How Mamdani connects climate policy to his affordability agenda as he runs for New York mayor
But Hassan's spirits were hampered by record-breaking temperatures. In Crown Heights, where she was the Mamdani campaign's field captain, the heat index soared into the triple digits.
'I couldn't think about anything but the heat,' she said. 'It was so dangerous.'
Early that Tuesday morning, Hassan visited a public school polling site, where elderly workers sweltered without air conditioning. The city board of elections sent over paper fans, but they were no match for the heat.
Related: A roadmap to beat Trump? How rise of Zohran Mamdani is dividing Democrats
If Mamdani is elected, that school could be retrofitted with air conditioning and green space to bring down temperatures as part of his green schools plan, or could even be transformed into a resilience hub for communities shelter amid extreme weather events.
'Seeing total infrastructural failure on election day emphasized the stakes of what's happening with the climate crisis and the importance of the election,' said Hassan, who took time off from her day job at the leftist thinktank Climate and Community Institute to canvass.
Mamdani's green schools plan is just one of his schemes to slash carbon emissions and boost environmental justice. If elected mayor, his plans for New York City would make residents 'dramatically more safe' from extreme weather, said Hassan.
But the democratic socialist, who was endorsed by the national youth-led environmental justice group Sunrise Movement and student-led climate group TREEAge, did not place the climate crisis at the center of his campaign, instead choosing to focus relentlessly on cost-of-living issues. The model could help build popular support for climate policies, supporters say.
'Climate and quality of life are not two separate concerns,' Mamdani told the Nation in April. 'They are, in fact, one and the same.'
Over the past two decades, Democrats increasingly focused on the climate. But often, their proposed schemes have been technocratic, Hassan said. Carbon taxes, for instance, can be impenetrably complex, making them difficult candidates for popular support. They can also be economically regressive, with 'working class people experiencing them as an additional cost', Hassan said.
More recently, Joe Biden coupled climate plans with green industrial policy and plans to boost employment. But even those projects can take years to affect tangible change, critics say. As president, for instance, Biden achieved historic climate investments in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But its green incentives disproportionately benefited the wealthy, and its job creation remains invisible to most people around the country. One poll found only a quarter of Americans felt the IRA benefited them.
'Now with Trump, we see the pitfalls of the IRA, where there is real difficulty in consolidating enough political support to defend those climate policy achievements,' said Hassan.
Mamdani 'learned from some of the mistakes' of the Biden administration, said Gustavo Gordillo, a co-chair of the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, which supported Mamdani's campaign. His housing plan, for instance, aims to lower planet-heating pollution by boosting density, but his signature promise is a rent freeze.
That pledge could ensure residents are not priced out of New York City and forced to move to more carbon-intensive suburbs, and prevent landlords from passing the costs of energy efficiency upgrades or air conditioning installation to renters, preventing displacement, said Hassan.
Similarly, Mamdani's headline transit goal was to make buses faster and free, which could boost ridership and discourage the use of carbon-intensive cars.
'Public transit is one of the greatest gifts we have to take on the climate crisis,' Mamdani said at a February mayoral forum.
Biden's IRA placed little focus on boosting public transit, said Gordillo. This was a missed opportunity to cut emissions and also lower Americans' fuel costs, he said.
'We need to expand mass transit to fight the climate crisis, which hasn't been a priority for the Democratic establishment,' said Gordillo, who is an electrician by day. 'But we also need to expand it because we want to improve people's lives right now.'
As a New York assemblymember, Mamdani has backed explicitly green policies. He was a key advocate for a boosting publicly owned renewable energy production. The effort aimed to help New York 'live up to the dream of our state as being a climate leader', he said in 2022.
He also fought fossil fuel buildout. He coupled that climate focus with efforts to keep energy bills low, consistently opposing local utilities' attempts to impose rate hikes, said Kim Fraczek, director of the climate nonprofit Sane Energy Project.
'His growing political influence is a clear win for communities demanding a just transition: renewable power, democratic control and relief from crushing energy costs,' said Fraczek.
