Life Imitates Art? Kathy Hochul Will Be New York’s First Female Governor

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Kathy Hochul will be sworn in as New York’s 57^th Governor when current Governor Andrew Cuomo’s resignation goes into effect.  Cuomo announced his resignation on August 10 (to become effective two weeks from the announcement) in response to Attorney General Letitia James’ report which found that Cuomo sexually harassed multiple women.  Importantly, Hochul will, at the same time, become New York’s first female governor. 

Kathy Hochul will become the 1st Female Governor of New York on Aug. 24, 2021

It is no secret that women have struggled to reach top executive elected positions throughout the United States.  The United States has never elected a female president, has only seen a woman lead a major party ticket once, and just elected its first female vice president in November 2020.  At the state level, women have fared only marginally better.  44 women (26 Democrats, 18 Republicans) have served as governors across 30 states throughout U.S. history.  This number will tick up to 31 when Hochul takes office next week, leaving 19 states that have never had a female governor.  Of these female governors, the first elected to office was Ella Grasso (Democrat from Connecticut) in 1975.  Prior to her, three women served as governors in Wyoming, Texas, and Alabama without winning election.  Instead, these women were selected as surrogates for their husbands who either died or were term limited.  Additionally, 12 of these female governors assumed office upon resignation of the male governor that held office prior to them.  Overall, then, we see that only 29 women have been elected to state governorships on their own right.  Next week, Hochul will join this list of female politicians to assume office after the resignation of a male executive.

Geena Davis played Vice President-turned-President Mackenzie Allen on Commander in Chief

This path of ascension to higher office for female candidates is a clear instance of life imitating art, as the lack of elected female executives is portrayed in popular culture as well.  Even in television and movies it is rare to see a woman elected to be president of the United States or governor of a state.  Instead, pop culture places females in an executive position by way of the male executive’s resignation from office, death, or some other calamity.  In the short-lived television series Commander in Chief, Geena Davis’s character becomes president upon the sudden and unexpected death of the president. Additionally, despite being the elected vice president, she was asked to resign her position prior to the President’s death so that the Speaker of the House (a male) would become president upon his passing.  In HBO’s Veep, Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s character becomes president upon the resignation of the president.  Then, when she actually runs for president she is defeated. 

Julia Louis-Dreyfus played Vice President-turned-President Selina Meyer on Veep

Since Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the White House in 2016, we have seen many women (on both sides of the political aisle) run for public office.  Many have since been elected.  In fact, there is plenty of political science scholarship that tells us that when women run, they are just as likely as men to win.  Women are just not encouraged to seek office as much as men are.  However, seeing a woman hold the top executive office in a state is still fairly uncommon and Kamala Harris is the first woman we have seen win the vice presidency of the United States.  Popular Culture even struggles to provide examples of women in positions of executive authority—at least those elected to executive positions on their own right.  New York, however, will get its first example of a female governor when Andrew Cuomo’s resignation goes into effect.  Kathy Hochul, a Buffalo native no less, will break the gubernatorial glass ceiling in New York next week when she is sworn into office. She will become the latest example of female executive leadership in one of the largest states in the country.  

Jules Princess receives scholarship

Jules Princess, a sophomore History & Political Science major, is the recipient of this year's Ruth Stratton Scholarship. The scholarship is named for Dr. Ruth Stratton, a beloved Political Science professor who influenced the lives of many Daemen students. The scholarship is awarded to a sophomore or junior major in the History & Political Science Department with a record of academic excellence, with preference given to students focused on environmental policy and/or law, which were among Dr. Stratton's areas of deep interest and expertise. Jules is preparing to pursue a career in law.

In addition to a record of academic success, Jules has held a number of leadership positions in student clubs and student government. Currently, Jules is President of the Pre-Law Student Association and has been elected Secretary of the Student Government Association for 2021-22. Congratulations, Jules! 

Public History @ Daemen

Did you know that Daemen has a Minor in Public History? 

This fall, Professor Lenora Henson will be teaching the required introductory course for this minor: HST211: Intro to Public History (Wednesdays, from 4:00-6:55pm). Henson holds several roles at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site (website: TR Site), the only National Park Service site in Western New York. In addition to her role as Deputy Director of the TR SIte, she is also Director of Public Programming and Curator of the museum. She oversees student interns and has mentored a number of Daemen students who pursued careers in public history. HST211 enables students to explore the field of public history by learning about the many ways that historical knowledge and skills can be applied "outside of the academy" (that is, outside of educational institutions). 

