Why Zohran Mamdani may not be sworn in as New York's 111th mayor - and how over 100 mayors will be affected

Questions have been raised over Zohran Mamdani's incoming 'swearing in' ceremony set to take place next month, after a historian questioned his position as New York City's 111th mayor.

For those in need of a reminder, the 34-year-old came out on top following November's round of elections, and as such, he's set to become the Big Apple's first Muslim mayor, as well as the first of South Asian heritage, and the first born in Africa.

Oh, and on top of this, Mamdani's rise to power will see him become the first Millennial to do so, with his other half, 28-year-old Rama Duwaji preparing to become NYC's first ever Gen Z First Lady.

All this said, however, the Democratic socialist's right to rule as the city's 111th mayor has this week been called into question by one historian, who believes an astonishing mistake could also affect the legacies left by 99 of his political predecessors.

Mamdani was elected last month (ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)

Why might Mamdani not become NYC's 111th mayor?

According to history buff Paul Hortenstine, documents recording the reigns of all of New York's former mayors dating back to the 17th century have been wrong for over four centuries.

Hortenstine made the alarming discovery accidentally while conducting his own research on potential connections between the United States' slave trade, and past political leaders. During his investigation, he honed in on a man called Matthias Nicolls, who served as the city's mayor in 1672. He was elected to the powerful position, being that his family had previously settled in Long Island, and owned much of the land here.

What the historian never expected to uncover, however, were records found in an archive of papers belonging to Edmund Andros, who served as the colonial governor of New York at the time, indicating that Nicolls hadn't just served for one term.

In fact, he'd been elected for a second time back in 1675.

In the same way that, when a US President is elected for a second stint - like Donald Trump, who is technically America's 45th and 47th leader - their subsequent term is counted separately, such should have been the case with Nicolls.

"This was in 1675," Hortenstine explained. "So then, when I later looked through the official list of the city, I noticed that they had missed this term."

Could the discovery impact Mamdani's right to rule? (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

What does this mean for Mamdani?

According to Horstenstine, Mamdani should not be sworn in as New York's 111th mayor on 1 January 2026, because he's not the 111th.

Technically, the historian argues, he's the 112th - something he recently told the current mayor Eric Adams' official office while demanding that a correction be made to all government records.

"I would hope that the city takes the history of mayors very seriously," he confessed, as per The Gothamist.

Who else does this affect?

This 1600s error doesn't just affect Mamdani, however, but every single mayor that came before him (other than the first six), all of whom are off by one.

This is especially awkward for Adams, known for frequently declaring of his position: "I'm 110."

Prior to his death, fellow historian Peter R. Christoph agreed with Hortenstine's assertion, writing in his 1989 essay, Record of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society: "Edward I. Koch is the 105th Mayor of New York. The City Of New York Official Directory says so. So does The New York Times. But they are wrong: He is the 106th.

"Not only is he misnumbered, but so is everyone else after Mayor No. Seven. It is a mind-boggling thought: 99 mayors [at the time of the essay's release] misnumbered, most of them gone to the grave, secure in the knowledge of their place in history, but all of them numerically out of whack.

"How could such a thing happen?"

106 previous mayors will also be affected (Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)

So, what now?

Despite Hortenstine's plea, assistant commissioner of the city’s Department of Records, Ken Cobb told press this week that he 'knew of no effort to investigate the mistake' within the records.

This is reportedly due to the fact that the Green Book, an annual guide to municipal government that has been published by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services every year since 1665, holds no record of Nicolls' second term.

That said, however, Cobb doesn't dispute the historians findings, telling press: "We're the keepers of the records. We're not the creators of the records."

Of what'll happen next, he added: "It's a good question. Who noticed this discrepancy? Apparently, this historian did."