[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now we'll turn to local election day, particularly what will be on the ballot for New York City voters. We all know what will be at the top of the ballot. Obviously, voters across the country will be choosing between Trump and Harris for president, but I'm sure many of you listening in don't know that there are six ballot proposals to vote on, one that's statewide and five just for residents of New York City. We're going to focus primarily in this conversation, though not solely, on the city ones. It's those five Proposals to change the city's charter, which is like the city's constitution, that are stirring up controversy among city council members and progressive New Yorkers especially. With me now to cover all the ballot proposals as well, the discourse surrounding them is Sahailie Donaldson, City Hall reporter for the publication City & State. Sahailie, thanks for joining us. Welcome to WNYC.

Sahailie Donaldson: Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here.

Brian Lehrer: And why don't we start actually with a Proposal that's not gaining the ire of progressives in New York? Proposition 1 will be of interest to all New Yorkers, whether you live in the city or not, so that's a statewide ballot question. Want to tell our listeners what that is if they haven't started focusing on these yet?

Sahailie Donaldson: Yes, absolutely. As you said, of the six Proposals slated to appear on the New York City ballot, Proposition 1 is the only one that didn't originate from the City Charter Revision Commission. Most people have probably heard of the Proposal, have likely heard it described as the state-level Equal Rights Amendment, or even perhaps the Abortion Rights ballot Proposal. In short, it would prohibit discrimination based on someone's ethnicity, nation of origin, age, disability, and sex, as well as provisions covering sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes. The latter is particularly important.

Democrats have framed the Proposal as a way to protect the right to abortion in the state and other reproductive rights, hoping it will drive turnout in the election, but at the same time, there's been some controversy over the actual language that will appear on the ballot. Democrats had hoped that the State Board of Elections would include the word 'abortion' and 'LGBT,' for example, in the actual ballot language to make it very clear on what is being proposed, but a judge had ruled against this over the summer, so the language is a little bit more vague.

Brian Lehrer: That's final. Now, the final wording of this Proposition 1 for voters across New York State is settled, or is it still being fought over?

Sahailie Donaldson: There is still controversy and discussions over the matter, but it is pretty much set in stone at this point what the language will appear.

Brian Lehrer: What do the Proponents say it would mean to New Yorkers to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the state's constitution? I think some people may think, "Well, New York State already has so many individual laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex and gender and some of the other categories that you mentioned." What would enshrining it in the state constitution change if anything?

Sahailie Donaldson: It's a good question, right? Most of the rights that we enjoy being part of the state are already part of the law. We know this. At the same time, this Proposition Proposes codifying them into the Constitution. Regardless of political shifts, like as we've seen in other states and even in New York, in some cases, those rights stay protected because it's enshrined in the Constitution.

Brian Lehrer: All right, now we're going to go on to the more controversial ballot questions which are just for New York City voters. Before the detail, we go through the details of each of these five Propositions. I'd like to ask you to talk for our listeners about the process in which these possible changes to the New York City charter made it onto the ballot this year because this really matters. A subtext here is that it seems like the mayor got a bunch of ballot questions on using his power to do so in order to keep a city council-preferred ballot question off. Is that the case?

Sahailie Donaldson: Yes, so ballot Proposals 2 through 6 were created by a 13-member panel that had been called by Mayor Eric Adams in May called a Charter Revision Commission. This was basically a group of 13 people called by the mayor to consider Proposing changes to what's known as the city charter. Basically, this is the city's constitution. It's a playbook for how New York City government works. Over a nine-ish week period, the commission held a series of different public meetings across the city. Framing it as giving New Yorkers a chance to share concerns or suggestions about the city charter. Then, at the end of that process, towards the end of July, the commission released a final report with their five Proposals.

Members of that commission voted to approve them. The controversy here is New York City mayor is forming a commission to consider making changes to the city charter is nothing new. It's been done before. It'll be done again. What's made this particular time controversial, however, has to do with the timing of it all. The city council has accused the Adams administration of rushing to develop these new Proposals in order to block its own measure called an 'advice and consent' measure from the November ballot. This was a piece of legislation that the city council passed in June that would essentially give members greater authority to approve or deny mayoral appointees.