Professor Henson with public history students & alumni (2018 banquet)

The field of public history is broad, including historians who work in museums, historical societies, public and private archives, and other areas. A number of our department's graduates are working in public history. (Tyler Vanice (History '15), Kaleigh Ratliff (History & Political Science, '13), Amy Grimes (History & Political Science, '14), and Emily Kraft (History, '16), among others.

If you are interested in exploring the career opportunities or learning more about the field of public history, or about the Public History minor, contact Dr. Penny Messinger.

Tyra O'Meally-Turnbull Receives Scholarship

 

Tyra O'Meally-Turnbull, a sophomore History & Political Science: Adolescent Education major, is this year's recipient of the Elizabeth George Ivers Endowed Scholarship for Women. This scholarship, created by our distinguished alumna Elizabeth George Ivers, is awarded annually to a high-achieving student with a record of academic success and community service. In addition to her studies, Tyra is a member of Daemen's women's basketball team and has been involved with a variety of community service projects at Daemen and in the Amherst community. 

Congratulations, Tyra!

What Pop Culture Can Teach Us About the 25th Amendment

 There has been a lot of discussion about the 25^th Amendment ever since armed rioters stormed the Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.  On this day, Congress was performing its constitutional duty of certifying the Electoral vote in favor of Joseph Biden over Donald Trump, as determined by the popular vote in each state from the election held on November 3.  Objections were raised to the electoral vote in Arizona by members of both the House and Senate, so each house of congress met in their respective chamber to debate the results.  Shortly after debate began, the Capitol was breached by angry, armed rioters.  These rioters had been in attendance at a rally hosted by Trump, held at a park near the White House, at which he told them, “And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you.  We’re going to walk to the Capitol…You’ll never take back our country with weakness.  You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”  Heeding Trump’s advice, these citizens marched to the Capitol, breached the barricades, and broke in.  Members of congress were forced to seek shelter, with gas masks in hand in case of tear gas or some other airborne attack.  Five people were killed in the attack, including a Capitol Hill police officer—though no member of congress was injured.  So, after a roughly six-hour delay, Congress reconvened to finish certifying the electoral vote. 

Photo of rioters breaching the Capitol on January 6, 2021 taken from Reuters. 

In response to these attacks, several methods to remove Trump from power have been discussed.  Given his rhetoric surrounding the election results and his calls for shows of strength and urges to fight on his behalf, many have placed at least some of the blame for what happened on January 6 on Trump.  There are two main avenues by which a president may be forced to leave office prior to the end of his term: impeachment and conviction, and the 25^th Amendment.  Impeachment is understood by the American public because we have seen presidents impeached—some in recent memory (Bill Clinton in 1998 and Donald Trump in 2019)—though neither were convicted in their respective Senate trial.  However, we have never witnessed a president removed from power via the 25^th Amendment, leaving the American public largely uninformed about how the process works.    

We have seen the first three sections of the 25^th Amendment invoked in the past.  The first section provides for the succession to the presidency by the vice president in the case where the president is unable to fulfill his duties (i.e. death or resignation).  The second section explains how a Vice President is to be replaced should the vice presidency become vacant (the president appoints a new V.P. who has to be approved by a majority in both houses of congress).  Both of these sections were invoked in the Watergate era.  Gerald Ford was made Vice President via section two after Spiro Agnew resigned and was then made President via section one after Nixon resigned the presidency.  Section three has been invoked a few times by presidents receiving medical procedures requiring anesthesia, under which they would be unable to discharge presidential duties.  Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush invoked section three when they received colonoscopies.  Section four, on the other hand, has never been invoked.  Section four allows for the removal of a president from office with a majority vote of the President’s cabinet, including the Vice President.  The Vice President would then become president until the President is deemed capable of reassuming office.  Section four was designed to provide a way to transfer presidential power in the case where a president may suffer a debilitating, yet non-fatal, medical episode (e.g. stroke, heart attack) and be incapable of invoking section three.  This is something we have not witnessed as a country and why pop culture can help us understand how this process works. 

