There is little doubt, as far as the New York State Constitution is concerned, that Gov. Kathy Hochul has the power to remove Mayor Eric Adams of New York City from office.
But as she faces growing pressure to exercise that authority, the choice before Ms. Hochul is anything but simple. No governor in New York’s 235-year history has removed a mayor, leaving little precedent to guide her. Doing so now could also unleash unpredictable political and legal consequences — including for Ms. Hochul.
She appeared to be weighing all of those risks on Tuesday as she holed up on the 39th floor of a state office building in Manhattan to confer with citywide elected officials, prominent Black leaders and congressional lawmakers.
Ms. Hochul has made it clear that she has been alarmed by accusations that Mr. Adams entered into a corrupt deal with the Justice Department in exchange for it dropping federal charges against him. Yet she has stressed that her top priority is protecting the interests of New Yorkers.
Advisers who requested anonymity to characterize the governor’s thinking said she could do that in several different ways. Ms. Hochul could initiate removal proceedings; try to pressure Mr. Adams to resign; bless a separate city process meant to remove mayors deemed unable to govern — or simply push for less drastic concessions from the mayor and let voters have the final say in this year’s election.
Here are five factors that may shape her decision:
A cautious student of history, with little guide.
As governor, Ms. Hochul has typically favored a cautious approach, looking for precedent to guide her thinking. In this case, she has little to lean on.
The State Constitution is sparse, saying merely that a mayor “may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.”
It essentially leaves it to the governor to determine the rest: What constitutes “charges” worthy of removal? What due process should the mayor, who insists he has not entered into any sort of quid pro quo, be afforded, and for how long?
Only one governor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has ever attempted to use the authority against a mayor of New York City. He tried to remove Mayor Jimmy Walker on corruption charges. Roosevelt appointed a former judge to help with the inquiry and conducted hearings himself, but ultimately Walker resigned before he could be removed.
Ms. Hochul may yet find reason to attempt such a proceeding herself, but the governor’s advisers worry that it could become a messy, weekslong spectacle that does the city more harm than good. Some have also questioned whether the governor had yet heard a clear case to argue the mayor was hurting the interests of New York City.
In her own statement about the removal possibility, Ms. Hochul said that she recognizes “the immense responsibility” the State Constitution affords her and that “overturning the will of the voters is a serious step that should not be taken lightly.”
Moving against Mr. Adams risks alienating Black voters.
Government leaders almost always prefer to make decisions that are broadly popular with voters. In this case, Ms. Hochul appears to be particularly attentive to one segment of the electorate: Black New Yorkers.
Black voters have been among the steadiest supporter of Mr. Adams, the city’s second Black mayor. If they conclude that Ms. Hochul is targeting him unfairly or casting him aside without proper due process, they could punish her at the ballot box next year.
Ms. Hochul has carefully solicited the views of Black leaders, including the Rev. Al Sharpton and Representative Gregory W. Meeks, the leader of Queens Democrats. Maintaining their support could help insulate her from any potential voter backlash.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Meeks both told the mayor that while they were alarmed by the Adams situation, it was premature to remove him, particularly before a federal judge holds a hearing Wednesday on the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case.
“I think she agreed that she cannot just wave a magic wand or say that the mayor is gone, is going to be removed,” Mr. Meeks said in an interview after his call with Ms. Hochul.
“The mayor and everyone else has due process,” he said. “For me, that’s essential.”
Removal might empower Andrew Cuomo.
Ms. Hochul and many of the leaders she is consulting have another, more personal reason to avoid creating an opening in City Hall. His name is Andrew M. Cuomo.
Mr. Cuomo resigned in a cloud of scandal in 2021, elevating Ms. Hochul to the governorship. But he has returned to the public stage and appears to be preparing to run for mayor. Polls suggest he would be the best positioned to inherit Mr. Adams’s Black voter base and win a nonpartisan special election for mayor if Mr. Adams leaves office.
That could be a problem for the governor. Mr. Cuomo and his tight circle of aides have made little secret of their dislike for Ms. Hochul. If Mr. Cuomo is elected, Ms. Hochul’s allies fear that he would try to exact revenge, hurt her political standing and treat her with the same contempt he once showed Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Still, Ms. Hochul may yet find reasons to act.
For all the risks, the pressure for Ms. Hochul to intervene to remove Mr. Adams has only grown in recent days as he defies calls for his resignation.
It is not hard to imagine a scenario where the prominent Democrats who have urged Ms. Hochul to give the mayor time to rebuild trust with New Yorkers eventually conclude it is impossible.
Ms. Hochul may also find it necessary to act if she believes the government Mr. Adams is overseeing has broken down so badly that basic city services are threatened.
That does not appear to be the case now, but Ms. Hochul was especially alarmed by the resignation on Monday of four top administration officials responsible for overseeing large swaths of the city government. The governor is likely to pay close attention to other potential departures and whether Mr. Adams can hire qualified replacements at City Hall.
City officials could also take matters into their own hands.
Brad Lander, the city comptroller who is challenging Mr. Adams in this year’s election, has raised another possibility that would not require Ms. Hochul’s explicit intervention.
On Monday, Mr. Lander said that unless Mr. Adams released a “detailed contingency plan” outlining how he would manage the city in the coming days, he would convene a special committee authorized by the City Charter to consider the mayor’s removal.
But that approach, too, would quickly encounter political and legal complications.
Known as the committee on mayoral inability, the panel would be made up of five members: a deputy mayor chosen by the mayor; his corporation counsel; the speaker of the City Council; New York City comptroller, and the most senior of the five borough presidents. If four of its five members agree, the committee could theoretically move to oust Mr. Adams from office. The City Council would have the final word.
Though the charter does not explicitly define what “inability” warrants removing the mayor, the term has traditionally been thought to refer to a medical or health crisis. If the committee tried to stretch that definition to nonmedical impediments, Mr. Adams could challenge it.
After her own meeting with Ms. Hochul, Adrienne Adams, the Council speaker, dismissed the idea of invoking the inability committee.
The mayor “is still very much breathing. Thank God. Mobile. Thank God,” Ms. Adams said. “So that committee does not apply to this situation.”
The post 5 Factors That May Shape Hochul’s Decision on Adams’s Fate appeared first on New York Times.
