Eli Northrup is a public defender and policy advocate who is running for State Assembly in New York’s 69th Assembly District (Morningside Heights and the Upper West Side). He is NOT running for Congress. But I spoke to him last week for my podcast District Twelve, which you can check out on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or right here on this page. I was joined by Maximum New York’s Laeo Crnkovich-Rubsamen. The following transcript is lightly edited for clarity, so there may be some slight discrepancies between the podcast and the transcript.
All right, Eli Northrup, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.
Good to be here. Always for another Eli, had to make it.
So you are a graduate of NYU Law School, where I currently am an 1L. You have a long legal career. You were a public defender. You’ve been a policy advocate for Bronx Defenders. You clerked, you probably got great grades. You know how to sound smart in court. Why are you taking a turn here and running for office?
Yeah, it’s an evolution. When I went to law school, it was not something that I was thinking about at all. And I really was focused on public defense once I found it. When I went to law school, my grandfather was a lawyer. He was like a civil rights attorney at a point in his career. He did a lot of work around anti-Semitism and desegregation in the 50s and 60s. And so I had this conception in my head of what a lawyer does. They’re in court. They’re helping people. It’s like a social justice job. And then you get to law school. I don’t know if you’ve experienced this already. That’s not what you find most of the opportunities are.
But I spent a winter break in New Orleans in the criminal court system, working with the New Orleans public defenders, and it totally shifted my perspective. And I found that the public defense world was something that I fit in with in many ways. I felt like it was a chance to be useful, a chance to really fight and combat inequity and use legal skills to do that. And I also found that people that were public defenders were my people. They had a sense of humor. They worked really, really hard. And they had a mission. And it’s more like an identity than a career. And that’s really what I pursued out of law school. And even when I was clerking, I always wanted to be a public defender.
It wasn’t until I started to see the systemic inequities in the criminal legal system that you couldn’t solve within a case. You could do as much as-- you could do your best in a single case, but if this case is happening over and over again, there’s something wrong with the law that’s making it unfair. That’s when that led me to start advocating at the state policy level. It was really around cannabis legalization, because when I started in the Bronx in 2015, the number one case I handled was low-level possession of marijuana. And people weren’t going to jail at that point, but they were still losing their jobs and their families were taken away because of arrests, people were getting deported. And there was a huge inequity in who was being arrested. I mean, at that time, 90% of the arrests were for people that were black or brown, despite the fact that usage rates were equal across races. 50% of all arrests in New York City were in the Bronx. And yeah, just disproportionate consequences.
And so I took a bus up to Albany one day for something called a lobby day. I had no idea what it was. I just knew I had to show up at Union Square at like 4.30 in the morning. And I went up to Albany And I was like, what is going on here? This is like, we rallied and then we met with legislators and I started to see like these were the people that were shaping the policy that impacted everyone. And that sparked my interest in policy advocacy, which eventually led me to wanting to run. It really came out of my work trying to do it in the court system level, then trying to do it as an advocate, and then realizing there’s a limit to what you can do from being outside the room. At a certain point, you’re most effective if you’re actually in there.
Yeah. So in your time as a policy advocate, 2015 to now, the environment of criminal justice reform, the landscape has changed a ton. Can you take us through the different fights that you pitched in that role? And contextualize the current moment that we’re in, in terms of criminal justice reform. From the heyday of 2019, when we got significant bail and discovery reforms, but since then, there’s been a backlash. Take us through that period of time, and where do you see where we are right now?
It’s such an education. So I started to do advocacy work really in like 2017, 2018. And I mean, as I’m sure listeners know that there was a contingent of Democratic senators that conferenced with Republicans, the IDC, that really held up progressive legislation for many, many years. And that flipped in 2018. So when I started to go up to Albany, all of a sudden, all these things that hadn’t been possible for many, many years became possible. And so I was in the center of bail and discovery as it was moving forward and being passed. And cannabis legalization, similar, but a little bit different. I would say that ultimately, the cannabis legalization, the reason it was such a progressive bill–that was Andrew Cuomo’s, like, he was hoping to get a life raft. You can remember that March of 2021 was when he was embroiled in scandal and ultimately had to resign. But anyway, those three years, like, because I think of the IDC going away and Cuomo being weakened, these progressive pieces of legislation were able to pass.
