The Subtext to Legalization in New York
What the rapidly reached deal says about how politics really works.
The Subtext to Legalization in New York
What the rapidly reached deal says about how politics really works.
Last Thursday, the story broke in the national press that New York’s state legislative leaders had reached a deal to legalize recreational marijuana. As our politics contributor Joey Handel has written about, New York has lagged behind several far less liberal counterparts such as South Dakota and Montana in this area. The reason for that inertia in the Empire State was mainly over disputes about the distribution of funding and licensing; small, but not insignificant details. After years of deadlock on this issue, however, the Governor’s office and the legislature had a sudden breakthrough, and now a major piece of progressive policy is set to be enacted.
The timing is crucial. It comes just weeks after the initial stories of Cuomo’s sexual assault allegations broke, and just days after a damning report that he helped his younger brother and family get access to the vaccine. There are several angles to this story, but what might get overlooked in discussions about this page in Cuomo’s political nightmare is what it reveals about how government works, and specifically what makes government work.
A brief understanding of the background here is important: this is the third attempt at legalization in New York of Cuomo’s administration. Each time they failed, it was the result of a breakdown in negotiations between the Governor’s office and the Democratic-controlled legislature. Also involved in the fight were industry groups, delegations from states that have legalized like Illinois, and activist proponents pushing for legalization as well as the clearing of criminal records related to the drug. The proposal that served as the outline for negotiations, known as MRTA, was the result of a six years-long process that started with its introduction by Senator Liz Krueger in 2013, the first year of a Democratic trifecta in New York state. At that point, it was still early in the sea change in public opinion that has washed over the issue and a spokesman for Governor Cuomo called Krueger’s proposal a “nonstarter”. It would be five years before he came out in favor of legalizing recreational use. In that time, the New York Democratic Party and his own Department of Health had come out in favor of legalization. He also faced a primary challenge from Cynthia Nixon, who was in favor of legalization.
In other words, it has been a very lethargic evolution for Cuomo… up until about two weeks ago. The continued development of an existential political crisis spurred the slow-walking Cuomo into action, and just like that the deal was reached. In other words, all that was really missing in the process was an injection of motivation to get it done. For outsiders in and observers of the messy part of the political process, this is an incredibly informative episode! Right now, we have a basic understanding of what makes a policy likely to be implemented. If it is popular, that makes it somewhat more likely, although not by much, according to a study by Princeton’s Martin Gilens. If it has support from active and rich donors to the party in power, then it is much more likely. And if it directly affects the personal well-being of the legislators themselves… well, then you can go ahead and bet the house that it will get done. But these are, in many cases, no better than tea leaves, and often do not give specific, human answers to frustrating questions about gridlock in the halls of power. That is what makes this so revealing as a political science experiment. None of the variables here have changed, save one: the introduction of a threat to Governor Cuomo’s political standing. And with that, the gears of government came to life, and a major accomplishment followed.
From the moment the initial allegations dropped, or perhaps more precisely the moment when it became clear that he would not resign, comparisons were made between Cuomo and the formerly-besieged Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam. In the days after a conservative outlet alleged that Northam had been pictured in his medical school yearbook wearing either blackface or a Ku Klux Klan uniform, Democratic party officials in the state issued almost uniform calls for his resignation, as they did in cascading fashion in New York. Northam held the line, and leaned full throttle into passing progressive legislation, including legalizing marijuana, expanding healthcare, and raising the minimum wage. The session that was in progress when the scandal hit quickly became one of the most productive in the history of the Commonwealth. In the two years since, his approval rating has recovered from subterranean territory, and Virginia has become a model for other Democratic states. For better or for worse, Northam provided a very clear template for what to do in the face of an existential scandal. If his example is any guide, there’s likely “more where that came from” when it comes to New York’s legalization effort.
That’s what makes this episode so important. It demonstrates (part of) what motivates a political leader to get something done. The timeline makes it clear that often all that is missing from the negotiation process is the oomph to sacrifice on some demands and reach a compromise deal. Just one example of what motivates a leader, sure, but that there are conditions under which a Governor will transform overnight from impediment to accelerant is notable, and it is important to study those conditions to better understand the complicated political system we live under in practice. Take heed of Cuomo, take heed of Northam, and the next time a Governor and his legislature hit a wall on pursuing a piece of popular legislation, ask whether they are missing a solution or the motivation to find a solution.
