A Moot Point: Final Thoughts on the 2008 Election Symposium

Robert Magee, Staff Writer, RMagee@albanylaw.edu

     Today, Albany Law School was host to the Election 2008 Symposium. It was the product of collaboration between no fewer than 11 of Albany Law School’s politically oriented student groups, from the OUTLaws to the ALS Republicans, brought together by the Albany Government Law Review’s own Ali Chaudry.  The symposium’s presence, ensconced in the third floor of a law school situated in the capital of state in which participation in presidential politics has been a futile act for as long as most of us can remember was a poetic exercise in democratic innovation.

     The premise of the symposium was that local politicos would stand in for the McCain and Obama campaigns to talk with the local polity about The Issues as a means of facilitating a discussion about who to vote for next Tuesday or (more likely) the fleshing out of our existing decision. 

     The opportunity to do so is a rare one in a state like New York which has been spared (or denied) down and dirty presidential politicking.  Those few occasions in which the national campaigns appear in the state occur in sterile and predictable settings.1  Even this most momentous, long, tumultuous presidential election has pitched and heaved just beyond New York’s boarders in Pennsylvania2 or, during the primaries, New Hampshire.3

      New York’s persona non grata status is conferred upon it by the Electoral College.  The college itself is the product of compromise.  As a political invention, it is the product of the Constitutional Convention’s foundational controversy over whether population or mere statehood should determine representative power in the national government.4  As a compromise to reality it was an alternative to the “extreme inconveniency [and] the considerable expense, of drawing together men from all the States for the single purpose of electing the Chief Magistrate.”5  To further confuse its purpose, the Electoral College was originally proposed on June 1, 1787 by James Wilson of Pennsylvania as a plan to divide states into districts which would appoint an elector to vote for the President as a means of cutting out state participation in presidential elections altogether.6 Continue reading “A Moot Point: Final Thoughts on the 2008 Election Symposium”

Albany County Candidates for District Attorney David Soares and Roger Cusick Debate at Albany Law School

Robert Magee, staff writer, RMagee@albanylaw.edu & Steven Sharp, staff writer, SSharp@albanylaw.edu

The Dean Alexander Moot Courtroom at Albany Law School was at capacity tonight, October 6, 2008, for the first debate in the race for the Albany County District Attorney between Albany Law alumni David Soares and Roger Cusick.

The race has been tranquil on its surface.  During the summer it appeared as if Mr. Soares, the incumbent, would run unopposed.  Yet whispers of a challenger had been creeping through the county and on August 17 reached the tenor necessary to put Roger Cusick on the ballot as the Integrity Party nominee.1 Though the petitions which Mr. Cusick needed to put his name on the ballot where challenged,2 his name remained there. Since then, Mr. Cusick’s last-minute campaign has gained a certain amount of momentum among disaffected democrats and insatiable republicans and he’s secured both labor and police endorsements.3 Signs for both have sprouted up around the city to replace flowers retreating into winter.

If Mr. Cusick’s record in this arena lacks indicators of success in this sort of endeavor, it doesn’t lack for experience.  Last summer, Cusick launched a long shot campaign against deeply entrenched Albany County Executive Michael Breslin,4 and in 2004 he ran a similar campaign against Soares.5 Continue reading “Albany County Candidates for District Attorney David Soares and Roger Cusick Debate at Albany Law School”