I think with the backlash, you have to remember: bail and discovery reform passed during the 2019 legislative session, really during the budget, and went into effect April 1st, 2020, two weeks after the pandemic. And so, and there were stories in the New York Post and other places before they even went into effect that were like coming for them. And then also remember that’s the Trump-Biden election and Trump making cashless bail a centerpiece of democratic cities like being hellholes. Then all this disarray because of the pandemic and legitimate crime rates rising across the country, like in places like Oklahoma and Texas that did not do bail reform. But everybody in New York who were, I would say, not well-meaning were pointing to these criminal justice reforms as the reason. We now know, and the data shows clearly that bail reform has been a resounding success and that it has not impacted safety negatively one bit. But we had to ride this roller coaster, and the narrative sometimes in politics is just as important as the facts. And so, yeah, it’s been frustrating. This is probably another reason I wanted to run, because for the last five years, we’ve just been playing defense, trying to like prevent rollbacks from happening on these really important pieces of legislation that if anybody practiced or spent time or was accused of a crime and had to be involved with criminal court would understand how important they are.
So the pendulum swung. And I think we’re entering another moment where a lot of these other important criminal justice issues, like sentencing reform and parole reform, they actually have a chance of moving forward. I think that what we’re seeing is the data now supports what happened a few years ago and we’re entering a moment that progressive change is on the horizon in the landscape. Just look at the number of open seats in the state legislature and Zoran’s election and young people and progressive people becoming more interested and turning out. I think this next election, which I happen to be running in, but across the city and the state, I think it’s hugely important and could signal a real opportunity for more progressive reforms with respect to the criminal legal system.
New York is still way behind in sentencing and parole. We have tens of thousands of people upstate who are serving sentences they never would have received if they were sentenced today, but they have no opportunity to make their case or earn time off. And so we have a lot more to do still. Albany likes to think ‘oh, we checked that box.’ That’s not how it works. There’s so many people left behind. So I’m hopeful about that, and it’s one of the reasons that I feel motivated to run.
Yeah, well, that’s one area where criminal justice, where there’s an opening lane for reform in this new session after this election. Another one that a lot of people are talking about is housing. So I’m going to hand it over to Laeo to take that part over.
[Laeo Cnkovich-Rubsamen] So yeah, a little pivot from criminal justice reform, but the affordability crisis is looming large. And I know you have some experience in housing court and that aspect of the housing crisis. So I just wanted you to talk a bit about why we are in a housing crisis. Why does this neighborhood struggle to build housing? Specifically, why are rents so high?
I mean, I think the first thing I’ll say is that I don’t see these things as disconnected. Like I really see stable housing as investing in safety. And the thing that I’ve seen as a public defender is that when people get stable housing and people that are experiencing mental health issues or substance abuse issues, if they get supportive housing, that’s the thing that sets a different trajectory for their life. I think it’s such a good investment. And there was a study done recently in Chicago. It was comparing eviction rates to incidents of shooting, and it controlled for all these other variables. And it found a 2% increase in eviction rate within a census tract led to 1.66% more shootings. It was like the number one predictor of gun violence. So yeah, I think that solving housing also solves other problems. And investing in housing is also a really good investment. I mean, yes, I have seen clients, I’ve represented people facing eviction, and I’ve seen the destabilizing effects that it has on people.
So I’m invested in making sure that people have stability in their homes, but that doesn’t alone solve the crisis of affordability. There’s not a shortage of good ideas. I feel like there’s all these ideas floating around with regards to housing. It’s like the will to get them done. And certainly a faction of it is that people don’t like to see their neighborhoods changing and new projects can get held up that way. A faction of it is that there really should be affordability measures.
