Common Cause NY supports Proposition 1

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..

Currently, New York’s 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.  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.

Common Cause NY fought hard for the law that requires that language on the ballot be no more complex than requiring an 8^th 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.  We are outraged that the New York State Board of Elections ignored the law and put language on the ballot that requires college reading level.

Here’s what should have appeared on November’s ballot so that you can understand what you are being asked to vote on, as proposed by the New York State Attorney General’s office:

Amendment to Protect Rights in New York

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.

• A yes vote protects against unequal treatment for these reasons.
• A no vote leaves this protection out of the State Constitution.

VOTE YES ON PROP 1

Common Issue with NYC Propositions 2 through 6

Propositions 2 through 6 came out of a rushed, sham charter revision process, that didn’t 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’ wishes.  Instead, a mere two weeks after it was convened, the charter revision commission issued its preliminary report, indicating that its actions were pre-determined.   Throughout the process, we at Common Cause NY urged the commission not to take any action because of the truncated time available for public comment and thoughtful consideration of proposals.

The proposals that have been put before New York City voters are an underhanded move by Mayor Adams to change the charter (the city’s constitution) to give himself more unchecked power and weaken checks and balances that should, instead, be strengthened.   They are couched in bland language that cloaks their true harmful impact.  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.

Nix 2 through 6

Common Cause NY opposes NYC Proposition 2

This proposal purports to only be about expanding the Sanitation Department’s power to clean streets and “other city property.” 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.

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.  Should this measure pass and future administrations find the overlap in jurisdiction duplicative and wasteful, it will be necessary to  amend the Charter again.  Which is why changes of this sort are normally done through agreement between the impacted agencies and not through the Charter.

• A yes vote allows Sanitation Department Police to operate in Parks and harshly target street vendors.
• A no vote allows the NYPD and Parks Police to continue to operate without confusion in the parks.

Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 3

This proposal purports to be about “fiscal responsibility” when it is actually about fiscal irresponsibility.  Yet another bald power grab by Mayor Adams, this proposition is duplicative.  A requirement for a fiscal impact statement already exists in the Charter.  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.  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’s budget proposals.  Placing these two separate topics – fiscal analysis and budget deadlines – in the same proposal makes it clear that it is designed not for fiscal responsibility but to increase the mayor’s power.

• A yes vote means the city budget would be less transparent and the mayor is able to more easily block legislation because he does not like it.
• A no vote means that city government will be better able to deliver for New Yorkers without artificial delays imposed by Mayor Adams.

Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 4

Proposition 4 proposes to set up a unique legislative procedure for bills which impact “public safety”, 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 – and ONLY those agencies – are passed by the City Council.  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.  This 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.

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’s duly conducted public hearings.   If passed, it would enshrine in the New York City Charter special rights for the NYPD and Department of Corrections to avoid transparency and accountability.  In this time of lack of accountability and accountability in government, such a result is unacceptable.

• A yes vote means that the NYPD and the Department of Corrections would have special rights to avoid transparency and accountability.
• A no vote means that the City Council can continue to work to reform the NYPD and hold police and correction officers accountable.

Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 5

This proposition is both misleading and presented in bad faith.  The charter revision commission claimed that it is based on a thoughtful and detailed recommendation from the City Comptroller.  However, the City Comptroller has said that Proposition 5 “is meaningless…and fails to improve the City’s capital planning process in any way.”  Yet again, there is no valid reason to place this proposal in the City Charter.  If it were helpful at all, it could be accomplished through administrative measures.

• A yes vote introduces a meaningless requirement into the City Charter.
• A no vote avoids unnecessary surplusage in our charter.

Common Cause opposes NYC Proposition 6

The final proposition, Proposition 6, lumps three unrelated topics into one unnecessary charter amendment.  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.  Placing the position in the charter hobbles future mayor’s ability to set up their administrations in ways that meet the City’s needs.  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.  The 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.

• A yes vote adds yet more unnecessary provisions that don’t address problems in our charter.
• A no vote denies Mayor Adams another attempted power grab.