Voting YES for Prop 1 means that New Yorkers will have the freedom to control their own bodies and lives, including our right to abortion, without fear that a Legislature or Governor will attempt to take those rights away..<\/p>\r\n
Currently, New York\u2019s Constitution prohibits discrimination in a very limited way, only based on race and religion. Prop1 changes that to protect all New Yorkers from government discrimination by making it clear that no one should be taken advantage of because of their gender, age, ethnicity, pregnancy, disability or if they LGBTQ.\u00a0 This amendment will expand the current protections to include the right to abortion and to make our own healthcare decisions, on any care we choose to access.<\/p>\r\n
Common Cause NY fought hard for the law that requires that language on the ballot be no more complex than requiring an 8th<\/sup> grade reading level and clearly states the impact a proposed constitutional amendment will have, not its legal mechanism or the legal jargon it is written in.\u00a0 We are outraged <\/em>that the New York State Board of Elections ignored the law and put language on the ballot that requires college reading level.<\/p>\r\n Here's what should have appeared on November\u2019s ballot so that you can understand what you are being asked to vote on, as proposed by the New York State Attorney General\u2019s office:<\/p>\r\n Amendment to Protect Rights in New York<\/strong><\/p>\r\n Protects against unequal treatment by New York and local governments no matter your sex, age, disability status, ethnicity, or national origin. Protects LGBT and pregnant people. Protects abortion.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Propositions 2 through 6 came out of a rushed, sham charter revision process, that didn\u2019t even last a full two months. A charter revision commission was convened by Mayor Adams mid-summer to prevent a City Council-sponsored measure that would provide appropriate oversight over mayoral appointments from going to the ballot this November. The commission was staffed from within the executive branch, seriously impugning their ability to act independently of Mayor Adams\u2019 wishes.\u00a0 Instead, a mere two weeks after it was convened, the charter revision commission issued its preliminary report, indicating that its actions were pre-determined. \u00a0\u00a0Throughout the process, we at Common Cause NY urged the commission not<\/em> to take any action because of the truncated time available for public comment and thoughtful consideration of proposals.<\/p>\r\n The proposals that have been put before New York City voters are an underhanded move by Mayor Adams to change the charter (the city\u2019s constitution) to give himself more unchecked power and weaken checks and balances that should, instead, be strengthened.\u00a0\u00a0 They are couched in bland language that cloaks their true harmful impact.\u00a0 They introduce a rigidity into City management that is unnecessary, placing matters in the Charter that, should they be addressed at all, are best handled through the normal legislative and administrative procedures of the City.<\/p>\r\n\r\n This proposal purports to only be about expanding the Sanitation Department\u2019s power to clean streets and \u201cother city property.\u201d What it does not reveal is that it is designed to extend the jurisdiction of Sanitation Police (yes, the Department of Sanitation has its own police force) so that it overlaps with the NYPD and the Parks Enforcement Police in enforcement of street vendors. This would create unnecessary conflicts over responsibility and result in punitive over enforcement with more fines and enforcement against small businesses.<\/p>\r\n Placing this expansion in the charter, rather than using a memorandum of understanding between the relevant agencies, is a power grab by Mayor Adams, plain and simple.\u00a0 Should this measure pass and future administrations find the overlap in jurisdiction duplicative and wasteful, it will be necessary to\u00a0 amend the Charter again.\u00a0 Which is why changes of this sort are normally done through agreement between the impacted agencies and not through the Charter.<\/p>\r\n\r\n This proposal purports to be about \u201cfiscal responsibility\" when it is actually about fiscal irresponsibility.\u00a0 Yet another bald power grab by Mayor Adams, this proposition is duplicative.\u00a0 A requirement for a fiscal impact statement already exists in the Charter.\u00a0 If passed, Proposition 3 would make it harder for government to deliver for New Yorkers by slowing down consideration of urgent legislation, waiting for two different agencies to provide fiscal impact statements. It is designed to give mayors yet another vehicle to try to hamstring the City Council to derail legislation that a mayor may not like. This proposal is designed to weaken the checks and balances between mayors and the city council, in an already strong mayor system.