And I do think that the government has a role to play in investing in housing. I don’t think it should just be left up to the market. It’s one of those things that’s like the basic things need to be taken care of. Like when you think about education and safety and health care, Housing to me fits in that bucket. And so I really think we should be not thinking about housing solely as a way to make profit. And there are developers and they have a role to play. But the government investing in housing in a way that’s an investment in safety and stability and not necessarily a way to get huge gains, but a way to create that kind of stability.
[Laeo] Right. You touched on one of the key issues in the housing debate, the deregulation as the solution to the housing crisis versus more government intervention. And it seems like you are leaning towards more public intervention. I want you to kind of explain where you land on that. Do you see zoning reform as part of the process? Or do you think it’s more public housing, more voucher programs?
No, I think it’s both. I don’t mean to say that-- I think of it just as not letting the market solve the problem. So I think government involvement doesn’t necessarily mean that government builds all the housing. But it does mean that government has a role to play in things like social housing and bringing back a Mitchell-Lama type program where middle class and working families can actually afford to be here.
But no, I think we need to build more housing. And I do think that includes considering upzoning places that haven’t been revisited in a long time. That means getting rid of some regulations that don’t make sense. Like you want to have regulations to protect us, but we’ve regulated to the point that we can’t do anything. So I mean, that’s the kind of thing that I think you got to have an all hands on deck solution.
[Laeo] Yeah, I think that’s a perfect pivot to my question on SEQRA reform, in the realm of regulations that maybe we don’t need so much of anymore. Governor Hochul is currently trying to pass a version of SEQRA reform in her budget plan. Both of the single house bills have different versions, slightly watered down. Do you have thoughts on SEQRA reform?
I mean, yeah, I think it deserves reform. I think that, I mean, obviously we need to be conscious of building in a way that might impact people negatively environmentally. So it’s not like there’s no review, but it’s gotten to the point where it’s too much red tape. And so I am in favor of reform of the process and one that’s smart, but also allows us to actually build things because we’re just doing nothing for far too many years.
[Laeo] Moving on to the scaffold law, which is one of my personal pet peeves. So I’ll put my cards on the table there. The New York Labor Law, Section 240, places absolute liability on developers for all gravity-related injuries on their work sites. And this has kind of been the bugbear for lots of housing policy wonks, because it’s been shown to increase construction costs by somewhere around 10%. And that just means everything that we build in New York, commercial, residential, has a 10% tax on it because of this very specific New York state law. So I wanted you to weigh in your thoughts on scaffolding law.
I think that the thing is, I know labor unions and workers feel like they need to be protected. And so obviously you don’t want a 10% increase on everything. And when you have such a strict liability, this is something that I think we’re dealing with in other areas of insurance that creates these high costs. How do you balance that with the people working that could be potentially injured, making sure that they get the-- if something does happen, that they’re taken care of? And I’m not sure that I know exactly the answer to that.
But I know that having labor unions be on the other side of something, it’s difficult to get it through. And so I think that this is one where you’ve got two competing political forces battling it out in that sense, but it should be more reasonable. We can’t have a 10% tax on every single thing. So if there’s some way to reduce that cost, but also have people feel safe, I think that’s why you’re seeing it’s a hard nut to crack.
[Laeo] But you’re heading to the Assembly with that as your crusade. Scaffold law.
I mean, I hate the other form of scaffolding. That’s something that, if you want to talk to people on the Upper West Side, within the first minute, you’re going to hear, what’s up with these sidewalk sheds everywhere. And I do think that, obviously, they’re well-intentioned, and they’re necessary for certain periods of time. but there’s not alignment between when they go up, when work gets done, and when an inspection happens, and no real tax for keeping them up longer. And that cost also gets passed on to everybody. I mean, scaffolding industry is a $8 billion industry in New York City. That’s crazy. And so somebody’s paying for that. You know what I mean? And that means they have a lot of power too. But those sidewalk sheds, that impacts people’s daily lives. And it might feel small, but when you see this stuff over and over, it’s big.
