Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

The Forgotten History of Latino Politics in New York: Part II


Felipe Torres (photo: Center for Puerto Rican Studies, CUNY)


This is the second part of a series on the forgotten history of Latino politics in New York; read part one here.

The Republican Party during the pre-FDR era was surely not the GOP of today, in New York and beyond. This is made clear by who the Republicans chose as their candidate for State Assembly in what was then considered “South Harlem.”

Oscar García Rivera was by no means a Republican as we understand the term today; he had not a single conservative bone in his body. In fact, Garcia Rivera was a true progressive through and through. For supporters like the cigar-makers (see part one of this column), it was easy to rally behind one of their own, for he was not only a Puerto Rican, he was also a socialist. 

As is typical of any winning campaign, especially one looking to unseat an incumbent, García Rivera’s victory in 1937 was a result of a confluence of support from leaders and organizations and the right political climate—a climate that increasingly demanded broader representation.

On one hand, after a decade of ardent struggle for representation in which the number of Puerto Ricans in New York continued to rise, nationalist fervor among Puerto Ricans in Gotham was palpable by the time García Rivera sought the Assembly seat in East Harlem. On the other hand, long-standing progressives saw an opportunity to elect someone who aligned with their progressive values. Thus, staunch Marxists, labor activists, the American Labor Party, and the city’s Fusion Party, together with the burgeoning Puerto Rican electorate and a Republican Party looking to defeat a Democrat, were part of a grand coalition that made possible the election of the first Latino in New York.

The prospect of electing “one of their own” was widespread among Puerto Ricans, even in areas outside of East Harlem. La Prensa, one of the first Spanish-language dailies in New York (La Prensa would merge with El Diario de Nueva York to form El Diario/La Prensa in 1963), wrote several articles on García Rivera’s campaign. One such article comes across as rather mundane—“Aumenta el interés en la campaña en el Distrito No. 17.” The piece highlights a “gran mitin” (a great meeting) that brought together the coalition rallying around García Rivera. Even the Spanish-language reporters, who perhaps in this instance relinquished some impartiality, could not contain their glee at the possibility of electing the first Puerto Rican not only in New York but also in the continental United States.

However, García Rivera’s appealing candidacy was a threat to the powers of the time and was met with strong opposition, most notably from the powerful Tammany Hall machine. Their candidate was the incumbent, Meyer Alterman, a Democrat who was also the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the Assembly. One of the Spanish-language dailies reported on some of Tammany Hall's typical shenanigans, including fraudulent voter registrations in order to cast illegal votes.

Responding to one of the Spanish-language dailies’ inquiry into an increase in voter registration ahead of the election, García Rivera himself noted that Tammany Hall Democrats via the Wichita and Owasco Democratic clubs, made a concerted effort to hamper Latino voter registration by providing false information to eligible Puerto Rican voters. In some cases, these Tammany Hall loyalists told Puerto Ricans that they were obligated to take a first-time voter exam in Brooklyn, when this was not the case. In other cases, Tammany Hall made sure to fraudulently pad voter rolls by registering non-Latino individuals in specific Latino households. By García Rivera’s own estimates, out of a total of 6,000 newly-registered voters ahead of the election, at least 2,000 were fraudulent registrants.

It was clear that Tammany Hall would use all their influence, including strong-handed and illegal tactics to deter the first Latino from winning a seat in the Assembly.

Yet, demographic destiny was on García Rivera’s side. Coupled with the support of Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, who ran on the same ticket as Thomas Dewey in his 1937 race for district attorney, and the fierce support of labor leaders like David Dubinsky, Alex Rose, and Mike Quill, García Rivera would go on to defeat the incumbent by more than 1,500 votes in an election that saw 17,807 voters go to the polls.

García Rivera understood right away that his historic election was in part a result of the people’s desire for a change from the conventional political misconduct. He was not, and never would be, indebted to Tammany Hall Democrats. His allegiance was to the people and the people alone. 

East Harlem was also a community in great need—East Harlemites clamored for political leadership that would fight to alleviate the ills plaguing it, from rampant poverty to a housing affordability crisis. They hoped García Rivera would do his part in the Assembly. And that he did.

