoring the Community Safety Act.
'Throughout his over decade of service in government, Jumaane never stopped standing with marginalized communities to fight for justice and equity for all, and has never been afraid to put his body on the line. He has been arrested more than any other sitting elected official in New York, standing up for women's rights, immigration rights, housing rights, and more,' according to his campaign.
Assemblywoman Rajkumar was the first South Asian-American woman elected to a New York state office and fought to make Diwali a school holiday in New York City.
In January, Rajkumar announced she was ditching a run for NYC comptroller to join the public advocate race. The lawyer said the violence and affordability crisis have weakened the Democratic party.
'We need fresh, new leadership that focuses on realistic solutions over lifeless ideology and on decisive action over performative rhetoric. We need to bring a new standard of excellence to government, where inadequacy is a choice, not the status quo,' she wrote in City and State.
Have questions for the candidates? Submit them by commenting on PIX11's social media accounts, including X, Instagram and Facebook.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
FAA Has No Idea How Many Drones Are Flying Over US, Says Chief
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) acting administrator Chris Rocheleau told a House hearing that the agency did not know how many drones were operating over U.S. airspace at any given period. Rocheleau was asked if it was even possible for the FAA to track the number of drones in American airspace, during his testimony at the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, on Wednesday. "I don't believe I would know — the FAA would know — every single drone in the sky today," Rocheleau said. This is a breaking news story, updates to follow.
Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
R.I. Governor McKee picks staff to lead his reelection campaign
'I'm excited to have a strong team of talented operatives to run my re-election campaign,' McKee said in a statement. 'Nobody will outwork us on the trail, and Rob and Neil embody that ethos. With their experiences on highly competitive races and excellent track records of success in state campaigns, I am confident that we are well-positioned to continue delivering results for Rhode Island for years to come.' Advertisement McKee, a Cumberland Democrat, Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up The announcement comes days after a Other polls have not been as bad for McKee. In April, a Advertisement The governor is headed for a rematch with former CVS executive Helena Buonanno Foulkes, who Foulkes McKee raised $257,000 in the first quarter, leaving him with $748,565 in cash on hand. Meanwhile, House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, a Warwick Democrat, is seen as a potential candidate, and he has more than $3.4 million in his campaign account, more than any other elected official in the state. And Democratic Attorney General Peter F. Neronha continues to toy with the idea of running for governor while he has $122,668 in his campaign account. In McKee's announcement, Hochul said Silverstein 'has been instrumental in building a stronger Democratic Party in New York and played a critical role in our success flipping key House seats last year. Governor McKee is gaining a skilled and strategic leader, and I'm proud to call Rob a trusted former member of my team.' The announcement said Spencer set fundraising records for Florida House Democrats, raising more than $5 million in 2022 and more than $9 million in 2024. 'Governor McKee has made an outstanding choice in adding Neil Spencer to his team,' Florida House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell said. 'Neil's strategic vision and dedication have made him one of the most successful finance directors in Florida legislative politics. I look forward to seeing the positive impact Neil will have in his new role." Advertisement Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Vox
20 minutes ago
- Vox
Big government is still good, even with Trump in power
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. It's easy to look at Donald Trump's second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people's lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren't so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life. Trump's presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society's problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn't be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn't support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they're in power. That's certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It's that there's not enough oversight. Reducing the power of the government wouldn't necessarily protect us. In fact, 'making government smaller' is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power. First things first: What is 'big government'? When Americans are polled about how they feel about 'big government' programs — policies like universal health care, social security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support 'big government' in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat. That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because 'big government' can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over 'big government' can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs. As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations. A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people's faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes. A constrained government does not mean a small government But what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. Related Three reasons why American democracy will likely withstand Trump In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump's power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump's most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump's policies have already upended people's lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn't been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that's not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It's because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking government The biggest lesson from Trump's first term was that America's system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn't strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check. But again that's a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren't dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don't become outdated, as they do now. And while it's impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative. By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies' business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors. In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. 'Despite Donald Trump's rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,' said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of The Century Foundation who previously served as an associate director at the CFPB. 'He may use the language of 'government inefficiency' to accomplish his goals, but I think what we're seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.' The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It's also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans' effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can't get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they'll turn to private lenders instead. 'It's not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it's also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,' Margetta Morgan said. 'This is the small government alternative: It's cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.' Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people's most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes. So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there's one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that's not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.