TV shows and movies often include storylines revolving around the 25^th Amendment because of the drama it includes.  Removing a president from power due to a health crisis (Madam Secretary), the temporary transfer of presidential power due to a child’s kidnapping (The West Wing), dealing with the disappearance of a president after a tragic accident (Political Animals), tend to provide for a boost in ratings due to the interesting storyline.  While all sections of the 25^th Amendment have found their way into pop culture, the fourth section’s portrayal holds the unique privilege of being our only look at how it would be invoked, as it has never been invoked by a president’s cabinet. 

The television show Madam Secretary provides us with the clearest look at section four, at least related to the current situation the United States finds itself in.  In the twelfth episode of Season Four, entitled “Sound and Fury,” Secretary of State Elizabeth McCord questions both the mental soundness and overall health of President Dalton after he prepares a military attack in response to a Russian sonic attack on the U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria.  This is not a typical response of Dalton, who also appears to be becoming more easily agitated than normal.  After convincing Dalton to hold off any sort of military action for 24 hours, there is finally evidence presented that Russia was not behind the attack.  However, Dalton still wants to attack Russia, regardless of the evidence.  This is when McCord gathers the cabinet and Vice President to discuss invoking the 25^th Amendment.  While there is hesitation among cabinet secretaries, who are concerned about protecting Dalton’s reputation, McCord ultimately convinces them to invoke section four until Dalton undergoes medical testing.  After testing, doctors found a malignant brain tumor pressing on Dalton’s frontal lobe, causing him to act more aggressively than normal.  Upon successful surgery and recuperation, Dalton resumes his presidential duties, with the Vice President returning to the vice presidency. 

This storyline from Madam Secretary gives us the our most useful example of how the fourth section of the 25^th Amendment was meant to be used, as we have not seen it invoked by any presidential cabinet in history.  Section four of the 25^th Amendment was designed to allow for the removal of a president who is incapable of performing his or her duties.  While there is much discussion surrounding this Amendment in the final days of the Trump administration, Vice President Mike Pence has voiced opposition to invoking the 25^th Amendment, all but ensuring it will not be used.  We thus seem to be left with pop culture examples to help elucidate how its invocation would work.

For more information on the history of the 25^th Amendment and how pop culture has played with storylines revolving around it, feel free to check out my recently published article, “A Heartbeat Away: Popular Culture’s Role in Teaching Presidential Succession.”  It was published in Dialogue: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Popular Culture and Pedagogy (an online, open access journal) and can be found (without a paywall) by clicking here. 

RBG's Passing Highlights the Problems of Representation in the US

 

Supreme Court Justice, and legal icon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday, September 18, 2020.  Not two hours later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement affirming that the Senate would work quickly to confirm President Trump’s appointment.  While this is the normal course of events when filling a Supreme Court vacancy, McConnell was met with a chorus of voices labeling him a hypocrite due to his refusal to conduct a Senate hearing for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Scalia passed away in February 2016, and McConnell argued it was wrong to confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the midst of an election year.  Yet, fast forward four years and he has no qualms about confirming Trump nominee, Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ginsburg’s vacant seat, arguing the circumstances are different due to the fact that the President and Senate majority are now both under unified Republican control, while in 2016 there was divided government. 

Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Amy Coney Barrett, nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court

Regardless of how one feels about McConnell’s actions, this situation draws attention to the larger problem of representation in the United States.  The Supreme Court is currently comprised of eight justices, with Coney Barrett likely to be the ninth.  Out of those nine justices, five will have been appointed by Republican presidents that did not win the popular vote in their respective elections (though Bush did win both the popular and electoral votes in his second term).  George W. Bush and Donald Trump both assumed the presidency by winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote.  Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom have a more conservative slant.  Trump, in his first term, has appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and has now nominated Barrett (who, by all signs will be confirmed along a party line vote in the Senate).  Neither of these presidents received a majority of support from American voters on election day, but together they have shifted the Supreme Court to the right ideologically for a generation. 

Additionally, representation issues present themselves in the Senate.  The Senate is not designed to be a democratic body.  It was designed to give states equal representation in the legislative branch, as each state receives 2 Senators.  Additionally, the Senate was designed to allow cooler heads to prevail in legislative decision-making.  Partisan battles were anticipated in the House, but were expected to be calmed in the Senate, as Senators were expected to examine what was better for the country as a whole rather than what individual members of a congressmember’s district demanded.  The House of Representatives was supposed to be where public opinion was aired and taken into account.  The Senate was supposed to funnel that opinion into policy that benefited a majority of Americans. 

