As Election Day draws closer, New York’s Equal Rights Amendment is continuing to draw controversy as New Yorkers consider the ballot initiative known as Proposal 1. Advocates of the constitutional amendment hope it will protect the right to abortion in the state. Both sides aren’t happy with aspects of the wording.
A New York judge said last week he won’t force state election officials to tell voters explicitly that the amendment would protect abortion rights, dealing a blow to Democrats who pushed for the change.
Sasha Ahuja, Campaign Director for New Yorkers for Equal Rights, says the intent of the New York Equal rights amendment should be clear.
“We need to make sure our reproductive rights including abortion are permanently protected in New York, we don’t want to be caught off guard again,” she said.
But the ballot language has created concern that it won’t be clear to voters. Democrats wanted the state Board of Elections to include the words “abortion” and “LGBT,” in the ballot language voters will see at the polls.
Judge David A. Weinstein ruled Friday that he was reluctant to declare that the language of the amendment itself, which adds things like “sexual orientation, gender identity, and reproductive health care and autonomy” to New York's discrimination protections, would indeed protect abortion rights. Judge Weinstein also said it would likely be subject to further litigation.
“The ballot language is a bit of a disappointment, but it doesn’t change our trajectory, it doesn’t change our fight,” Ahuja said.
State Sen. Liz Krueger, a key architect of the amendment expressed her displeasure to Spectrum News 1 in a statement.
“It is unfortunate that Judge Weinstein has declined to require the Board of Elections to inform voters in plain language of the impact of a yes or no vote on the Equal Rights Amendment,” she said. “The fact is that the ERA was carefully drafted in consultation with constitutional lawyers to ensure that it will protect New Yorkers’ abortion rights, and other reproductive rights, from any future efforts by the state or local governments to take those rights away. That is not conjecture, nor was it a mistake – that’s simply what the ERA will do.”
Opponents, likewise, have concerns about the wording.
“Putting a vague ballot proposition out there is not a good idea,” said republican Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh.
Republicans across the state have insisted that the wording of the amendment itself is also too vague. They fear it could open the door on issues like gender-affirming care without parental consent, and the participation of transgender athletes in school sports.
Walsh laid out what she feels the consequences could be to reporters on Monday.
“When it actually gets into the constitution if that happens, it's going to be up to a judge after the fact to decide what it really means,” she said.
Ahuja dismissed those concerns. She told Spectrum News 1 that while the text of the amendment does aim to protect LGBTQ New Yorkers from discrimination under existing state law, it does nothing to create or encourage the creation of new policy.
“They are doing one thing only, they are trying to divide and distract New Yorkers from what this amendment is actually about, it’s about protecting abortion,” she said.