Mamdani’s campaign energized a wide range of voters, particularly around issues of affordability, housing justice, public transit, and economic equity. These issues have long been central to debates in the city, where income inequality, gentrification, and the cost of living remain persistent challenges. By focusing on these areas, Mamdani appealed to both long-time residents and younger voters eager for systemic change. His victory is widely seen as signaling a notable shift in New York’s political landscape, suggesting that voters are increasingly prioritizing policies addressing equity and inclusion alongside traditional governance concerns.

Yet even before Mamdani is sworn in — his inauguration scheduled for January 1, 2026, following the standard transition timeline — a curious historical discrepancy has emerged. This anomaly raises the possibility that Mamdani may actually be New York City’s 112th mayor, rather than the 111th as commonly believed. The revelation has sparked debate among historians, civic scholars, and the public alike.

The Origin of the Discrepancy: Matthias Nicolls’ Two Terms

The question of mayoral numbering centers on research conducted by historian Paul Hortenstine. Hortenstine discovered that Matthias Nicolls, a 17th-century mayor, served two non-consecutive terms — first from 1672 to 1673, and again from 1674 to 1675. While Nicolls’ first term is consistently recognized, official modern lists of mayors typically count him only once. Archival documents from the colonial era, including correspondence and reports tied to the British colonial governor, confirm that Nicolls’ second term occurred but has been effectively erased from the contemporary mayoral tally.

Hortenstine argues that this omission creates a ripple effect: every mayor who followed Nicolls in office has been misnumbered by one. Under this reasoning, mayors historically labeled as the 7th, 8th, or 9th should each actually hold a number one higher. If the revised count were accepted, Mamdani’s inauguration would place him as the 112th mayor, not the 111th as the official record currently states.

While this observation might seem new to the general public, it has been raised previously by historians. Peter R. Christoph noted in 1989 that an 1841 municipal directory may have contributed to the miscount, and the error has persisted through generations of record-keeping. The question of whether to revise official documents has long existed, though no formal correction has yet been made.

What the Official Record Says — and Where Institutions Stand

At present, New York City’s official records continue to list Mamdani as the 111th mayor. Key reference sources, including the city’s “Green Book” directory, reflect the traditional numbering and do not account for Nicolls’ second term. When questioned about the discrepancy, officials in the city’s records department have acknowledged the historical research but have indicated that no formal review or revision is underway. One city official stated, “We’re the keepers of the records. We’re not the creators of the records,” highlighting the tension between archival stewardship and historical revision.

Previous corrections have occurred, however. For example, in 1937, the city retroactively inserted Charles Lodwick, an early-era mayor previously omitted, into official lists. Despite this precedent, there is no guarantee that the current discrepancy regarding Nicolls will be addressed with the same urgency. For now, the situation stands as follows: the official count remains unchanged, the historical case for correction is established but unacted upon, and there are no legal or procedural barriers preventing Mamdani from assuming office.

What It Means for Mamdani — Symbolism, Not Substance

It is important to note that the numbering discrepancy does not affect Mamdani’s legitimacy, authority, or the validity of his election. He was duly elected by a majority of voters in a fair electoral process, and there is no law or constitutional clause that would invalidate his mandate due to a historical numbering error. The issue is therefore ceremonial and symbolic, relating primarily to historical record-keeping and public perception.

If the correction were officially adopted, Mamdani’s designation would change from “111th mayor” to “112th mayor,” a modification that would have implications for historians, city records, archives, and public commemorations. For most current residents, civic officials, and everyday governance, however, the difference is largely academic. Hortenstine’s call for revision emphasizes the importance of accuracy in documenting the city’s leadership history — a principle that underscores both scholarly integrity and civic pride.

Why This Discovery is Resonating — and Generating Debate

Several factors contribute to the heightened attention around this historical quirk.

• Inauguration Spotlight: The swearing-in of a new mayor, particularly one as historically significant as Mamdani, naturally draws public interest to the city’s history. His status as a “first” in multiple categories invites reflection on the broader arc of leadership in New York.

• Renewed Focus on Colonial History: Hortenstine’s research examined early mayors’ connections to colonial systems, including ties to slavery. The numerical miscount becomes part of this broader conversation, linking record-keeping practices with deeper historical and societal narratives.

• Public Fascination with “Firsts”: Milestone achievements — whether based on age, heritage, or religion — encourage public reflection on precedent. The numbering discrepancy adds another layer to the public discourse, highlighting the ways in which history can be both celebrated and overlooked.

• Tension Between Tradition and Accuracy: Institutions often resist revising conventional records, favoring continuity over correction. Yet archival evidence challenges these traditions, presenting city officials with a choice between maintaining established narratives and adopting a revised, historically accurate sequence.

Potential Outcomes: What Could Happen Next

The city may consider multiple courses of action:

1. Status Quo Maintained: Officials may deem the discrepancy too minor to correct, leaving Mamdani’s title as the 111th mayor and retaining traditional numbering.

2. Partial Correction — Revised Historical Lists: City authorities could update official directories, publications, and archival references to reflect Hortenstine’s findings, thereby renumbering future mayors.

3. Comprehensive Revision — Public Disclosure & Education: Beyond adjusting records, the city could issue statements, hold educational events, or engage the public in understanding the correction, emphasizing its historical significance.

4. Hybrid Approach — Dual Labeling: Some records might retain traditional numbering for continuity while others adopt the corrected sequence for historical accuracy, a solution that could coexist with some degree of confusion.

The Broader Significance

At first glance, the debate may appear to be arcane trivia about a mayor from the 1600s. Yet it reflects broader themes regarding identity, collective memory, and institutional responsibility.

• Historical Accuracy Matters: Even minor errors, such as omitting a non-consecutive term, can ripple through centuries of record-keeping, influencing how leadership history is interpreted.

• Institutional Memory Can Be Flawed: The 1841 municipal directory appears to have initiated the miscount, demonstrating that official records are not infallible and highlighting the importance of critical examination.

• Commemoration and Legacy Shift Over Time: As societal values evolve, reexamining historical records gains urgency, particularly in the context of broader conversations about colonial history, racial justice, and systemic inequities.

• Modern Milestones Are Built on History: Mamdani’s groundbreaking election is shaped by centuries of prior governance. Understanding the full context of New York City’s mayoral lineage enriches the significance of his tenure.

For Now, the Future Begins — With a Historical Footnote

Zohran Mamdani is set to take office on January 1, 2026, officially listed as New York City’s 111th mayor. However, thanks to Hortenstine’s meticulous research and the archival evidence he uncovered, future discussions of Mamdani’s inauguration may include an asterisk, acknowledging the possibility that history has one more mayor than previously recognized.

Whether city hall decides to formally update its records, revise the numbering, or simply leave the discrepancy as a historical footnote remains to be seen. For now, Mamdani prepares to enter office as a groundbreaking leader — carrying the weight of history, the promise of change, and potentially the title of New York City’s 112th mayor, even if that recognition is not yet officially confirmed.