It wouldn't automatically do that, though. They passed the legislation, and then it would have gone on to the November ballot, but because of a legal work, the commission's ballot Proposals take precedent over that piece of legislation, and they appear on the ballot instead, basically pushing off the city council's measure, which, as I said, it would give members more authority over mayoral appointees and pushing it off to a further date. They can't both appear at the ballot at the same time.

Brian Lehrer: Right, so the mayor used his power to avoid having voters have a say on reducing his power, which is to say voters could have given city council advice and consent powers. That is, approval over a lot of mayoral appointees, and instead, that vote will not take place, so should this be the end of this segment? [chuckles] It won't be, but are these ballot measures that the mayor got on consequential at all, or are they just little pieces of almost nothing, only designed to be there so the city council's advice and consent Proposal didn't get on? You know what I mean? Are these substantive questions that in and of their own right might really change things-- and we can go down them one by one- or that might be controversial?

Sahailie Donaldson: To varying degrees. Two of the Proposals are particularly controversial for the city council because, in a sense, they feel that it's giving more power to the mayor over their process that they've been doing for years and years and years, but it depends, proposal by proposal if you want to go through them. Some are more like very small tweaks that probably could have been done through other methods and aren't going to have a big impact on New Yorkers' lives. Others have more of an influence on the city council's legislative process.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, so let's go down the list so our New York City voter listeners will know what they are going to be choosing between. Listeners, of course, we can take your questions and comments on these. Now that you've started to hear what's going on with ballot questions in New York City and that one at the state level about an equal rights amendment, what questions do you have about any of the propositions or. I know some of you are involved because we've heard from some of you off the air with lobbying for or against these things. You can feel free to call in and chime in with your opinion.

212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 call or text for our guest, Sahailie Donaldson, who's covering these as a City Hall reporter for the news organization City & State. All right, Proposal number 2, and again, Proposal number 1, that listeners who are voting in New York City, and really all over New York State, will see is that statewide equal rights amendment to the state constitution. Then we get to Proposal number 2, specific to New York City. Prop 2 is called Cleaning Public Property. What does that refer to?

Sahailie Donaldson: This Proposal would expand and codify the city Department of Sanitation's authority to clean city-owned Property, enforce regulations on street vending, and regulate how New Yorkers set out their trash.

Brian Lehrer: For example?

Sahailie Donaldson: For example, we have a new initiative that was proposed recently pertaining to trash cans. The Sanitation Department announced that "Going forward, we're going to have these formal bins" that we see in so many other parts of the country. That's one Proposal that the Sanitation Department proposed. We'll be able to see more Proposals through them as this gives them more authority to do so.

Brian Lehrer: It's not that the voters of New York City will be voting on the new kind of trash containers, up or down. They're already required under the current authority that the mayor and his Sanitation Commissioner have. Do I have that right?

Sahailie Donaldson: That's right.

Brian Lehrer: It's just giving them the authority to make more kinds of garbage collection rules?

Sahailie Donaldson: It's not 100% clear, but it would give them greater authority and say in the matter. What that means, we'll have to wait and see what that would look like in practice.

Brian Lehrer: All right, so sounds like that one is a bit vague. I know sometimes these are made intentionally vague. Then these next three Proposals, numbers 3, 4 and 5 as they'll appear on the ballot, feel very procedural. I'll read through them. Can you explain the argument the mayor is making for these Proposals and why he's looking to add more so-called notice, analysis, or detail-- people's eyes are bureaucratically glazing over already- to regular government functions, notice, analysis, and detail? What are our current processes and how will they change if these Propositions pass?

Sahailie Donaldson: Yes, so currently, I think probably one of the Proposals that would have the most impact would be the Prop 3. This Proposal would basically change how the city assesses the fiscal impact proposed laws. It would give the Adams administration a bit more say on the costs associated with proposed legislation. It would also alter some budget deadlines, though the latter, and it's nothing too consequential. The reason these sorts of things are being proposed is-- at least some people feel this way- there's been a couple highly public disputes between the city council and the Adams administration over the fiscal costs associated with different pieces of legislation or different bills.

There's been different veto vote battles, that sort of thing. These Proposals give the Adams administration more of a say on these city council processes. For example, one of the Proposals would require the city council to give 30 days additional public notice and time before members can vote on laws pertaining to the public safety operations of police, correction, or fire departments, so they have to give the Adams administration and the public additional notice. As a result, that gives the Adams administration more time to mount a defense, if they wish, to any Proposals originating from the city council, mobilizing the public against it, that sort of thing.

