Proposition One is one hot potato

By Cathy DeDe, Chronicle Managing Editor

New York State’s Proposition One, on the November 5 ballot, is generating unusually high local interest.

Titled the Equal Rights Act, Prop One proposes amending the state constitution to expand protection against discrimination from four specific categories — “race, color, creed, and religion” — to nine, adding “ethnicity, national origin age, disability” and “sex.” Sex is further defined to include “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.”

The process for constitutional amendments requires approval by two successive state legislatures. Then, it goes to the state’s voters to approve or reject, which is happening with this election.

Here’s what some local elected officials and others told The Chronicle when we asked them about Prop One.

Stec: Strongly opposed

Dan Stec, State Senator, District 45, said: I’ve voted on this. Twice. Opposed strongly both times.

Any read of the ballot language makes it very clear this opens the door for A LOT of new and controversial laws far beyond the left’s claim it’s only about enshrining abortion rights — including late term abortion — in the state Constitution. Proposal One creates a list of new ‘protected classes’ in the state constitution. This language isn’t accidental. It’s intentional.

“Prop one’s language protecting ‘country of origin’ would allow laws to be created that would give non citizens the right to vote. Proof? NYC (where half the state legislators come from) attempted to give non citizens the right to vote and the courts blocked this. This amendment would fix that problem and potentially allow the spread to statewide elections.

“Prop One would also constitutionally allow men to compete in women’s sports and use female locker rooms — an absolute affront to women’s sports that polls show most oppose.

“In adding a protection for ‘age’ — it would allow laws that would prohibit schools from informing parents of their minor children seeking gender transition services — an attack on parental rights. Proof? There are all kinds of bills in the system that would seek to strip parents of their right to know and be involved in decisions that dramatically affect their children’s lives. A constitutional amendment like this one would open the doors for either laws to be passed or court decisions that would deny parents their basic rights.

“If this was just about constitutionally protecting abortion then what is all this other language?

“I’ve worked in Albany for 12 years — I know how the Democrats operate there.”

•
Carrie Woerner: It’s time

Carrie Woerner, NYS Assembly, 113th District: “Yes, I voted for it. It is well past time for women’s rights to be recognized in our state constitution.

“There should be no question about that, and Prop 1 does that.

“It also recognizes the fundamental civil rights of senior citizens, citizens who are of varying ethnicities or national origin, without regard to gender or sexual identity and without regard to pregnancy outcome.

“What are those fundamental civil rights? Quite simply: the right to live free from discrimination.

“What Prop 1 doesn’t do is expand rights that are not already in law or change current laws related to locker rooms, sports, or medical consent.

“What Prop 1 does do is put safeguards in place to ensure that basic civil rights cannot be rolled back without public input.

“The inflammatory and sometimes misleading language used to discuss Prop 1 does not, in my opinion, open the door to a thoughtful analysis of this constitutional amendment.

“For that reason, I urge everyone to read the proposition fully and make their own decision as to whether the language is on point or goes too far.”

•
Matt Simpson: I voted no

Matt Simpson, NYS Assembly, 114th District: “What’s on the ballot is something that I voted no on, both times.”

“One of my main concerns was that it would require Catholic health providers, because they’re receiving public funding, to perform certain procedures that goes against their their religious beliefs.

Assemblyman Simpson raised concerns as others do, about parental rights, sports, undocumented immigrants.

He said, “Women’s health care is not under attack in New York State, and there is no threat to abortion rights or of those pregnancy issues in New York State.

“This is certainly a reaction to the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade and putting this decision back into the states. I think that’s where it belongs. New Yorkers have the right to vote and install any law for New York State.

“I think everybody is already protected in equality in the current constitution. I think adding 12 new classes is a dangerous road to go down.

“I have some people that want to expand it” (even more, Mr. Simpson suggested, such as Jewish constituents who want explicit protections).

“I believe that everybody should be protected equally, regardless of who they are or where they came from. But you can go too far where now it’s challenging the constitutionally of other issues.”

“We have this [Democratic] super majority in Albany. These things move really quickly, quietly, and voters are disadvantaged, not having all the information when they go to the polls.”

•
Lynne Boecher: Codify rights

Lynne Boecher, Warren County Democratic Committee Chair: “It’s basically codifying rights in the Constitution. We are very much for it. I’m worried that people will not turn the ballot over to vote on it. But 100% — Alice Paul fought for these rights in 1923. I think it’s time.”

Of claims for outcomes regarding children, biological boys in girls’s sports or gender-based operations on minors without parents: “There’s no statistical data that supports the fear mongering that is being made with these stages.

“I think it definitely protects abortion rights, and it protects reproductive freedom across the state. Since the federal overturning of Roe v Wade, I think it would codify those rights here in New York, which I very much support, and the Democratic Party platform supports that.”

•
Tim McNulty: Parent impact

Tim McNulty, Warren County Republican Committee Chair: “It’s listed as an Equal Rights Amendment, but in reality, it’s the Parental Rights Removal Act. So I am not in favor of it.

“Issues with boys and girls locker rooms, because of age and gender (proposed protections) that would now be protected in the state constitution.

“For folks not in the country legally based on their country of origin, they could not be precluded from receiving benefits from the state in terms of welfare, Medicaid, items such as that.

“Trans kids deciding they want to go through transgender operations or processes could be able to do it at any age without telling the parents, and in fact, the schools would not be able to tell the parents what was going on.

“Abortion is already in part of the New York State Constitution. This has nothing to do with abortion. You can pick and choose if you want out of this bill, one thing you want to favor. Overall, it’s a bad bill. It takes away parental rights. It provides illegal aliens benefits in some cases, New York state citizens don’t get. I am all for equal rights, provided they’re spelled out correctly and it doesn’t take away the rights of parents, or the rights of taxpayers.”

Proposition 1: The actual language

Here is the language of Proposition One, a proposed amendment to the New York State Constitution, on the Nov. 5 election ballot.

Note: Bold type is proposed new language to be added to the Constitution. Brackets indicate words to be eliminated.

•
“No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity,
gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.”

It also adds:

“Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.”

Common Cause: Language too vague

Common Cause, the not-for-profit advocate for good government, argued that the language of Proposition One is lacking.

“We are not against Prop One. We have not taken an official position on it,” as a spokesperson told The Chronicle. “We took a stance that the language was not at an eighth grade reading level as the law sets out.”

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause NY said in an August statement, “New Yorkers should not be required to have an advanced degree to understand what they are voting on.”

Ms. Lerner added, “Proposal One is about abortion, whatever its legal language may be, which is why the language should include the word abortion. It’s that simple.”

The Common Cause statement said also, “Despite the intentions of the amendment’s sponsors, the proposal…fails to include the word ‘abortion,’ making it harder for New Yorkers to understand what they are being asked to vote on and violating the state’s recently passed plain language law.” — Cathy DeDe

Copyright © 2024 Lone Oak Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved