With early voting underway in New York, informing yourself about the issues on the ballot can be a good alternative to doom-scrolling or avoiding election-related news.
Ballot proposals tend to be long and confusing. This is despite New York passing a plain language law last year requiring ballot measures be written at an eighth-grade reading level. According to ballot experts, they’re confusing not because of high-level vocabulary, but things like vague wording and missing context.
To help keep you from voting against your intent, here’s some help making sense of what each ballot measure means:
Proposal 1: Equal Protection of Law Amendment
“This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy. A “YES” vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution. A “NO” vote leaves these protections out of the State Constitution”
On the one hand, most of this amendment to the state constitution is self-explanatory: it adds strong protections against discrimination based on factors like ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex — including sexual orientation and gender identity.
What might be less clear is language related to abortion rights. As Epicenter NYC’s Felipe de La Hoz has pointed out, the omission of the word “abortion” has already led to questions from a state judge. Still, it’s being billed as the pro-abortion amendment because of its references to “pregnancy” and protections “against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”
Opponents of Proposal 1, like the Coalition to Protect Kids-NY, are focusing on protections based on “national origin” and “gender identity” in the amendment. They claim, without evidence, that it could lead to issues like non-citizens voting and allow for minors to transition without parental consent, transgender kids to participate in girls’ sports, and bathroom safety issues.
The nonpartisan New York Bar Association says these claims are false. Supporters, including the NEW Pride Agenda, maintain that the amendment would block unfair restrictions on medical care and safeguard abortion access no matter what happens at the federal level.
Learn more about Proposal 1 here.
Proposal 2: Cleaning Public Property
“This proposal would amend the City Charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers. Voting “Yes” will expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers. Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.”
This proposal would expand the Department of Sanitation’s cleanliness and waste management powers beyond streets and sidewalks — and to all city-owned property, like parks and highway mediums.
The amendment would also clarify that the department has the power to decide how trash should be put out for collection.
It would also give the department more authority to crack down on unlicensed street vendors as part of its cleanliness measures — despite not using the “vending” word, as THE CITY reports.
Learn more about Proposal 2 here.
Proposal 3: Additional cost analysis of proposed laws and updates to budget deadlines
“This proposal would amend the City Charter to require fiscal analysis from the Council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the Mayor, and update budget deadlines.”
Proposal 3 is about making sure the City Council looks at the cost of proposed laws earlier in the process. If you vote “yes,” the Council will need to provide a budget impact estimate before public hearings, with input from both the council and the mayor’s office. Proposal 3 would also make small changes to extend city budget deadlines.
Supporters of the proposal say this will improve transparency. Opponents argue it could further slow down lawmaking that already takes years — and give Mayor Adams too much influence. They say Proposal 3 would give the mayor’s office “de facto veto” powers, where it could indefinitely withhold the information needed to create a Fiscal Impact Statement for proposed legislation, THE CITY reports.
Learn more about Proposal 3 here.
Proposal 4: Public Safety Notification
“This proposal would require additional public notice and time before the City Council votes on laws respecting the public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire Departments. Voting “Yes” will require additional notice and time before the Council votes on laws respecting public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire Departments. Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.”
Proposal 4 would require the City Council to notify the public, the mayor, and any agencies involved (like the NYPD, FDNY, or Department of Correction) at least 30 days before voting on any law related to public safety.
At its face, the point is to ensure New Yorkers have a chance to weigh in on important public safety issues. But critics are worried it could delay public safety laws and give too much power to the mayor in deciding what gets prioritized.
As City and State reports, some opponents say Mayor Adams pushed this proposal in response to two recent City Council laws: one requiring the NYPD to report on minor interactions with residents and another banning solitary confinement. Adams vetoed both, but the City Council overruled him.
Learn more about Proposal 4 here.
Proposal 5: Capital Planning Enhancements
“This proposal would amend the City Charter to require more detail in the annual assessment of City facilities, mandate that facility needs inform capital planning, and update capital planning deadlines. Voting “Yes” would require more detail when assessing maintenance needs of City facilities, mandate that facility needs inform capital planning, and update capital planning deadlines. Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.”
Proposal 5 would expand the Citywide Statement of Needs (one of the city’s reports on infrastructure and what needs fixing, expanding, and new projects). It would include more details on maintenance and require the Ten-Year Capital Strategy to factor in its findings. Critics like Comptroller Brad Lander have argued for a much larger infrastructure inventory, saying this proposal won’t really impact budget planning or add much transparency.
Learn more about Proposal 5 here.
Proposal 6: Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises, Film Permits, and Archive Review Boards
“This proposal would amend the City Charter to establish the Chief Business Diversity Officer (CBDO), authorize the Mayor to designate the office that issues film permits, and combine archive boards. Voting “Yes” would establish the CBDO to support MWBEs, authorize the Mayor to designate the office that issues film permits, and combine two boards. Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.”
Proposal 6 would do three things:
- Establish a permanent chief business diversity officer who focuses on the city’s Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises program.
- It would allow the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment to issue film permits. Right now, if you want to film in the city, you have to get a permit from the Department of Small Business Services.
- The proposal would merge two archive boards — the Archival Review Board and the Archives, Reference and Research Advisory Board — into one. Supporters say it would lead to more efficiency.
Learn more about Proposal 6 here.
To read more of our election coverage, visit our Election 2024 hub.