\u00a0 It makes the city budget process less transparent and delays budget deadlines for the mayor, giving the public and oversight bodies less time to analyze and respond to the mayor\u2019s budget proposals.\u00a0 Placing these two separate topics \u2013 fiscal analysis and budget deadlines \u2013 in the same proposal makes it clear that it is designed not for fiscal responsibility but to increase the mayor\u2019s power.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Proposition 4 proposes to set up a unique legislative procedure for bills which impact \u201cpublic safety\u201d, seeking to impede or derail bills that attempt to provide oversight and accountability of the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies. It fundamentally changes the way laws regulating the Police Department, the Department of Corrections and the Fire Department \u2013 and ONLY those agencies \u2013 are passed by the City Council.\u00a0 We at Common Cause NY generally oppose measures which set up a legislative procedure that treats one particular area of oversight differently than all others. \u00a0This attempt is particularly problematic because it seeks to shield the NYPD from reform and would make it harder to hold police and correction officers accountable.<\/p>\r\n Proposition 4 diminishes the separation of powers, allowing the executive to encroach on the legislative function and permitting non-legislative agencies to hold hearings on public safety legislation instead of participating in the City Council\u2019s duly conducted public hearings.\u00a0 \u00a0If passed, it would enshrine in the New York City Charter special rights for the NYPD and Department of Corrections to avoid transparency and accountability.\u00a0 In this time of lack of accountability and accountability in government, such a result is unacceptable.<\/p>\r\n\r\n This proposition is both misleading and presented in bad faith.\u00a0 The charter revision commission claimed that it is based on a thoughtful and detailed recommendation from the City Comptroller.\u00a0 However, the City Comptroller has said that Proposition 5 \u201cis meaningless\u2026and fails to improve the City\u2019s capital planning process in any way.\u201d\u00a0 Yet again, there is no valid reason to place this proposal in the City Charter.\u00a0 If it were helpful at all, it could be accomplished through administrative measures.<\/p>\r\n\r\n The final proposition, Proposition 6, lumps three unrelated topics into one unnecessary charter amendment.\u00a0 It would seem to be drafted to show support for Minority and Women Owned Businesses, but in actuality it does not effect any real change, simply renaming an existing mayoral position and placing it in the charter without expanding its responsibilities or providing the office with additional funding or powers.\u00a0 Placing the position in the charter hobbles future mayor\u2019s ability to set up their administrations in ways that meet the City\u2019s needs.\u00a0 In an unrelated issue found in the same proposition, Proposition 6 would give the mayor's office the power to issue film permits to the executive agency that processes those permits, a subject that should be addressed separately. \u00a0The third independent topic in this proposition would merge two charter-created boards with similar missions, a merger that could be accomplished through a legislative charter change without a vote of the people.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n \t
VOTE YES ON PROP 1<\/h3>\r\n
<\/h2>\r\n
<\/h2>\r\n
Common Issue with NYC Propositions 2 through 6<\/h3>\r\n
Nix 2 through 6<\/em><\/b><\/h3>\r\n
Common Cause NY opposes NYC Proposition 2<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n \t
Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 3<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n \t
<\/h2>\r\n
Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 4<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n \t
<\/h2>\r\n
Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 5<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n \t
<\/h2>\r\n
Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 6<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n \t
<\/h5>"}},{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_featured_action","_acfe_flexible_toggle":"","component_featured_action":{"action_to_show":"choose","image_side":"left","action":["{\"site_id\":\"67\",\"post_type\":\"act\",\"post_id\":969}"],"title":"","summary":"","post_link":null,"secondary_link":null}},{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_add_component","_acfe_flexible_toggle":"","component_add_component":null},{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_work","_acfe_flexible_toggle":"","component_work":{"heading":"Work","manually_curate":false,"work":null}},{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_related_articles","_acfe_flexible_toggle":"","component_related_articles":{"heading":"Updates","button_text":"See all Related Articles","manually_curate":false,"articles":null}}]},"yoast_head":"\n