Yet, much is different about the Senate of 2020 than the Senate of the late 1700s.  The Senate is still composed of two Senators from each state, but the population disparity between states today is much greater than it was centuries ago.  Currently, approximately 19.5 million people live in New York state, compared to the approximate 579,000 residents of Wyoming, giving Wyoming one Senator for roughly every 290,000 residents while in New York we see a ratio of 9.75 million to one.  The disparity looks even starker when we compare the most populous state in the country, California, with a population of 39.5 million. 

 

 

California's population is equal to the states highlighted in red combined.

The above graphic highlights the representation issue nicely.  California’s weight in the Electoral College (roughly appropriate given its population size) is worth all of the states, highlighted in red, combined.  Because we dole out electoral votes to states based on their population size, we know then that the combined population of the 13 states in red is roughly equal to that of California.  Thus, California’s two Senators represent the same number of people as the 26 senators from the states in red.  When Senators are eventually asked to vote on Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination, the states in red have a much greater voice than the Senators in California (26 votes to 2).

Problems with misrepresentation are frustrating and inevitably lead to lowered feelings of political efficacy and often depressed participation levels in democratic society.  Luckily there are reform ideas that exist to tackle the issues associated with misrepresentation that would increase political efficacy and hopefully revive civic participation. 

Ranked choice voting has been implemented in Maine thanks to a ballot referendum initiated by its citizens.  Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank the candidates in order of preference.  After all ballots are tallied initially (counting only a voter’s first choice), the lowest vote-getter is removed from contention and their votes are allocated to their second choice.  This process repeats until only two candidates remain.  This all but guarantees that the election winner will have a majority of support within a state. 

There are multiple reform plans proposed for the Electoral College: eliminate it altogether, award votes according to a mixture of the popular vote in a congressional district and the statewide popular vote total (Nebraska and Maine use this method currently), award electoral votes according to the proportion of a state’s popular vote total, or the states can enter into a compact that promises to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the state’s popular vote totals.  Some of these are more difficult to pass than others (with some requiring a constitutional amendment) and, of course, all of them come with benefits and drawbacks of their own (a topic for a completely separate blog post). 

There are also more “extreme” measures discussed to increase representation, including adopting a multimember district system, relying on a proportional representation system instead of our current winner-take-all approach to elections, or adopting a more parliamentary system in general over our presidential system.  These are much more unlikely to garner enough public support to gain serious traction, but public opinion is starting to drive some reform efforts when it comes to bettering representation in Congress.  Electoral College reform is now met with a majority of public approval and Maine’s ranked choice voting system was driven by its voters.  Representation matters to voters.  And when they feel that they are not being accurately represented by their elected leaders, there are normally electoral consequences that follow. 

Remembering Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is momentous. A pioneer and tireless champion of gender equality, she overcame the obstacles of gender discrimination in her own life to advocate for and win basic rights for all women. The edifice of gender equality was built upon her legal arguments before the United States Supreme Court in the 1970s, arguing for the constitutional equality of women under the law. As a member of the Supreme Court she was a fierce defender of a wide range of civil liberties and rights, including the constitutional right to vote. 

Before her passing is overcome by the politics of the election and the battle over her replacement, we encourage all to take a long moment to celebrate Justice Ginsburg's remarkable lifetime of achievements and to reflect upon the lessons we might draw from her life and jurisprudence. The multitude of tributes from across the political spectrum speak to her accomplishments as well as to her joyful, gracious spirit.  

A living legend in her own time, the notorious R.B.G. seemed somehow invincible. Her passing, particularly in this political moment, undoubtedly has left many of us feeling uncertain and in in need of way to express both our sorrow over the loss of a legal icon and a shared debt gratitude. She fought the very end, and although her health failed, she never once faltered in her fearless service to the constitutional principles of freedom and equality.  

Justice Ginsburg once said that what gave her optimism about the future was young people "fired up" about the future of our country. She reminded us that "Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time." Let us continue to follow in the benefit of Ruth's mighty footsteps. "Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you."