With the primary season in full swing, is “tough-on-crime” really the best platform to campaign on? The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) doesn’t think so, after collecting feedback from swing voters in the state’s most competitive districts.
Its findings from earlier this month showed participants preferred Democratic candidates whose platform of “solutions and prevention” increased voter engagement head-to-head against Republican candidates compared to those espousing “tough-on-crime” narratives.
NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman told the AmNews that the race for NY-3 House seat vacated by George Santos reinforced prevailing narratives that the research disputed. The special election saw Santos’s predecessor, centrist Democrat Tom Suozzi, champion stricter border policies and subsequently win.
“The general wisdom with regards to how they talk about public safety and immigration is that tough on crime is what the people want to hear,” Lieberman said in a video conference interview. “I’ve truly been concerned about the general wisdom because it doesn’t comport with our values. It doesn’t encourage problem solving. And it perpetuates biases, stereotypes and negativity.
“We decided to look into some swing districts upstate to find out what motivates voters…the Suozzi election perpetuated the tough-on-crime narrative. And we wanted to see if that was true.”
So the nonpartisan NYCLU enlisted Lake Research Partners to poll the state’s two most competitive political battlegrounds on whether swing and independent voters truly-preferred “tough-on-crime” messaging over those calling for investments in housing, education, mental healthcare and employment, deemed as “solution-based.”
The researchers polled voters in two swing districts, NY-19 and NY-22, in March. Both boast Republican incumbents but favored Pres. Joe Biden against ex-Pres. Donald Trump in the 2020 election. NY-19 spans Central New York from Catskill to Ithaca while NY-22 sits north covering both Syracuse and Utica.
They found that 71% of respondents viewed non-carceral crime prevention “solutions” favorably and 63% said they would vote for a candidate in a House election who championed such messaging. Meanwhile the $200 billion spent nationally on incarceration “resonated” with 62% of participants.
Polling also found that residents in these districts hear about public safety and immigration from Republicans far more than Democrats. 46% of participants told researchers they are currently more likely to vote Republican while just 27% said they are more likely to vote Democrat.
Ultimately, the polling determined status quo messaging did not work on the participants, who represent key voters that not only influence statewide elections, but national politics.
“We’ve seen over 40-50 years that public officials [and] politicians have learned that the surest way to take a victory lap or to make political hay out of a bad situation [or] tragedy is to look at a police response,” said Lieberman. “Much of what is really not up their alley, has been put on the police…it has nothing to recommend [for] it yet, except for the perception that it’s politically expedient, and or attractive or appealing.
“People want to hear about plans to provide housing, to provide quality schools to provide jobs and job training rather than the tired old ‘lock them up and throw away the key.’ And that’s encouraging.”
Tandy Lau is a Report for America corps member who writes about public safety for the Amsterdam News. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep him writing stories like this one; please consider making a tax-deductible gift of any amount today by visiting https://bit.ly/amnews1.