When asked by La Prensa’s Antulio Rodriguez Castillo what legislative agenda he would take to Albany, García Rivera responded straight-forwardly, clearly showing that the progressive philosophy he ran on was not mere rhetoric, but rather stemmed from a deep belief that a progressive agenda was exactly what would benefit the poor of East Harlem.

García Rivera’s first order of business was to introduce an affordable housing bill that aimed to restrict the ability of landlords to raise rents arbitrarily. It is rather ironic that 85 years after García Rivera’s election, East Harlem and indeed the city as whole face a major housing affordability crisis (and there is fierce debate over a bill in Albany that would cap rent increases).

García Rivera also sought to root out the corruption prevalent in city politics, which he felt contributed to the crises plaguing areas like East Harlem. Perhaps his idealistic views about what good government could do were balanced with some political realism—taking on corruption in government would continue to help weaken an already declining Tammany Hall, which would surely help his re-election efforts.

García Rivera promised to work with Mayor La Guardia’s administration and newly-elected Manhattan District Attorney Dewey, to root out corruption in government. According to García Rivera, Dewey, who would later become governor and the Republican nominee for president in 1948, promised to work with him on such efforts. It could be said that Dewey lived up to his promises since he went on to prosecute Tammany Hall boss James Joseph Hines on racketeering charges. 

García Rivera was successfully re-elected in 1938. His second winning political campaign was not just a result of the debilitation of Tammany Hall; García Rivera also had a solid record to run on.

In just one year, he introduced a number of bills supported by progressives. More importantly, these bills were seen as a powerful message to the people of East Harlem that their community finally had an elected leader that prioritized their needs and not those of Tammany Hall. García Rivera introduced an anti-discrimination bill that would fine employers for refusing to pay workers because of race. In 1938 he introduced a civil rights bill (almost 30 years before the passage of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act), and as promised, he introduced the aforementioned legislation that would limit the right of landlords to raise rents arbitrarily. In an address to residents in his community, García Rivera said the bill would be a “deterrent to greedy landlords” and would “protect the tenants in the low income bracket.”

With this record, García Rivera was ready for his re-election battle. This time, however, his enemies were not just limited to Tammany Hall Democrats. The Republican County organization, which had backed him just one year earlier, denied García Rivera the nomination in 1938 (Assembly elections were yearly then). The New York Times called it “an unusual political move.” García Rivera likened it to yet another Tammany Hall hit job. 

Irvin Levy, the Republican leader in García Rivera’s district, told the Times that their support was rescinded because of García Rivera’s supposed closeness to communists. The GOP instead lent their support to a young African-American attorney by the name of John A. Ross. The Tammany Hall Democrats supported Meyer Alterman again, leaving García Rivera as the third-party candidate of the American Labor Party. Democrats and Republicans alike thought they had García Rivera’s number. The result was a nail-biter but García Rivera ended up victorious, besting Alterman by 235 votes.

Two years later, dynamics would shift drastically for García Rivera and the burgeoning East Harlem Puerto Rican community. Redistricting efforts significantly altered the 17th Assembly district and as a result, Democrat Hulan Jack beat García Rivera by 3,150 votes in 1940. García Rivera’s defeat also spelled temporary doom for Puerto Rican representation, as no Latinos were elected to any office for more than a decade.

Interestingly enough, during this void in Puerto Rican political representation a non-Puerto Rican, Congressman Vito Marcantonio, would go on to champion the cause of Puerto Ricans in New York and those on the Caribbean island.

The lack of Latino political representation after García Rivera’s defeat was not a reflection of any decline in the Latino population of New York. In fact, the very opposite was occurring. As the ‘40s gave way to the ‘50s, the growing number of Puerto Ricans in New York would increase by over 300%, from a little under 60,000 in 1940 when García Rivera was defeated to almost 300,000 by 1950. These New York City statistics in all likelihood underestimate the real picture of Puerto Rican migration at the time. By 1956, just six years later, an additional 300,000 Puerto Ricans had arrived in the city. (My parents were two of these 300,000; my father arrived in East Harlem in 1955 and my mother came to the same community in 1956.) 

The continued rise of the Puerto Rican population meant that political machines could no longer bypass the need for Puerto Rican political representation. Much too large to ignore, the Puerto Rican population was ready to again elect one of its own.