[Laeo] Okay, so these are two smaller topics, and one of them has been in the news a lot recently. The RAD-PACT conversions. I know Chelsea is not in this district, but there are quite a few projects that are in AD 69 that are in the pipeline. The Manhattanville houses are now PACT ownership. Do you have any thoughts about RAD-PACTS, and private ownership of NYCHA?
Yeah, I mean, talking to residents of Douglas houses and the Grant houses, the biggest complexes in the 69th Assembly District. People are very scared and oppositional to the idea of private ownership. And I think you need buy-in from residents if it’s going to work. And so whatever, and I think, and I guess in Chelsea Elliott, they ultimately supported this plan, the residents did. But I think that the backlash from it and maybe, and I don’t know how much information is getting informed, and there’s an inherent mistrust of privatization. I take my lead from the people that are living there and that will be impacted. I think you need buy-in from residents.
[Laeo] How, as a potential future elected official, how do you rebuild the trust in institutions that NYCHA would need in order to go about? Because they need money, and PACT has delivered $8 billion to them. How do we get those trust institutions back?
It’s hard. It’s hard. I think that’s an issue in so many areas, because the government hasn’t worked for people in all these different areas. You ask why people aren’t bought into society. It’s because why should they be when it doesn’t feel like they’ve been made to feel a part of it? I think there’s a bigger issue. And it’s something that makes me hopeful about Zoran’s campaign and very invested in ensuring the promises are fulfilled and kept is because people are excited. And if you can make people feel like that excitement is warranted and that we can actually deliver, and Democrats can deliver, and maybe this new generation of Democrats who are progressive can deliver, then maybe there does start to be buy-in on these policy things that seem scary and people have a lot of doubts about. So I don’t know the exact answer, but I do know that NYCHA needs a huge amount of money. But the federal government is spending billions of dollars every day on war. So it’s like, what are we really talking about? I mean, the pie is whatever we want it to be. And that’s also why people have distrust. There’s not enough money to fix our heat, but we can go, we can drop bombs in the Middle East. So I think those are the questions that people legitimately have.
Speaker 3
[Laeo] Yeah. And one final housing thing, just like yes, no, Bloomingdale Library, the NYC, EDC. Thoughts?
Well, I don’t know if I can give you a yes, no on it. People felt blindsided by it, but it’s a spot that the public owns. I think that something’s going to happen, most likely. And I think the hope is that it delivers units that are affordable for people in the community. And if the government has leverage, that should be where it’s directed.
[Laeo] So you want to see more affordable units?
Yeah. I think affordability is key there. But also I just know that how I heard about it is people felt like they weren’t given the right input. And what that teaches me as an elected is you really need to bring people in to have the conversations. These projects are not going to always make everybody happy. In fact, they’re going to make some people very, very mad, no matter what. But people need to be considered, and conversations need to happen. And then you ultimately, if it’s right, it can create a bunch more housing, and we can do it in a way that because the city controls the land, that, you know, there’s some affordability built in, then that’s the way we should go.
[Eli Miller] Yeah, just briefly on that one. So one direction an elected official can come in on that is making sure that the local organizations and the community feels heard. I’m wondering if you also see part of the role as making sure that something like what happened on 147th Street doesn’t happen where because there’s such an active resistance, the local groups say it should be 40% affordable units instead of 30, and then the developer says, no, it should be 30, and they go back and forth and eventually it just doesn’t happen. It’s a truck depot. So how do you balance that?
Well, I think the Bloomingdale Library is a little bit different because it’s not a private space, right? So there’s more leverage, I would say, although there’s all these considerations to make. No, it’s… okay, I think one of the jobs of an elected is to deliver hard truths and to have the credibility within a community to go to them and even when people don’t want something, to try to like explain the benefits of it and stand for it if it makes sense. But the other job is to take the will of the community and represent it in the same way.