Brian Lehrer: That's Prop 4, more notice and time before votes on public safety measures. That's the title I'm seeing for that ballot question. Prop 3, require additional fiscal analysis before city council hearings and Prop 5, require more detail in annual assessment of city facilities. Very interesting. Let's start on our phones. I see we have advocates both for and against those city ones calling. We will take at least one call from each side, but let me go first to Sasha in Brooklyn who-- no, it's not Sasha in Brooklyn- Oh, yes, it is actually Sasha in Brooklyn who's calling to support Proposition 1, the statewide question that would add an equal rights amendment to the New York State Constitution. Sasha, thank you very much for calling in. You're on WNYC.

Sasha: Hi, Brian. Thanks so much for having me, and thanks for covering these important ballot measures appearing before New Yorkers.

Brian Lehrer: Sure, so you are officially involved, right?

Sasha: Yes, I'm officially involved. I am serving as campaign manager for New Yorkers' Equal Rights, an effort that we stood up-- over a year ago- to talk to New Yorkers all across the state about how important it is to flip their ballot and vote yes on Prop 1. I want to remind folks of why we're doing this. Two years ago, when the Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization decision came down from the Supreme Court, New Yorkers were shocked that Roe v. Wade-- something that we thought was rock solid- something that we thought was going to make sure we had abortion protected for the long term. We were shocked when Roe fell.

We realized that our rights weren't as safe as we thought, and since then, we've seen 22 states ban abortion all across the country. We've seen threats to birth control. We've seen threats to IVF. The attacks are real, and here in New York, it's time we take action. We need to make sure all of our rights are protected, including reproductive rights and abortion. We can do that by voting yes on Prop 1, permanently protecting our rights and reproductive freedoms so we can never be caught off guard. Prop 1 cements our rights in our state constitution so they can't be rolled back by out-of-touch politicians in the future.

Brian Lehrer: I guess that answers the follow up question I was going to ask you, the same question that I asked our journalist guests before. Since these protections, most of the ones, or maybe all the ones that would be in this equal rights amendment, are currently the law in New York State, given the politics of New York State, why do we need a vote on a constitutional amendment? I guess you're saying in case the politics of the state turned to the right in the future, it would be harder to overturn these protections because it's in the constitution. They're in the constitution, correct?

Sasha: That's exactly right. We've seen state after state, court after court have rolled back our rights. Here in New York, we need to make sure the laws that we currently have in place to protect all New Yorkers, that they remain in place for the long term. The best way that New Yorkers can make sure that that's the case is that they turn out to vote. They flip their ballot and they vote yes on Proposal 1 to protect their rights and freedoms, including the right to abortion, here in New York.

Brian Lehrer: Here is a question from a listener via a text message. It says, "Regarding Prop 1, note that Save Girl Sports signs have begun to pop up all over the state." Would this Equal Rights Amendment cover the current hot-button issue of whether a place like Nassau County, which has done it under Republican county manager Bruce Blakeman, can enact policies that would limit the ability of transgender girls to participate in girls' sports teams in school?

Sasha: The narrative that's being pushed by the opposition, it is simply not true. Prop 1 doesn't change existing law. This is a narrative that's being pushed by politicians. They're playing politics with a small handful of innocent kids, using them as their political pawns. They're trying to divide New Yorkers and distract New Yorkers from what this amendment is about. Prop 1 is about protecting abortion and guaranteeing our personal freedom. It also makes sure that the LGBT community can't be discriminated against, but it doesn't change existing law. It doesn't change anything in terms of how we carry on day to day. It makes sure that our rights are permanently protected in our state constitution.

Brian Lehrer: Would it make it harder for somebody to go-- let me ask it the other way- would it enable somebody from Long Island, let's say from Nassau County, to go to court if this passes and say, "Look, the state's Equal Rights Amendment that the voters enshrined on November 5, 2024, protects against LGBTQ discrimination. Therefore, you cannot ban transgender girls from participating in girls' sports in public schools or limit their access to public facilities."

Sasha: Again, Prop 1 doesn't change the current law. It protects the rights that we already have. It makes sure that no New Yorker can be discriminated against because of who they are. It protects abortion, it protects our reproductive freedom, and it ensures that no matter whether you're disabled, whether you're pregnant, your gender, your age, that you're protected in our state for the long term.

