For Immediate Release
Contact: Lauren Mannerberg, 929-553-7702, lauren@anatgerstein.com
Good government group recommends a YES vote on Proposal 1, the NYS Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment, and a NO vote on all five proposed amendments to the NYC Charter
To view Citizens Union’s full positions on the 2024 ballot questions, click here
New York, NY (October 10, 2024) — Today, Citizens Union announced its official positions on the six ballot questions that New York City voters will consider in the upcoming November 2024 general election. These questions include a statewide constitutional amendment and five proposed amendments to the New York City Charter.
After rigorously evaluating each proposal, Citizens Union recommends that voters support Proposal 1, the Constitutional Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment, and oppose Proposals 2 through 6, put before the voters by the 2024 New York City Charter Revision Commission. In its evaluation, the organization noted the deeply flawed Charter Revision process.
“After voting YES on question 1, New Yorkers should vote NO on all five citywide proposals put forth by the Charter Revision Commission. While several of the proposals have issues, the more alarming concern is the deeply flawed process in which the Commission operated. It worked under a hasty timeline, leaving no room for a thorough charter review or proper public input. Moreover, these proposals don’t require a charter commission process—they could have been handled through legislative or executive action,” said Betsy Gotbaum, executive director of Citizens Union.
Throughout its long history, Citizens Union has supported periodic comprehensive reviews of the New York City Charter to ensure that city government is operating effectively, efficiently, and in the public’s best interest. Many of its recommendations have been adopted into the City Charter. But it has also repeatedly objected to rushed charter revisions such as this one.
Citizens Union’s position has remained consistent: revising the city’s constitution should be conducted deliberately and judiciously by engaging a broad spectrum of experts and ordinary New Yorkers. The Charter Commission process should be deliberate and not subject to the political jousting between a particular mayor or city council. In the past, Citizens Union advised voters to reject ballot questions proposed by previous charter commissions with similar problems.
“The Commission’s condensed timeline – only two months during the summer and a primary election season – was the fastest New York City has seen in over two decades. It’s time for legislators to fix the law that allows for gamesmanship with our city’s constitution,” said Ben Weinberg, Director of Public Policy for Citizens Union.
Proposal 1: Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment
Citizens Union recommends a YES vote on Proposal 1. This statewide constitutional amendment would add critical protections to the New York State Constitution’s Bill of Rights, barring discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare decisions and autonomy. The amendment would enshrine those protections, already in state law, ensuring these rights are constitutionally safeguarded.
“This amendment is a vital step in guaranteeing that all New Yorkers are treated with the dignity and equality they deserve. Safeguarding reproductive autonomy and ensuring unimpeded access to reproductive health care—including the right to abortion—against government interference is absolutely essential,” Gotbaum added.
Proposals 2–6: Amendments to the New York City Charter
Citizens Union recommends a NO vote on all five amendments to the New York City Charter proposed by the 2024 Charter Revision Commission. The procedure taken to arrive at these proposals was rushed and did not provide adequate time for proper deliberation or for the commission to solicit feedback. Several of the public sessions had little or no public participation. The result of this hasty process is a set of proposed revisions that could have been accomplished through the legislative process or by executive action. Additionally, some of these amendments add unnecessary complications to the Charter, which, as the City’s constitution, should be a more streamlined document. While the intent of proposals two and six have some positive aspects, they should be considered through a more deliberative future process.
Although Citizens Union finds that the entire process deserves a NO vote on all five questions, it also recommends that questions three, four, and five should be voted down for additional reasons:
Proposal 3: Additional Estimates of the Cost of Proposed Laws and Updates to Budget Deadlines
This proposal would, among other things, require that fiscal impact statements of bills include estimates from the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This would disrupt the delicate separation of powers in the City Charter, which is at the root of the legislative process. Mayors have a role in the legislative process through the power of veto. Additionally, Mayors are not prevented from conducting analyses of bills and conveying concerns about the bill costs. Improvements to the process of issuing fiscal impact estimates should be done through Council rules, not by codifying them into the city’s constitution.
Proposal 4: More Notice and Time Before Public Safety Legislation
This proposal mandates extended public notice and possible mayoral and agency hearings before the Council votes on laws respecting the public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire Departments. Citizens Union opposes this change, viewing it as an unnecessary intrusion of the executive branch into the legislative branch. The Mayor and agency commissioners, who have no formal role in developing legislation, would be brought into this procedure, confusing the public. The current system already allows the public to participate by testifying at Council hearings on legislation.
Moreover, this proposal focuses only on the “public safety” operations of three agencies, a vague term that could lead to litigation over what constitutes public safety.
Notably, the Council already provides ample opportunities for public input without singling out specific agencies or types of legislation. A report released by Citizens Union found that public safety legislation receives similar public input opportunities as other issues, suggesting that there is not a need for separate rules providing greater public notice for specific topics and creating a two-tier system in legislation.
Proposal 5: Capital Planning
This proposal adds several new requirements to the city’s capital planning process. While Citizens Union recognizes the importance of effective capital planning, it believes the proposed amendments are unnecessary and would further complicate an already complex process. The opposition stems from the language of the proposal, which risks adding layers of bureaucracy without significantly improving outcomes and could trigger even more litigation in the land use process. Instead of embedding additional requirements into the City Charter, these changes should be addressed administratively, allowing for greater flexibility and responsiveness.
Citizens Union calls on voters to reject these proposals to send a message that proper procedure must be upheld in the charter revision process.
For more information on the ballot questions and Citizens Union’s positions, click here.