What I won’t shy away from is hard conversations. Like I’ve represented people in the Bronx for 10 years facing really difficult circumstances and life-altering decisions. So I’m experienced in picking up the phone and having hard conversations. And I think that translates to this work with constituents, because you’re going to make people upset and people are going to have, and people that you’re close with and believe something. You need to have those conversations, but ultimately stand on what policy most benefits the neighborhood and the city, even if it’s a short-term negative. I’ll bring those principles with me. That’s all I can say, because each situation is different. But I know when politicians take the easy way out and that’s not leadership. Like, that’s just going along to get along.
[Laeo] Yeah, I guess taking a step back, a more optimistic note, how do you see housing growth on the Upper West Side in the next 10, 20 years? What is your vision for the future?
I mean, I think that people generally are bought in. I think that there’s enough of a crisis and enough people whose kids can’t live in the neighborhood or don’t see themselves and who really want that, that people know that the status quo isn’t working and so are more open to like housing. And you know, Morningside Heights hasn’t been rezoned, and there is a rezoning proposal from the community board that it’s just making its way through. Ultimately, it’s a city level issue. Columbia, man. Columbia controls something like half the district. And I think that they have not been good neighbors.
[Eli Miller] Can I push you on that? Columbia’s obviously in the district, and it’s been a political flashpoint in a million different ways in the past four years. Just like go off on Columbia for a little bit. I think it’s a good microcosm for how you see the neighborhood, how you see your role as a legislator.
Yeah. I mean, look, I think Colombia is a powerful institution that has brought a lot of good to the neighborhood. It’s not like I don’t want to neglect the jobs and the stability and the money and that it’s brought. But the issue, the problem is the dynamic is that the neighborhood has just had to rely on Colombia’s benevolence. And the power is out of whack. And in the last few years, they’ve done some pretty awful things. And in terms of suppressing speech, in terms of shutting down, in terms of pushing people out, eminent domain, not keeping their promises to like Harlem and West Harlem and creeping into those neighborhoods without really providing the benefits that have been agreed upon. And then Donald Trump comes along and threatens their funding and they just bow immediately to him. And so it also sends them, it’s a demoralizing message too.
They get hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks from New York State. And what I’ve seen is that they respond to the bottom line and they’ve got, it seems, because of the shifting leadership structures, their board of directors has really been making, these are people that don’t live in the neighborhood and don’t, they’re not concerned with Morningside Heights residents. I live across the street from the campus and I can tell you like people have a lot of righteous anger towards Columbia, which I share. And not protecting its students.
So I just think you need to bring them to the table. I would hope to for them to be doing it out of the goodness of their heart, but if you bring them to the table because suddenly they don’t get the tax breaks that they used to be entitled to, maybe that’s a way to do it. I just think that it’s unacceptable the way that they’ve been acting towards us and who live in the neighborhood.
[Laeo] Yeah. Switching gears slightly, we’re in budget season now. The state budget is about to hopefully come down soon. The City budget is happening, and we have a $5 billion budget gap. As a future state legislator, are there things that you see the state should be doing more of to help New York City fill the gap? There are a few unfunded mandates, the classroom size mandate, which has been talked about a lot recently, that the state could potentially help with. Do you have thoughts on that? Should the state be giving us money to build more classrooms?
I think like on the first question of filling the gap, I think it really has to come from the state and it should come. And I mean, I’m in favor of a tax on the top 1% of earners and raising the corporate tax as the mayor has advocated for and many people are pushing the governor to do. I think that it’s going to have to come from state revenue. Like even the city council budget that was proposed today, I think, papers over some stuff.
The class size thing is an interesting one, because I think, and I think that Senator Liu, who was the sponsor of the bill initially, has even been open to potentially some tweaks in its implementation. I’ve spoken with teachers who have said for certain classes, like it’s made a huge difference in certain classes, and for some other classes, it may not be necessary for the cap to be as low as it is. You’ve got schools that can no longer fit in their buildings, because when you close the class size, you need more classrooms. You’ve got therapy happening in the hallways. It’s leading to the closure of the-- or the potential closure of the center school, which had a lot of people in the district really upset about.