Brian Lehrer: One more for you while you're on the phone. Listener texts, "I still don't understand why the language of Proposition 1 is so obtuse. How can anyone possibly vote for something they cannot understand? I can't, and I really want to enshrine abortion rights in our state constitution." Listener continues "I can't even explain to my kids why they should vote for it. I can only say, 'trust me.' That's no way to legislate." I imagine you're going to argue the language isn't obtuse, but do you have the exact language in front of you or in your head and can you recite it for our listeners?

Sasha: Sure, so what the listener is calling out, it's something that we fought really, really hard to make sure that New Yorkers are really clear about what Prop 1 is, what it does, and who it protects. This year, for the first time, the New York State Board of Elections had to make sure that the ballot language was clear. It was simply written and New Yorkers often know sometimes when you go to vote and you see some issues on the ballot, they may be written in complex ways. Here's the reality, Prop 1, it protects abortion and our reproductive freedom, and it closes loopholes in our state constitution so that no New Yorker can be discriminated against because of who they are.

Now, the amendments on your ballot, it will have a title, a summary, and a yes/no statement. We wanted to make sure that the word abortion was explicit. Unfortunately, the ballot language doesn't make that as explicit, but let's be clear, Prop 1 was put on the ballot as New York State's response to the Dobbs decision. New York State is protecting abortion via Prop 1. We're talking to voters up and down the state to make sure they know exactly what Prop 1 is, exactly what it does. Voters can learn more by going to Yes on Prop 1. That's the number 1 NY.org. Again, yesonprop1ny.org.

Brian Lehrer: Can you read the text in under a minute?

Sasha: Sure. The title is "Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment. The summary enumerates the New Yorkers who are protected under Prop 1. The yes, and then it says a yes vote adds these protections to the state constitution, and no vote leaves them out of the state constitution.

Brian Lehrer: All right, well, thank you for calling in. Now voters know more of the arguments for an explanation of Proposition 1 that all New York State voters will see when they go to vote this year. Now, we're going to take one for and one against the mayor's proposed changes that are on the ballot to the New York City charter. I see we actually have calling in Carlo in Manhattan, who's the chair of the mayor's Charter Revision Commission, who wrote up these Proposals. Is that right? Carlo, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Carlo: Hi, Brian. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: Good, thank you. You are the chair of the mayor's Charter Revision Commission?

Carlo: I was the chair of the mayor's Charter Review Commission.

Brian Lehrer: Okay.

Carlo: We submitted our proposals to the City Clerk back in end of July, early August. We're excited about what they are. We're just reminding folks that we spent a lot of time meeting people, thousands of folks, thousands of testimony. I think it was a very, very good opportunity for New Yorkers to have their voices heard. We heard a lot of things, some related to the charter, some not. I think we all agreed that these were the best things to come out of that proposal.

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to ask you to be brief because we only have a limited amount of time in the segment. I'm going to do the same thing with the opponent who's calling in, who I'm going to take after you. How would you respond to the basic critique of largely progressive advocates who say, "Look, all these are really doing is trying to increase the mayor's power and decrease the power of city council." Like Prop 3, require additional fiscal analysis before city council hearings. Prop 4, more notice and time before votes on public safety measures, those kinds of things, giving more authority to the mayor, less to city council, a power grab, say the critics. How do you answer?

Carlo: First of all, I disagree with that. Let me be clear. None of the folks on the Charter Commission work for the mayor, so we are all volunteers. We spent several months doing this.

Brian Lehrer: Were you appointed by the mayor?

Carlo: We were appointed by the mayor.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, there you go.

Carlo: Yes, but we don't work for him.

Brian Lehrer: Okay.

Carlo: Yes, but mayors have been appointing charter commissions for the last 80 years. Brian, very simply, we said, "If you're going to introduce legislation on certain things, give 30 more days notice." I think if you're progressive-- as I am, by the way- having more notice and more opportunity for people to speak is a good thing. It's 30 days. On the fiscal impact statements, why not? Why not have more voices to be heard on what the impact of legislation is going to be? It doesn't change the fact that the council will vote however they believe they should vote, whether it's on public safety or anything else.

Brian Lehrer: I'll put that question to our next caller, who's on the other side.

Carlo: Great.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing for you, how do you respond to the global critique that these are on here at all just to stop the council from having gotten their question on, which would have allowed them approval rights over more mayoral appointees?