In 1953, Felipe Torres, a 56-year-old attorney and graduate of Fordham Law School, was elected to the State Assembly, becoming the first Latino elected in the borough of the Bronx. Interestingly, the Torres family became prominent not only in political circles but also within the legal profession. After his stint in the Assembly, Felipe Torres was appointed a Family Court judge. His son Frank succeeded him in the Assembly and was also later appointed a judge. Felipe’s granddaughter, Analisa Torres is currently a federal judge, appointed by Barack Obama in 2013. (I was honored to help Analisa Torres in 1998 during her successful run for Civil Court judge in Manhattan.)

By the time Felipe Torres was elected, there were more Puerto Ricans in the Bronx than in East Harlem. Yet, East Harlem was the place that Puerto Rican political power would flourish first. In 1954, the last of the Tammany Hall bosses, Carmine DeSapio, appointed Tony Mendez as a district leader in East Harlem. Thus, Mendez became the first Latino Democratic district leader in New York history. Twenty-four years later, in 1978, his daughter-in-law Olga Mendez became the first Latina elected to a State Legislature in U.S. history. Tony Mendez founded the Caribe Democratic Club, which remains in existence today and is headed by an East Harlem community activist, Raul Reyes.

Mendez knew how to work DeSapio in order to increase Puerto Rican representation at all levels of government. Largely through Mendez’s efforts, Emilio Nunez, a member of his club, was elected to the City Court in 1956. Another Caribe Club member, Jose Ramos-Lopez was appointed to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Manuel Gomez became deputy commissioner in the Magistrate’s Court. By the end of the decade, Ramos-Lopez was elected to the State Assembly, becoming the third Puerto Rican elected to the State legislature in New York history. 

The advancement of Puerto Rican political power in East Harlem was a source of admiration for others around the city, particularly in the Bronx. However, East Harlem continued to get a bigger piece of the political pie, even though the Bronx constituted a larger portion of the Puerto Rican community in New York. Bronx political leaders called for greater representation, scorning their own political leaders, particularly Bronx Democratic boss Charles Buckley, for not doing more for the Puerto Rican community.

That would soon change in the 1960s when Herman Badillo entered the picture and became a political hero for Puerto Ricans in New York.

***
Eli Valentin is a political analyst and author of the forthcoming book, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Life. On Twitter @EliValentinNY.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Troubling Series of Uncertainties Mars Reopening of New York City Schools


Mayor Adams visits a school (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


After two-and-a-half years of a chaos and disruptions due to the covid pandemic and a change in mayoral administrations, many parents, teachers, and advocates were yearning for a steadier, supportive, and safe re-opening of a new school year, in which students would get the attention and the stability they need. Sadly, that  does not seem to be in store. 

The pandemic is not over, no matter how much one may wish for it. The covid test positivity rate at 8.5% in New York City is still quite high, and while in general students appear less prone to the negative effects of the virus, the long-term impact of covid among children remains a serious concern. And even if not seriously ill themselves, they can still transmit the virus to their teachers or bring it home to their family members. Unlike previous years, this year’s covid safety protocols will be few.  

Less than half of New York City children are fully vaccinated (at least two doses) against covid.  There is no longer any mask mandate and no in-school screening for covid, no attempt at social distancing, and the air purifiers that the Department of Education purchased for schools are widely considered to be inferior. All this bodes poorly for the opportunity for children and their teachers to have a smooth and uninterrupted school year.

Another source of instability is the fact that Mayor Eric Adams is intent on making huge budget cuts to schools. Though initially the Department of Education claimed that the total reductions to schools would be $215 million, that turned out to be untrue. The City Comptroller has estimated that 77% of schools have suffered $469 million in cuts to the portion of their budgets allocated through the Fair Student Funding formula. Class Size Matters’ analysis of  the schools’ entire budgets indicates that as of August 21, their total funding had been reduced by $1.3 billion,  and projected that by the end of the school year, the total reduction would be about $1 billion compared to last year, as about $300 million was added after that date last year. A billion dollars is also the amount that has been slashed from the Department of Education’s entire budget.  