There are a bunch of unfunded mandates and it’s not necessarily well thought out how it’s going to impact people. I think you’ve got to be open to thinking about the class size things. Not in a way that like, I think there could be tweaks to it that could actually still serve students and allow us to transition. Because we’re going to have to have new school buildings and we’re going to have to have more teachers and the state should be paying for that if they’re mandating it. And maybe there’s a way to phase it in a way that’s more reasonable.
But I think that revenues need to be raised and it’s going to come from the state. And it should be directed to the city. And that’s the way to fill the gap.
[Eli Miller] This is your second attempt at running for this seat. Tell us a little about what it was like in 2024. You got the incumbent, Daniel O’Donnell, to endorse you, which was a big coup, considering that you were mostly an outsider and one of your opponents, Micah Lasher, was someone who had been working in politics for two or three decades. So I guess, specifically, how did you get this endorsement? And more generally, what was that race like for you? What did you learn from that experience?
Eli Northrup
Yeah, I was an outsider. I mean, my entire career had been as a public defender and as an advocate. And I really saw myself as an advocate and was motivated to run because of, as an extension of my advocacy work. And also like, I felt like I had knowledge of what the job of an assembly member was and that I would be good at it because I’m a lawyer. I’d written-- I drafted bills that have become law. I’d been part of negotiations. And I felt like I could do the job as an assembly member.
But I had never been involved in electoral politics. It’s super intimidating to run. You put yourself out there in this major way. You don’t know if you can do the things you need to do-- raise money, build a volunteer base, gain support. You have to call everybody in your life that and ask them for something. I was used to being the person that people called. And all of a sudden, I’m calling everybody and asking them for something, which is an uncomfortable position to be in. The thing I’m proud of in that first race is that I brought my whole self to it, and I didn’t lose myself in it. I did not change my principles. The things that I said were things I believed, and I didn’t sacrifice for political gain. There was times when you’re constantly being pushed to do that. And so that’s something I felt strong about and that I like, I went hard. Like when I decided to do it, I really gave myself to it. And we ended up finishing second place in a field of five and, against a really, really strong opponent. Like I was the one who emerged to be the challenger. And I was really proud of the support I gained because it was authentic. It was people that believed in the things that I believed in and knew me as a fighter. and the elected officials and the Working Families Party and UAW, they all supported me because they knew what I was about.
So I do have to say though, like after losing, it’s devastating to lose. Like you have to convince yourself that you’re going to win to bring yourself to everything you need to do. And anybody from the outside probably would have like, you know, you have no chance. But it was really hard to lose. And then that fall, Trump won. And I was just like looking at politics and being like, it’s just not, I guess I was wrong about what people want. Like this is what I have to give is not what people are interested in. And I was very happy to be back at, you know, Bronx Defenders. Like I love the work that I do and I feel effective in it. And so I was going on about my life, like still like, obviously going to be involved in advocacy and politics, but was not thinking about like running again.
It’s just amazing how quickly things can shift. You know, Zohran, somebody I’ve known and respected as an assembly member and advocated with. Seeing him and the campaign he ran and the success of his campaign really inspired me. I was inspired by that because that was like, I was like, yeah, this is what I want too. And then Jerry Nadler steps down and Micah’s running for the seat and all of a sudden the assembly seats open again.
So the moment feels very different this time. I’m such a better candidate because I’ve been through it. And I know that I can do the things. I know I can stand up in front of a crowd and answer questions. You have a lot of self-doubt when you haven’t done something before. I proved myself to myself as a candidate. And I know that I will, no matter what happens, I’m not going to not be myself. I’m not going to turn into somebody different. I think that’s a really helpful thing about having done the work that I’ve done. If you can make it a decade in Bronx Criminal Court, you’re tested in all these different ways.
Yeah. This is a podcast about District Twelve. As someone who has experience running a campaign against Micah Lasher, what is that experience like? And do you have any advice for the other candidates in this race on how to run against Micah?