Carlo: Look, I said this at the first meeting. It was our job to look at the charter. We do not get involved in anything between the mayor and the council. I think we put forward a bunch of questions. By the way, one of the questions is about finally enshrining an office for minority and women-owned businesses and diversity. I don't know how anyone can argue against that. You got a busy morning, Brian. It's a pleasure to chat with you, as always.

Brian Lehrer: The other side would say, "Yes, you were only looking at the content of the proposals you were considering, but wink-wink, we know the real reason the mayor is doing any of this" Do you reject that, or you say, "Oh, I don't see any?"

Carlo: I completely reject it because no one spoke to us, and no one discussed anything that the council was proposing. The law says if the mayor puts on a charter commission, obviously, the mayor's commission takes precedence.

Brian Lehrer: Carlo, thank you very much for calling in. I really appreciate it, all right. On the other side of these local New York City ballot questions for this fall's elections, questions 2 through 6, Daniel in Brooklyn from the advocacy group Make the Road. Daniel, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Daniel: Thanks, Brian. Long time listener, first time calling. Thanks for having us on.

Brian Lehrer: How do you respond to the two main arguments that Carlo from the mayor's Charter Revision group was making there? One, these are pretty harmless things, by and large; just require a little more analysis before the city council passes really important things like budgetary things and public safety measures. Take that one first.

Daniel: Two things about that one. I think the first one is if they are actually small things, then let's have a real process. The process that Carlo talked through was, in the eyes of many, a sham. I think it was a hastily pulled together commission that I think came together in late May, held nine rushed hearings, which were, many were very, very sparsely attended, and then decided on five questions. If this is really about making the charter, our New York City constitution that governs the balances that dictate how we make policy and change our laws, let's really give it the respect that it deserves and run a real process here.

Let's not try to squeeze things in between the days of late May and early August when it had to be finished in order to put the questions on the ballot.

Brian Lehrer: That leads me to the other question. Maybe this is what you were going to answer anyway, but let me ask this. Are you advocating no votes just to punish the mayor for taking the power that he has to stop the city council from putting their favorite question on the ballot, which would have been to allow them to have more approval rights over mayoral appointees?

Daniel: We put the council's question to the side. I mean, really, this is about the mayor doing a power grab. It's both we are urging New Yorkers to vote no on Props 2 through 6. Really, it's both because the act of doing it is in itself a power grab and a move by the mayor, who is increasingly making moves to be less and less democratic. Secondly, because even in the ones that we've discussed about notice and about the fiscal reporting, we need context here. What's being proposed is that the administration, the implementer of laws, be given more power in the legislative process. That's like saying, "Let's give the White House more ability to weigh in on what Congress decides." That's not the way that it should be. That throws us out of wack in a delicate [unintelligible 00:29:10].

Brian Lehrer: Just more time, like an extra month, right?

Daniel: Yes, more time. I think there's additional components of that particular measure that allows us, the administration, to solicit additional participation. On the fiscal one there, they're requiring the administration provide additional fiscal context, but of course, the administration is also responsible for implementing those laws. We can, one, can only imagine what the upshot of that "independent" fiscal analysis might be.

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to leave it there, Daniel, because we're already way over time in this segment, but thank you very much. All right, good. We heard two people who showed up on the phones from either side of these ballot questions at the city level and the campaign chair for the statewide question one, the state equal rights amendment for the New York state constitution. I want to thank our very patient guest, Sahailie Donaldson, City Hall reporter for City & State, who's been sitting through that run of phone calls. We are really overtime, Sahailie, but you want to give us a quick 30-second impression of what you may have been thinking as somebody covers these issues, listening to those calls?

Sahailie Donaldson: Yes. Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure, Brian. Both of those calls, I think I'm very glad that they both called in today. I think they very much painted the picture of what this conflict has looked like over the last couple of months. It's complicated and it's incited a great deal of conversation. It'll be interesting to see in the weeks to come what opposition continues to look like. It's a complicated task. There's six different ballot proposals. One is completely unrelated. How do you advocate against the five while still pushing the first?

Brian Lehrer: The sixth, the Equal Rights Amendment.

Sahailie Donaldson: It'll be interesting to see.

Brian Lehrer: Sahailie, thank you. Thank you for helping guide this discussion. We really appreciate it.

Sahailie Donaldson: My pleasure. Thank you.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.