Two candidates for New York state Senate in Westchester’s 37th District continue to court undecided voters in a series of scheduled debates leading up to Election Day.
At the Harrison Public Library on Monday, Oct. 17, in front of residents from across the county, incumbent state Sen. George Latimer, a Rye Democrat, squared off against challenger Julie Killian, a Republican councilwoman from Rye.
While Latimer, now a two-term senator, looked to champion his blue collar Westchester roots and breadth of experience—he has spent nearly 30 years in elected office—Killian, a first-time Senate candidate, looked to pivot her newcomer status as a harbinger of Albany reform; a major theme in her campaign so far.
“I decided to run for state Senate the day [Sheldon] Silver was arrested,” said Killian, referring to the former Democratic New York state speaker of the Assembly. “Then, Senate leader Dean Skelos was arrested; one Democrat; one Republican…. We deserve better.”
On policy, much of the differentiation between the candidates was made in the minutia, with both candidates agreeing on substance, but not means.
A question regarding either candidate’s willingness to raise the state gas tax in order to fund infrastructure projects elicited a resounding ‘no’ from both sides. Each candidate, however, outlined different approaches.
While Latimer, 62, said he would entertain supporting the maintenance to the state’s infrastructure through bond issuance, Killian pointed to the elimination of New York state’s Scaffold Law—which establishes contractors’ “absolute liability” for elevation-related injuries and contributes to costly insurance rates in addition to lawsuits—as a major point for reform.
Additionally, a question regarding the Women’s Agenda introduced by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, in 2013 which referenced a facet that would protect women’s right to choose saw similar sentiments, but differed on specifics.
Killian, 54, explained to the audience that women deserve access to safe and reasonable health care, while Latimer took the opportunity to flex his knowledge on finer points in the agenda.
“The actual question was, will I vote for the 10th point, which codifies the federal protection for the women’s right to choose, which protects women’s right to choose at the state level,” he explained, characterizing Killian’s answer as vague. “And I would vote for that.”
The crux of the debate, which lasted just under 25 minutes for the state senator’s portion of the night, centered on incumbency versus reform.
Killian tended to stay on message, touting herself as a reformer and using ample opportunities to tie Latimer to cronyism in the state Legislature. Citing a statement from New York Attorney General Preet Bharara, Killian told the audience, “There are two kinds of people in Albany; those that are corrupt and those that stand by and watch…. There’s not a Democratic Party, there’s no Republican Party in Albany; it’s the incumbent party.”
On the other end, Latimer spent much of the debate fending off indictments on his long tenure as a politician and championing his own efforts on reform.
“What I think Mr. Bharara missed in his comments are those legislators who have been working for reform, who have put in bills that would cut down the maximum amount of money that you can donate to a candidate,” Latimer said. “The power is concentrated in a few hands.”
Despite corruption in Albany constituting the majority of the back-and-forth between candidates, before the night’s closing remarks, national politics found its way to the debate stage; specifically feelings on the presidential election’s arguably most controversial candidate, Donald Trump.
In a question regarding whether or not the Republican nominee for president should resign amidst allegations of sexual assault—which was greeted with murmurs from the audience—both candidates found one point they could fully agree on; disappointment.
While both candidates demurred on condemning, specifically, any of the nominee’s actions, stating that their sights are set on New York state first, Latimer summed his response with one analogy.
“Sooner or later, we have to end this reality TV thing that’s going on,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s going to happen.”