Eli Northrup
I never saw my campaign as running against Micah. I saw my campaign as running for the seat. Like I was just wanting to be myself. Remember when I announced two years ago, and I guess I didn’t really answer your question about Danny, but I will remind you, Danny was a public defender. He worked for the Legal Aid Society before he went into politics. And I think that that was something that he really valued and saw in me that we had that shared background, which is like really like, when I said that those are my people, that’s a special thing if you’ve done that, and I think that was one of the things that like I think enabled or maybe made it so Danny felt like he would go for me because he knew what my background was. But when I announced Micah was not running yet. So I never really saw it like that.
But I will say that this is somebody who is such a smart person on policy, has thought about policy from all these different angles. and is really good on a lot of different issues. And I may not agree with him, but he knows what he’s talking about. And I actually enjoyed that part of the campaign. I think it made me a better candidate. We really had substantive-- I think more than any other assembly race in the state, the 69ers, we’ve already had like 6 forums. You know what I mean? And people ask hard questions during these forums, and they’re expecting answers. So he had answers always.
And he was a political strategist for a long time. He’s run other people’s campaigns. So he’s got both the policy and the electoral thing down. And I was totally new to the electoral thing. I was learning it as I went. So, but you know, a congressional, this was his, this is where he grew up and his backyard really. And it’s a smaller district. And congressional races are, it’s bigger. And there’s so much money. And I feel like, I don’t quite know how people make decisions. And the winds are shifting. The political winds are shifting.
Obviously, I’m watching the race. I’ve been to a bunch of the forums because they take place at the political clubs at the same time. And I think it’s starting to-- it was like 12 people on stage at the Broadway Dems Forum. It’s starting to narrow down. I think by the end, there’s only going to be like four people really sticking around. Micah will definitely be one of them. I mean, I don’t know what will happen. I’m trying to focus on my race. I’m trying to keep my head down, but it’s swirling around.
Let me distract you from your race a little bit. Do you have a comment on whether you think George Conway would be a good representative for us in Congress?
I don’t think he would be. I don’t think he’s been able to answer basic questions about policy. And I was-- it doesn’t feel like he even knows the city very well. I mean, he said his favorite subway stop was the Hudson Yards 7 stop. That’s just… yeah, I don’t know. I don’t think he’s going to be in the mix at the end.
And same question, but for Jack Schlossberg. Do you think that he’s someone who you’d be excited about seeing in Congress?
Eli Northrup
It’s hard to say because I know Micah and Alex a lot more and have respect for their policy chops, and I know that they’ve done policy work. I first became aware of Jack through this campaign. He has a skill of getting young people excited. I think that when they start to have debates, and people are paying more attention to NY-12, there’s going to be hard questions. Can he answer those questions in the same way that those guys can? I mean, we’re going to see. You get better throughout the course of a campaign. I think if I had to bet, I think it’s going to come down to Micah and Alex.
I’ve gotten to meet Nina, who’s also running, and been impressed with a lot of her answers and who she is as a person. And I think she’s a first-time candidate. It’s hard to be a first time candidate, especially if you don’t have money or fame. And so I went through that. But that doesn’t mean that it’s a failure for people that want to put their hat-- anybody who ran, there’s a lot of people-- I want more people to feel like they can run, because that’s ultimately going to lead to better results is a bigger pool of people who care.
Yeah, we just had Nina on in that very chair that you’re in right now. So unfortunately not in time for Nina, but when we get the rest of the candidates on, what’s one question that you want us to ask them?
Ask them about criminal justice reform. Because I haven’t heard any of them talk about it. And our federal prison system is in disarray. We have a prison in Brooklyn that is in terrible condition. And we have these mandatory minimum sentences at the federal level, which coerce plea deals. And I’d like to know where people stand on that stuff. I haven’t heard that be a topic of conversation at all, because we forget about people. And there’s this feeling that people deserve what they get, but the United States is so antiquated with the way that we treat punishment. It’s really the punishment system that makes everything else so unfair. So, yeah, maybe ask them some questions about that. Mandatory minimums.
I have a million questions about that lined up. Eli Northrup, thank you so so much for coming on and speaking to us. It’s been really great.
Thanks Eli, thanks Laeo. It’s great to be with you both.