After 45 out of 51 City Council members voted to approve the city budget late in the evening on June 13, many quickly came to regret their votes when they faced the anger of their constituents as the impact of these cuts on individual schools became clear.  Many schools reported having to let go beloved teachers and social workers, others have been forced to eliminate art and music programs. Council members said they had been deceived by DOE officials, who had assured them that the budget cuts would have no impact on current staffing or programs but would only eliminate positions already unfilled. Chancellor Banks’ response was that the Council had failed to “ask all the questions that needed to be asked.” By the end of July, 700 teachers had been excessed from their schools, though since most still remained on the DOE payroll, it remains uncertain what actual budget savings this will produce.

On July 18, parents and teachers filed a lawsuit to try to block the cuts, pointing out that the City Council vote had preceded by ten days the vote on the budget by the Panel for Educational Policy, in violation of  state law. While the DOE had claimed an “emergency” superseded the PEP vote, the plaintiffs pointed out there was no such emergency,  and that the DOE had made the same claim with the same boilerplate language in 12 out of the last 13 years. They demanded that the Council have an opportunity to revote subsequent to the PEP vote in the proper order as specified by state law. Supreme Court Judge Lyle Frank ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on August 5, and ordered last year’s school budgets reinstated until the City Council had a chance for a revote. But the Adams administration appealed his decision, and the Appellate Court ordered an automatic “stay” on Judge Frank’s decision and the restoration of these cuts, at least until arguments in Appellate Court could be held, which are not scheduled until September 29 – long after the school year has begun.  

Since their original vote to approve the budget, City Council members have organized rallies, held hearings, sent letters to the mayor, and now approved a resolution to demand that he immediately restore at least the $469 million cuts to schools. Yet Adams has not budged and continues to insist that these cuts are justified by a decline in enrollment. Meanwhile, he has been followed by protests nearly everywhere he goes, with parents and teachers insisting that he restore funding to their schools. He has told them to “keep us in your prayers.” In response, 135 religious leaders released a letter pointing out that the mayor’s comment was a form of  “spiritual bypassing…rhetoric to avoid your responsibilities to the people of this city.”  

One of the biggest wild cards amidst all these concerns remains the issue of class size. In early June, after years of advocacy by parents and teachers, the State Legislature overwhelming passed new legislation that would require the city to gradually lower class size in all grades, to achieve caps in five years of no more than 20 students in grades K-3 classes, 23 students in grades 4-8, and 25 students in high school -- levels closer to what class size averages are in the rest of the state.  

The research is clear that such class sizes would provide students with a far better chance at success, in terms of achievement, graduation from high school, and a four-year college degree. Yet Governor Hochul has so far failed to sign the bill.  Though she recently indicated that she was inclined to do so in the near future, she also signaled that she was in negotiations with Mayor Adams to propose amendments to the bill, which is worrisome as Adams has steadfastly opposed the measure, calling it an “unfunded mandate.” 

As State Senator John Liu and others have pointed out, it is only right and just that the city should finally lower class sizes, given that the DOE is finally receiving the $1.3 billion in additional state aid resulting  from the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case, in which students’ excessive class sizes were central to the court’s decision that they had been deprived of their right to a sound basic education. Yet after that decision was made, class sizes actually increased. It appears that the mayor would like to use the additional state funding, as well as nearly $4 billion in unspent federal covid education funds, for other purposes. 

If nothing intervenes to stop him, his destabilizing cuts to school budgets will inevitably result in larger class sizes next year.  What has been ignored in much of the controversy over the bill is how much students benefited last year because their schools were fully funded despite the enrollment decline, and principals were therefore able to keep their teachers and other critical personnel on staff, which in turn led to the smallest average class sizes in the city’s history.  

Indeed, the Fair Student Funding formula that schools have relied upon since 2007 to pay for teacher salaries is fatally flawed, given how it has forced principals to keep class sizes excessively large – which in turn, has prevented students from receiving the adequate  support that they deserve. Eighty percent of the principals surveyed in 2019 by a Fair Student Funding Taskforce said that large class sizes were a direct consequence of the formula.

Class Size Matters has heard from many parents and teachers who reported that along with the smaller classes last spring came a serene atmosphere, with the emotional sustenance that many children were lacking after two years of the pandemic. As one teacher put it, “All kids are needier than ever, whether simply needing attention and feedback from teachers or grappling with real trauma.”  

As one principal announced, “What is devastating about the recent budget cuts is that 2021 felt like the first time in my 16 years in the DOE where we were getting close to being able to provide all kids with the supports and opportunities they deserved.”