Progressive cities like New York are often climate leaders. But if they price out working people, only the wealthy get to see the benefits of their green policies, Mamdani's backers say.
By crafting popular climate policies, the Democratic nominee is also building a base of New Yorkers who will work to defend those plans in the face of threats from the Trump administration, they say.
'New Yorkers want an affordable city, clean and green schools, fast and free buses, and a rent freeze,' said Daniel Goulden, a co-chair of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America ecosocialist working Group. 'But most importantly, New Yorkers want a future – one where they can live and thrive in New York.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
'Trump, Abbott, Texas GOP Heading Towards A LOSS:' Gov. Pritzker On Redistricting Fight
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin will give remarks to reporters Tuesday morning, as the redistricting fight in Texas shines light on Democrats' efforts to expand the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What's the deal with all the redistricting talk? A simple guide.
Advertisement It's a lot to untangle, but we'll attempt to do so. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Let's start with the basics. What is redistricting and what's happening in Texas? Per the US Constitution, every 10 years after the census, states must redraw congressional districts to reflect population changes. These districts must be proportional, contiguous, and under federal law, must not be drawn to dilute the voting power of racial groups, but otherwise how they're drawn is up to each state. (Fun fact: Before 1840 some states including Massachusetts didn't have Congressional districts but had every House candidate run at-large.) What's less settled is whether states can redraw districts mid-decade. Some states allow it. Others don't. Texas, which has the second-largest congressional delegation in the country with 38 representatives, is one of the states that does. With Republicans controlling state government, Trump recently urged Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP more right-leaning seats heading into the midterms. Advertisement Texas already had a special legislative session scheduled for August. Republicans used the opportunity to add redistricting to the agenda with a proposed map that would likely net them five additional seats on top of the 25 they currently hold. In response, Texas Democrats did the only thing they could to block the move: They fled the state to blue states—including some The special session ends in two weeks. For now, Texas is at a standstill. So what's going on in California? Once it became clear Texas Republicans were moving forward, California Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats responded in kind. If Texas draws five new Republican seats, Newsom said, California would aim to draw five new Democratic ones. But doing this in California is far more complicated. The state currently uses an independent redistricting commission. To override it, lawmakers would need to eliminate the commission through a special session, and then place the measure on a statewide ballot. Newsom said he's open to doing both, including holding a special election in November to let voters decide. Is this just a Texas–California battle? Far from it. Fifteen states are now considering mid-decade redistricting—some inspired by the Texas–California showdown, others acting under court orders. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul declared, 'This is war. We're at war,' and promised aggressive action on redistricting. But the state constitution limits what Democrats can do. A redistricting change would require passage in two consecutive legislative sessions, followed by voter approval on the ballot. So it's impossible to do ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Advertisement Ohio, meanwhile, is redrawing its map due to a court order, which could lead to Republican gains. Other states considering changes include Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. There is also a report that Vice President JD Vance may What about New England? Every US House member from New England is a Democrat. The only state where redistricting has surfaced is New Hampshire, where Republicans control the Legislature. They could redraw the line between the state's two House districts to make one more favorable for the GOP. But Republican Governor Kelly Ayotte said in December that the So what does this mean for the midterms? It all hinges on whether Texas acts. If it does, a domino effect could follow. If it doesn't, most other changes will be limited to court-ordered redistricting. Historically, the party out of power makes big gains in the first midterm election of a new president's term. Democrats currently need to flip four seats to regain the House majority in 2026. Under various discussed maps, they could instead need to flip seven—or in Democrats' worst-case scenario—twelve. Republicans flipped nine seats in the last midterms, giving them a margin so slim it doomed their speaker. In 2018, Democrats gained 40 seats. Advertisement Wait… what does Massachusetts have to do with this? In a CNBC interview on Tuesday morning, Trump denied that he initiated the current redistricting push. 'They did it to us, the blue states you were talking about,' Trump said, after the host referenced California's plans. 'Somebody gave a good example. In Massachusetts, I got, I think, 41 percent of the vote, a very blue state, and yet [Democrats] got 100 percent of Congress. One hundred percent. I got 40, 41 percent or something, and yet 100 percent of Congress in Massachusetts? No, it shouldn't be that way.' (For the record: Trump received 36% of the vote in Massachusetts in 2024.) James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court just revealed its plan to make gerrymandering even worse
