Both candidates vying for the 103rd State Assembly District seat said at a debate in Saugerties Thursday night that they would yield to the winner of the Democratic primary in June without a fight.

Longtime Assemblyman Kevin Cahill faced off against the new and fiercely progressive candidate Sarahana Shrestha at a forum hosted by the Saugerties Democratic Committee. During the debate, emceed by Kingston Wire Managing Editor Dan Barton and La Voz’s Mariel Fiori, both runners vowed to respect the voters’ choice and not seek office from outside of party lines if the June 28 primary didn’t go their way.

But that didn’t stop Cahill and Shrestha from taking jabs at each other’s credentials and selling themselves to voters while discussing hot topics like reproductive rights, protections for renters, and the integrity of their campaigns. Cahill, in particular, faced numerous critical questions aimed at his legislative decision-making and immunity to corporate influence.

Cahill, a lifelong Kingston resident, is running for his 14th non-consecutive term in the Assembly. On his legislative resume is his position as chair of the Assembly Insurance Committee, his former role as chair of the Energy Committee and hundreds of pieces of legislation across all sectors of government.

Shrestha is a first-generation immigrant from Nepal who has lived in Esopus since 2018 and took her oath as a U.S. citizen in 2019 at the Ulster County Courthouse. She serves as both the co-chair of the Mid-Hudson Valley Democratic Socialists of America (MHDSA) and campaigner in the Public Power NY Coalition: a statewide group of community advocates fighting for an environmentally sustainable energy system.

A wide range of topics were brought up during the evening; over 80 people attended in person at the Saugerties Senior Center, while more than 60 watched on Zoom. Some questions were written in advance; others were contributed by the audience during the forum. Here were some of the most important moments from the discussion:

What have you done for your local community?

Cahill said he's stood by immigrants who couldn’t get their driver's license, with nurses on strike, and protested for environmental protections and criminal justice reform, all within his local communities. And all the while, he added, Shrestha was not there.

“A community activist is not just running for office,” Cahill said. “My definition of community activism is being there. And ladies and gentlemen, many of you have been there, and I am proud to have been there with you.”

Shrestha explained that her campaigning with the MHDSA has brought her face-to-face with over 5,000 voters who invited her into their home and had long conversations about their challenges. She felt that this work gave her a solid grasp on the obstacles her constituents faced. However, she admitted that her activism has been solely focused on state legislation, where she felt she could make the greatest impact.

“My interest is not really in protests,” Shrestha said. “I want state legislation, I want systemic change. I like to organize behind the scenes.”

Thoughts on abortion and reproductive rights

Shrestha said she would support the proposed Reproductive Freedom and Equity Program Act (Assembly Bill A10148), which would fund transportation and medical costs for out-of-staters seeking abortions in New York. She also supported providing abortion pills for all SUNY and CUNY schools, passing a bill that would bar New York law enforcement agencies from assisting in out-of-state abortion investigations and creating a multilingual database for information on abortions and reproductive health. On top of that, Shrestha said that legislators need to help erase the stigma surrounding abortion by moving discussion around the topic away from guilt and personal responsibility.

“New York has to step up and be a place where people can come for abortions because this is a matter of very basic health care that a person should have,” Shrestha said.

With the possible end of legal abortion in 24 or more states, Cahill said he was glad that he co-sponsored an effort to bolster New York’s abortion laws to match the protection laid out in Roe v. Wade. He said he was also proud of his efforts to require in-state insurance agencies to provide all forms of contraception and, in the newest budget, even pay for abortion procedures in New York. He also applauded the 2022-23 state budget for providing $35 million towards abortion providers. Cahill echoed Shrestha’s sentiments towards the aim of the Reproductive Freedom and Equity Program Act.

“I support whatever we can get to those women who are living in states where they have been treated in a way that is unacceptable to us,” Cahill said. “We will make sure that they know New York is here.”

How would you enforce ‘Good Cause Eviction’ on the state level?

The City of Kingston, along with several other upstate cities, recently passed a Good Cause Eviction law. City tenants are now able to challenge in city court rent increases of over 5 percent and landlords must justify a rent raise above 5 percent with evidence of increased operating costs. Renters are also allowed to renew their leases even if the building they live in comes under new ownership. Landlords can no longer evict tenants at will — they must prove that they created a nuisance or violated their lease in order to secure an eviction.

Shrestha said the first step would be to combat the idea that Good Cause Eviction is bad for tenants. She said the law provides a basis for conditions of a just eviction, while still providing a mechanism for landlords to remove troublesome tenants. Beyond that, she said the state needed to make a serious investment in creating affordable housing for New Yorkers and expand the use of “accessory dwelling units” — spare rooms that homeowners can rent out to boost the local housing stock.

“We cannot rely on this piecemeal approach to house the people who are being displaced from their neighborhoods,” Shrestha said.

Cahill, on the other hand, said he did not see Good Cause Eviction as an enforcement mechanism. He felt that the law set a good base for tenant rights and gave them a legal backing to fight against unfair landlords. However, he felt that the state should invest more money into providing citizens with legal representation, so they have the opportunity to check the power of landlords in court. He supported funding organizations like the Legal Services of the Hudson Valley, a non-profit that provided low-income families with non-criminal legal support.

“There’s nothing unique and special about the state [Good Cause Eviction] law that municipalities didn’t have at their disposal as well,” Cahill explained. “We need to support those rights with other tools.”

How will corporate and PAC dollars contribute to your campaign?

Political action committees, or PACs, are groups of political allies who make donations and advertise on behalf of a candidate without the identities of the individual donors being known. There’s been widespread concern that candidates who take money from PACs or large corporations are influenced by their dollars to make decisions that benefit their interests, not those of their constituents.

From the very beginning, Shrestha said she pledged to not take any form of corporate or PAC donation. This was a promise she has stuck by so far. Instead, Shrestha organized community fundraisers, sold t-shirts, and asked family and friends to send donations with an average of $25 per donation. While the road has been tough, she said, it’s crucial to convince folks that there was nothing corrupt about her politics.

“For me, it's very important to run a race that is clean, rather than influenced,” Shrestha said. “If I'm not running for my principles, it's not worth running.”

Cahill said that he has shied away from collecting community dollars because he felt that the money should go towards his fellow Democratic colleagues. However, when asked if the donations he received from insurance companies influenced his decisions, Cahill said that he prioritizes consumer rights and that his donors would disagree that they have power over him. Cahill also denied a claim that he received a hefty sum of fossil fuel dollars or that they influenced him, pointing towards his fight for a tax on carbon emissions.

“There is not a single solitary donation that I've ever received, that can be tied to favorable legislation that I supported on behalf of somebody who made a donation to me, with the exception of the donations I get from my community, because everything I do is for the people in the communities I represent,” Cahill said.