Understanding Proposal One

By RUBY RAYNER-HASELKORN
Posted 12/31/69

SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY — County voters say they are confused about New York State’s Ballot Proposal number one, “Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment,” which will …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Understanding Proposal One

Posted

SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY — County voters say they are confused about New York State’s Ballot Proposal number one, “Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment,” which will appear on the back of NYS ballots in the 2024 election.

“It’s just so vague,” Rochelle Beck, a Sullivan resident in her 50s, told the River Reporter about Proposal One.

“I don’t get what the impact is,” she said. 

This is not a first. In the past, ballot measures have been criticized for their confusing phrasing, dearth of party context and lack of candidate accountability.

What’s it all mean?   

Proposal One amends the New York State Constitution’s existing Equal Protection clause, from 1938, which specifies protection against unequal treatment based on “race, color, creed, or religion,” to include new constitutional protections. See sidebar.

Liz Krueger, the Democratic representative for New York State’s 28th Senate district, first introduced the proposal, a statewide version of the “Equal Rights Amendment” (ERA). There has been little progress in ratifying the federal ERA since a successful opposition campaign in the 1970s that left only 30 out of the required 38 states having acted to ratify the ERA. Since then, many states have enacted their own versions of the ERA. 

Speaking to the Sullivan County Legislature during public common on October 17, county resident Chris Lesser asked, “What are we supposed to do,” about Proposal One? 

Lesser cited two opinion pieces. One he quoted said, “The Republican Party is engaging in lies and fear-mongering in order to deny basic civil rights everyone deserves,” and the other, “What the Democratic Party does not want you to know about Proposition One.”

“So here we have two parties, two things, and I have no idea. So my question with all of this stuff is A or B, who do I believe, and does anybody know something that’s actually truthful, legal, about what we are supposed to do?”

Krueger says with the overturning of Roe V. Wade and “at a time when many state governments seek to eliminate certain fundamental rights, such as the right to an abortion or the right to marry whomever we choose,” the constitutional amendment is needed to “...ensure that the rights of all are enshrined in New York.” 

Beck told the River Reporter she didn’t understand “what exactly is going to change.” 

Proponents of the measure also say that once rights like these are enshrined it makes it more difficult to walk them back, protects against rights from being criminalized, and offers legal protection for New Yorkers. 

Beck pointed to the addition of “national origin” in Proposal One and said she’s heard that if passed it might allow undocumented people the right to vote. 

The proposal does not enfranchise anyone. A separate part of the state constitution governs qualifications for voting based on citizenship. National origin is distinct and separate from citizenship and immigration status.

This claim has been made by State Senate Minority Leader, Senator Rob Ortt, who says the change in the constitution could open up legal arguments about a parent’s right to be involved in their child’s medical decisions, allow non-citizens to vote, and give transgender athletes the constitutional right to compete in girls’ sports. 

But, in a statement, the New York City Bar Association, a non-partisan non-profit association of lawyers and law students said Proposal One will not impact parental rights, change current law with respect to participation in sports, or impact or change the qualifications for voting.

The NY Bar Association says that parental rights are not addressed in the amendment and are governed by other parts of the state and federal constitutions. In terms of the proposal’s impact on sports participation, the bar association says there would be no change because the amendment is consistent with Title IX, which is the federal law that already requires young people to play sports that match their gender identity, personal sense of ones gender, and gender expression, presentations socially associated with gender. 

Lawsuits over the wording of ballot measures are common. According to Ballotpedia, 2022 saw seven lawsuits regarding ballot language.  

Tom Cawley, Sullivan County’s parliamentarian and deputy county attorney said he can’t speak on the proposal because he represents the board of election of Sullivan County but that “the bar association rarely takes a stance on what is an election issue, so for them to say that, it’s highly unusual.” 

“They must have been very upset with what they saw. They don’t like anybody misrepresenting the law for their own political purposes or policy purposes,” Cawley said.

The Center for Civic Design, which aims to solve voter-intent problems with design, recommends including information about what will change if a measure passes, and who endorses it or is opposed to the change.

According to a Sienna College poll conducted on October 13 through 17, among 872 likely voters in New York, “voters support the proposed constitutional amendment by an overwhelming 69 to 22 percent. While Republicans oppose the amendment by a 50 to 36 percent margin, 89 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents support the amendment. Regionally, it’s supported by 57 percent of upstate voters, 69 percent of downstate suburban voters, and 84 percent of New York City voters,” the poll finding stated. See sidebar.

Proposal One, Prop 1, Proposition 1, Proposal One, Proposition One, Civic Design, NY Bar Association, Tom Cawley, ballot language, ERA, equal rights amendment, Senator Rob Ortt, Senator Liz Krueger, Equal Rights Protection Clause.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here