At first glance, state Sen. Shelley Mayer (D-37th District) and her Republican challenger, Tricia Lindsay, seem to have a lot in common.
Both are lawyers deeply involved in education (Mayer chairs the Senate Education Committee and Lindsay spent 24 years as a school teacher and administrator).
But their political views and rhetoric are miles apart not only on education but a host of other issues, including migration and November’s Proposition 1 ballot initiative, known as the state’s Equal Rights Amendment.
Asked for a shorthand description of herself, Mayer settled on “a person with progressive values and a moderate tone who is very responsive.” She characterized Lindsay as “a MAGA newcomer.”
Lindsay called herself “a constitutionalist and a populist working for ‘We the People.’” She called Mayer “a radical who is not honest” when speaking to voters about her political positions.
Mayer did not want to speak at length about Lindsay, saying she preferred to run on her record of leadership and delivering for constituents. In addition to Rye, the 37th district extends into Armonk, Bronxville, Eastchester, Harrison, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, New Rochelle, North Castle, Port Chester, Pound Ridge, Rye Brook, Scarsdale, Tuckahoe, Yonkers, and White Plains.
In contrast, Lindsay’s campaign frequently attacks the three-term incumbent who previously served as a state assemblywoman from 2012 to 2018.
A September Lindsay press release, for example, accused “Shelley Mayer and the radical left” of forcing “outrageous and dangerous ideas from Albany upon Westchester families” by supporting Proposition 1.
Lindsay’s release went on to argue that Proposition 1 “would destroy girls’ and women’s sports by creating a constitutional mandate forcing girls to compete against boys in girls’ sports, and would allow men to enter girls’ locker rooms, changing rooms and bathrooms at will.”
Mayer dismissed Lindsay’s line of attack as a strategy of “distraction” intended to rile up voters with “threats that are not real” on issues like boys on girls’ sports teams or parental consent for health care provided to trans youth.
The real import of Proposition 1, Mayer said, is that it adds protections against unequal treatment based on “ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy” — as the amendment is described on the November ballot.
Between donations and matching funds, Mayer has raised just over $600,000, but she said she may not spend that all and may return some of the matching funds, as required by law.
Mayer is investing in mailings, lawn signs, and digital advertising, but she said the heart of her campaign is “retail” politics.” She has been working hard, she said, to interact with constituents at many local events throughout the year.
On 9/11, for example, she participated in nine memorial programs.
Mayer believes her greatest asset in the campaign may be her record of bringing resources to the district to help with issues like flooding, education, and infrastructure, often collaborating with state Assemblyman Steve Otis (D-91st District.)
Lindsay concedes that she has an uphill battle, citing Mayer as an incumbent, but she believes she has a chance because over 50 percent of district voters are not what she called “hard Dems or hard Republicans.”
Direct contact with voters, she said, is the key to her campaign, which had brought in over $155,000 (about 85 percent from public campaign financing grants) as of late August, according to state election records.
“Check me out,” she urged Democrats and unaffiliated voters. “I am what I am. What you see is what you get. I have nothing to hide.”
The League of Women Voters has invited both candidates to appear at a candidate forum on Oct. 22.
Mayer said she has accepted the invitation. Lindsay said she was still negotiating with the league about the format (“I would prefer a real debate.”) and timing.