On Saturday, New Yorkers had their first opportunity to cast ballots in the 2024 general election. Many who haven’t followed New York City politics closely may be surprised to see six questions on the reverse side of their ballots. Voters statewide are being asked to approve an amendment to the state constitution, and those in the city are considering five additional changes to the city charter.
The most consequential measure on New Yorkers’ ballots is the statewide Proposal 1, which would add new protected classes to the state constitution’s equal protection clause. These would include age, national origin, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, “pregnancy outcomes,” and “reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Proponents claim that Prop. 1 provides a much-needed state constitutional right to abortion, even as the word “abortion” appears nowhere in the amendment’s text. New York has some of the most permissive abortion-access statutes in the country, which are under no meaningful threat, given the supermajority Democratic state legislature.
Prop. 1’s supporters and opponents alike have pointed out its vague language. The precise meaning and application of new constitutional antidiscrimination protections would need to be hashed out in court, resulting in a proliferation of civil rights lawsuits. No one knows what facts would give rise to such cases or how courts would rule on them. As critics have pointed out, it’s plausible that New York judges would hold that protections for gender identity and gender expression require giving biological males an opportunity to participate in female sports teams at publicly owned venues. Children may also gain the right to access “gender-affirming” medical treatments like puberty blockers without parental consent. Many (including one of us) have characterized Prop. 1 as a Trojan Horse that would sneak in radical and unpopular measures through expansive judicial interpretations.
The five additional ballot questions that voters in New York City must answer arose from feuding between Mayor Eric Adams and the city council. In late May, the council introduced legislation, Intro. 908, to amend the charter to require that the mayor’s appointments for agency commissioners receive council approval—a direct challenge to the city’s strong-mayor system of government. But under Section 36 of the state’s Municipal Home Rule Law, a charter-revision commission’s ballot questions supersede those proposed by the city council. Adams thus convened the commission and successfully staved off the challenge to mayoral authority. Throughout the summer, the commission solicited public input and developed the five proposals it submitted to city voters for ratification.
Prop. 2 would grant the Department of Sanitation (DSNY) three new powers. Currently, DSNY has jurisdiction to enforce sanitation laws on city streets and sidewalks; areas like parks and highway medians don’t expressly fall within its ambit. The proposal would extend its jurisdiction to all city property, enabling citywide enforcement against sanitation infractions. Next, it would authorize the department to mandate the trash cans residents must use, facilitating Adams’s “containerization” effort. Already partly in effect, this initiative requires businesses and residents to use trash bins on public sidewalks instead of easily shreddable garbage bags. Finally, the proposal would grant DSNY authority to ticket street vendors on all city property, a power that the parks and police departments already hold. Street vendors and their trade group strongly oppose the measure, arguing that it would lead to more regulation and a potential crackdown on a group of struggling small-business owners. Overall, Prop. 2 would probably improve the city’s quality of life.
Prop. 3 would, among other things, require the city council to prepare and publish fiscal-impact statements before hearings and grant the mayor’s Office of Management and Budget a chance to submit a financial estimate of a bill’s cost. Today, the city council submits these statements shortly before a chamber vote on the measure—and after public hearings. The mayor’s office doesn’t usually submit a separate fiscal estimate. Having a statement earlier would allow the public to understand and weigh in on a bill’s budgetary effects. But granting the mayor’s office the opportunity to submit an estimate might lead to loggerheads over projections, making government more dysfunctional. Worse, Prop. 3 fails to correct the council’s practice of passing costly legislation without properly budgeting for it. The commission should have addressed this problem directly, such as by adopting the solutions Manhattan Institute adjunct fellow E. J. McMahon suggested in his testimony. Nonetheless, Prop. 3 represents an imperfect and incomplete step toward greater fiscal responsibility.
Prop. 4 would require the city council to give a 30-day notice before a vote on certain public safety-related issues, allowing the mayor’s agencies to hold their own public hearings first. Anti-police measures over the past few years demonstrate the value of making it harder to pass such harmful legislation. The answer to that problem lies in electing councilmembers who reflect city voters’ pragmatic preferences on public safety (which, in turn, calls for local electoral reform). This proposal instead aims at enshrining permanent structural changes in the city charter that would make government less responsive, even if it achieves worthy public-safety ends. Its passage might open the floodgates for special interests to push for similar changes in lawmaking procedure to protect their interests. For example, the teachers’ union might attempt to insulate its members by adding procedural hoops for proposed legislation that adversely affects them.
Prop. 5 is a minor technocratic amendment to the city’s capital-planning process. It would require the city to release more information about city-owned properties and the maintenance of those properties. It’s an anodyne good-government reform that would slightly improve capital planning.
Prop. 6 focuses on expanding contracts for minority-owned and women-owned businesses. This is a wrongheaded policy and practice. As one of us has documented, contracts specifically directed at minority-owned and women-owned businesses prevent government from getting the best price for its contracts, increase possibilities for corruption, and enrich a small group of already well-off businesspeople. Since one of the federal investigations surrounding the Adams administration involves contracts directed at minority-owned businesses, it would be a mistake to expand this form of contracting.
As with all contracts, the fine print on New Yorkers’ ballots matters. Between now and November 5, voters should scrutinize each proposal to avoid costly and unintended consequences.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images