One of the biggest mysteries that has emerged from the Trump-era Supreme Court is the 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan. In Milligan, two of the Republican justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — voted with the Court's Democratic minority to strike down Alabama's racially gerrymandered congressional maps, ordering the state to redraw those maps to include an additional district with a Black majority. As Roberts emphasized in his opinion for the Court in Milligan, a lower court that also struck down these maps 'faithfully applied our precedents.' But the Roberts Court frequently overrules or ignores precedents that interpret the Voting Rights Act — the federal law at issue in Milligan — to do more than block the most egregious forms of Jim Crow-like voter suppression. And the Court's Republican majority is normally hostile to lawsuits challenging gerrymanders of any kind. Most notably, in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Republican justices held that federal courts may not hear suits challenging partisan gerrymanders. Among other things, Rucho enables tactics like Texas Republicans' current plans to redraw that state's congressional maps to maximize GOP power in Congress. So why did two Republican justices break with their previous skepticism of gerrymandering suits in the Milligan case? A new order that the Supreme Court handed down Friday evening appears to answer that question. The new order, in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais, suggests that the Court's decision in Milligan was merely a minor detour, and that Roberts and Kavanaugh's votes in Milligan were largely driven by unwise legal decisions by Alabama's lawyers. The legal issues in the Callais case are virtually identical to the ones presented in Milligan, but the Court's new order indicates it is likely to use Callais to strike down the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against gerrymandering altogether. The Callais order, in other words, doesn't simply suggest that Milligan was a one-off decision that is unlikely to be repeated. It also suggests that the Court's Republican majority will resume its laissez-faire approach to gerrymandering, just as the redistricting wars appear to be heating up. A brief history of the Supreme Court's approach to gerrymandering Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of lawsuits alleging that a legislative map is illegally gerrymandered. Partisan gerrymandering suits claim that a map was drawn to maximize one major political party's power at the expense of the other. Racial gerrymandering suits, meanwhile, allege that a state's legislative maps improperly dilute the voting power of voters of a particular race. Prior to Rucho, the Court imposed minimal — but not entirely nonexistent — limits on partisan gerrymandering. It has historically been more aggressive in policing racial gerrymanders. The Supreme Court held in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) that federal courts may hear claims alleging that a state's maps are so egregiously partisan that they amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The idea is that maps that intentionally inflate Democratic voters' power, while minimizing Republican voters' power (or vice-versa) violate the Constitution's guarantee that all voters should have an equal say in elections. Notably, however, no five justices agreed to a single legal standard that would allow courts to determine which maps are illegal partisan gerrymanders in Davis. Nor did a majority of the Court set such a standard in later lawsuits challenging partisan gerrymanders. In Rucho, the Republican justices essentially announced that the Court would give up its quest to find such a standard. A few years later, in Alexander v. NAACP (2024), those justices went even further, declaring that 'as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, a legislature may pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.' Though Davis's limits on partisan gerrymandering were always fuzzy, it is likely that this ambiguity deterred at least some states from enacting extreme gerrymanders that might have caused the courts to intervene. At the very least, Rucho changed how states litigate gerrymandering suits. Before Rucho, states accused of gerrymandering would often try to offer another explanation for why their maps benefited one party or the other. Now, they will openly state in their briefs that they drew maps for partisan reasons — confident that federal judges will do nothing, despite these confessions. Historically, however, the Court has imposed more concrete limits on racial gerrymanders. In Milligan, for example, the Court struck down Alabama congressional maps that would have given Black voters a majority in just one of the state's seven districts (or 14 percent of the districts), despite the fact that Black people make up about 27 percent of the state's population. The Court ordered the state to draw new maps with two Black-majority districts. The linchpin of Milligan and similar cases is the Court's decision in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), which laid out the rules governing when an alleged