Similarly, a parent of a middle school student reported, “This is the first year after being in NYC public schools for seven years that the teachers are able to provide individualized attention to my child’s social and emotional needs. Her teachers all know her really well for the first time.”

Yet rather than sustain and build on the progress enabled by smaller classes last year, Mayor Adams seems intent on reverting to the unacceptable conditions of the past.

Among the organizations that sent in memos of support for the state class size bill were the Alliance for Quality Education, the NAACP, NYC Kids PAC, the Network for Public Education, and the Chancellors Parent Advisory Council, which represents all the PTAs in the city. Nearly 9,500 parents and teachers have signed a petition urging Governor Hochul to sign the class size bill as soon as possible.  

Parents hope that she will do so soon, without significantly weakening its provisions, so that the city’s children will be able to receive the close emotional and academic support that they have long deserved but need now more than ever before.

***
Leonie Haimson is the Executive Director of Class Size Matters. On Twitter @leoniehaimson & @ClassSizeMatter.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We Don’t Need a ‘Plan B,’ Mayor Adams; New York City Needs You to Shut Rikers Down


Mayor Adams at Rikers (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


As the crisis on Rikers Island continues and the death toll soars, Mayor Eric Adams told New Yorkers last week that there needs to be a “plan B” for the city’s plan to shutter the notorious jail complex, suggesting he may not close Rikers at all. This should alarm all New Yorkers who care about justice.

There is currently a plan in place to close Rikers by 2027 and drastically reduce the city’s capacity to jail people. In 2019 community groups secured a victory when the New York City Council passed and then-Mayor Bill de Blasio signed legislation to close Rikers and replace the existing borough-based jails. The plan dramatically reduces the number of jail cells citywide, while emphasizing diversion and alternative programs that promote public safety without relying on incarceration.

As a candidate, Mayor Adams committed to the Rikers closure plan. But as mayor he has done little to nothing to follow through, even outright ignoring the 2019 law, and has instead fought for policies to jail more people at Rikers, increasing the detention population, endangering lives, and further imperiling the closure plan. When the mayor said, “We need a plan B,” he went on to suggest expanding the city’s jail capacity by holding people – pretrial – in state prisons.

The Rikers closure plan requires the city’s detention capacity to be 3,300 or lower. But today about 5,700 people are in New York City jails—300 more people than when Adams took office in January, and thousands more than what is permissible under the 2019 plan, which purposefully cuts overall jail capacity. 

Roughly 4,900 people (86%) are incarcerated pretrial. These people—neighbors, family, friends — are innocent until proven guilty, but most of them are in jail because they can’t afford bail. Having worked at a bail fund and posted bail more than 500 times in New York City, I know firsthand how immoral and predatory our state’s bail system continues to be — yes, even after the reforms that have been mischaracterized and partially rolled back twice

Jail populations don’t rise on their own. They are the direct result of regressive decisions made for political gain. 

Mayor Adams has made daily calls to roll back bail reform and incarcerate more New Yorkers pretrial—predominately Black and Latino people—due to unaffordable bail. And it’s working. The jail population is going up because Mayor Adams wants it to. This comes at a great cost, including the unacceptable reality that 13 people have died in New York’s jail system this year; the city is on track to surpass the grisly record set last year.

The mayor wants even more people behind bars at Rikers, where even more people will die.

And New York City taxpayers should not be spending more than $500,000 a year per person to hold people in cages on Rikers while cutting funding to schools and homeless services. This type of policy decision-making makes our city less safe.

To address the crisis at Rikers, there is no need for a “plan B” or for people to be sent to state prisons while they await their day in court. The solution is straightforward: utilize proven programs to reduce the jail population, invest in real community safety: housing, health care, education, and jobs, and shut down Rikers.

New Yorkers deserve better than a mayor who commits to one thing, does another, and seems to govern on the fly through reckless statements. People are suffering and dying, and the time for action—the time to close Rikers—is now. 

***
Yonah Zeitz is the Director of Advocacy at the Katal Center for Equity, Health, and Justice. From 2017 to 2019 he was the Project Associate at the Bronx Freedom Fund. On Twitter @yonahzeitz@katalcenter.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years