racial gerrymander violates the Voting Rights Act (which broadly prohibits race discrimination in elections). The framework laid out in Gingles is notoriously complicated, but it turns on whether voters in a particular state vote in racially cohesive blocs. Thus, for example, in a state where the white majority supports Republicans nearly all of the time, while the Black minority supports Democrats nearly all of the time, Gingles sometimes requires courts to redraw the state's maps to ensure that the Black minority is adequately represented. This is because, in such a state, the white majority can wield its near-unanimous support for Republicans to cut Black voters (and Democrats) out of power altogether. In a different state, where both Black and white voters sometimes vote for either party, Gingles tells courts to stay out of redistricting. Black voters, after all, are United States citizens who have as much of a right to choose their leaders as anyone else. So, if they choose to be represented by a white Republican in a free and fair election, that's their choice and the courts should honor it. Because Gingles only kicks in when an electorate's racial demographics closely match its partisan voting patterns, it places some practical limits on both partisan and racial gerrymandering. In Milligan, for example, Alabama was not able to draw maps that maximized Republican voting power because doing so required the state to dilute Black voting power. So, even though Rucho prevents lawsuits that challenge partisan gerrymandering directly, Gingles sometimes allows suits which target it indirectly by alleging that a partisan gerrymander is also an impermissible racial gerrymander. But now the Court is signaling that it is likely to overrule Gingles and abolish suits alleging that racial gerrymanders violate the Voting Rights Act altogether. So what's the deal with the Court's new order in Callais? The Callais case is virtually identical to Milligan — indeed, the cases are so similar that Louisiana said in a brief to the justices that Callais 'presents the same question' as the Alabama redistricting case. Before the Callais case reached the justices, a lower court determined that Louisiana's congressional maps violate Gingles, and ordered the state to draw an additional Black-majority district. Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Callais last March, all six of the Republican justices appeared to disagree with this lower court's decision — although the lower court's decision merely applied the same legal rules that the Supreme Court applied two years earlier in Milligan. Then, at the end of June, the Court issued a brief order announcing that it would hold an unusual second oral argument in Callais, and that it would seek additional briefing from the parties in this case. On Friday, the Court issued a new order laying out what these parties should address in those briefs. Those briefs should examine whether the lower court order requiring Louisiana to draw an additional Black-majority district 'violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.' The justices, in other words, want briefing on whether Gingles — and the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering more broadly — are unconstitutional. This suggestion that the Voting Rights Act may be unconstitutional — or, at least, that it violates the Republican justices' vision of the Constitution — should not surprise anyone who has followed the Court's voting rights cases. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices neutralized a different provision of the Voting Rights Act, which required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' new election laws with federal officials before they take effect. The Court's Republican majority labeled this provision 'strong medicine' that could be justified to combat the kind of widespread racial voting discrimination that existed during Jim Crow. But they argued that the United States was not racist enough in 2013 to justify letting preclearance remain in place. 'There is no denying,' Roberts wrote for the Court in Shelby County, 'that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.' Although Kavanaugh joined nearly all of the majority opinion in Milligan, he also wrote a separate opinion indicating that he wanted to extend Shelby County to gerrymandering cases in a future ruling. 'Even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under [the Voting Rights Act] for some period of time,' Kavanaugh wrote, 'the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.' Gingles also suggests that Voting Rights Act suits challenging racial gerrymanders should eventually cease to exist. If the electorate ceases to be racially polarized — something that appears to be slowly happening — then Gingles plaintiffs will no longer be able to win cases, and the federal judiciary's role in redistricting will diminish. But Kavanaugh seems to be impatient to end these suits while many states remain racially polarized. Read in the context of Kavanaugh's Milligan opinion, in other words, the new Callais order suggests that a majority of the justices have decided the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering have reached their expiration date, and they are looking for arguments to justify striking them down. It now looks like Milligan was Gingles's last gasp. The Republican justices remain hostile both to the Voting Rights Act and toward gerrymandering suits more broadly. And they appear very likely to use Callais to remove one of the few remaining safeguards against gerrymanders.
