[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We'll begin today with a service for voters in New York State. The rest of you may find this interesting, too. There's a measure on the ballot statewide called Proposition 1, which proponents call the New York State Equal Rights Amendment. A lot of people thought in blue New York that this would sail through to protect women's rights generally and abortion rights in particular in the post-Roe, post-Dobbs decision era. Recent reporting by the New York Times and Politico and others indicates that Prop 1 might be in trouble.

There is a very organized opposition claiming things like Prop 1 would guarantee that boys could play in girls' sports leagues, that it would enable undocumented migrants to remain in the country, and it would put senior discounts and other senior-specific services at risk because it bans age discrimination. Young people could say they're being discriminated against. The opponents are also reported to be better organized than the supporters and better so far at getting their word out. Again, Prop 1 is statewide. There are also four other ballot questions just for voters in New York City.

These mostly have to do with a power struggle between Mayor Adams and city council. Vote yes to give more power to the mayor. Vote no to give more power to council. We'll get to those, too. Oh, five others. I said four. The marquee issue that the whole country is watching on every side of women's rights, abortion rights, and more is Prop 1, the New York State Equal Rights Amendment. We'll have two guests on this, a Newsmaker interview with State Senator Liz Krueger, one of the architects of Proposition 1. Then analysis from our senior political reporter, Brigid Bergin. So State Senator Liz Krueger joins me now. She's a Democrat from Manhattan's east side and chair of Finance Committee.

Senator, thanks for coming on for this. Welcome back to WNYC.

Liz Krueger: Thank you, Brian. I'm always glad to be on and I'm really happy to talk about this issue today.

Brian Lehrer: In a minute, I'm going to read for our listeners the exact text of Proposition 1 as it appears on their ballots, but would you tell us first, in your own words, what was your involvement in drafting this and what do you believe it's aiming for?

Liz Krueger: I worked on this for five years because it's not easy to change the New York State Constitution as it shouldn't be. We needed to move language through both houses of the legislature in two different sessions. We had to get it to pass twice in both houses, which we did. Now it comes before the voters for them to decide, do they want to change our Constitution? Why does it matter? We haven't opened up this section of the Constitution since the 1930s. There's been lots of changes in who we are, what matters, and who needs to be protected from discrimination.

Back in the 30s, all our Constitution said was, we can't discriminate based on race, religion, or creed, and creed pretty much means race. Yet in 2024, we know that threats are there against women and women's rights to reproductive health, the LGBT community, people with disabilities, older people. We intended to broaden the language in our Constitution to cover protecting all New Yorkers from discrimination. That's the intention. Yes, the language is a little overwhelming because that's how Constitutions are written.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, here's the text of Proposition 1, which appears on the back of the ballot for voters in New York State. Don't forget to turn your ballots over, no matter how you want to vote on any of these things. It says, "This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive health care and autonomy." I didn't read the title at the beginning of it. That's on the ballot, too. It says, "Proposal number one, an amendment to protect against unequal treatment."

Senator, critics, and journalists are pointing out that it doesn't say the term Equal Rights Amendment, even though that's how you're labeling it. It doesn't include the word abortion, and it does include that list of other things. What do you say to people who are unsure what they're voting on?

Liz Krueger: That's why we're trying to spend a lot of time explaining to people what it means. If you pick up any section of the Constitution and you just read it out loud, it's not simple English. That's not how Constitutions are written. I worked with a bevy of constitutional law experts, law school experts, and centers around the state to get the language right. Unfortunately, it does sound a little confusing. The opponents are playing off of it, but frankly, the opponents are all major anti-choice, anti-LGBT, pro-Trump funders. There is no real debate in the legal community about what this amendment means and does.

We tried to get simple English onto the ballot. We even passed a separate law saying ballot props should be in simple English at no greater than the eighth-grade reading level, but the politics of the Board of Elections stepped in, and we couldn't get the simple language that the Attorney General recommended be on the ballot. We're stuck with this, it doesn't change what the proposition would do for us, which is really the key issue.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get into the specific accusations by the opponents about what it would do, the things I mentioned in the intro in a minute. When people hear the term Equal Rights Amendment, many might think of the federal Equal Rights Amendment which almost got ratified by the states. Maybe it still will at some point. Here's the text of that ERA. All it says is equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. That's it. Except for adding the Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Why couldn't you keep it something like that that everybody could understand?

Liz Krueger: Because that just included women in the US Constitution and it's taken us 50 years and as you pointed out, we're still not there. The State of New York can do better than 50 years to get one word added to our Constitution. The truth is you don't open up constitutions for reform that frequently and it is a time-consuming process. I really believe that in the 21st century, New York State can do better than just reforming by adding the word women.

Brian Lehrer: On abortion rights, there already are abortion rights in New York State. Would it expand abortion rights, pass the Roe versus Wade viability standard which I think is the basic New York State law at this point, or change anything in any way?

Liz Krueger: No, it doesn't change our current law and I'm very proud of that current law. I think you might remember I wrote that law and spent 10 years getting it passed, but we had terrible abortion law in this state from 1970 to the year 2019 when we did update our laws. As we've now seen in I think over 21 states in this country, just in the last two years, they've been changing their laws and taking away women's rights for abortion and much worse than that. We can't just depend on law itself. Laws can change with an election.

When you protect rights to choose an abortion in the Constitution, that means it makes it harder for anti-choice elected officials in our future to roll back New York's existing abortion rights. That's what we're seeing happening all over the country where there are efforts to do something similar to what we're doing in New York on there ballot questions. Some states don't have a ballot process for changing their constitution, I think all over the country, people are recognizing laws are great, but you need constitutional protections for fundamental human rights.

Brian Lehrer: And in New York now, is it Roe versus Wade viability, roughly 24 weeks, other than exceptions for life or health of the mother, is that roughly the state of the law in New York?

Liz Krueger: Yes, that's a reasonable way to explain it, yes.

Brian Lehrer: Let's get to the arguments of the opponents. The most prominent one, as far as I could tell, is that it would guarantee that trans girls identified as boys at birth could play on girls' sports teams. Here's Long Island Republican Congressman Nick LaLota in a close reelection contest himself against Democrat John Avalon on eastern Long Island when asked if he supports Prop 1 in a televised debate.

Nick LaLota: Prop 1, which I am against, but my opponent supports, would do just that. Would codify the New York State Constitution. The right of a man to play in a girls' sport, the right of a man to go into a girls' locker room. You can't just talk about abortion. If you're going to pretend to be for women's rights, you have to talk about it all. Prop 1 would dangerously allow those things, and would destroy the very thing that makes young girls such good, confident, able people later on in life. They learn discipline and teamwork and individualism and everything else in between. These are things that ought to be preserved. Prop one is dangerous.

Brian Lehrer: Republican Congressman Nick LaLota. Never mind that he's saying men could go into girls' locker rooms, not people born as boys and then transitioning or now identifying as girls. He's saying, men and girls. That's misleading. Regardless of people's position on trans athletes, would Prop 1 enshrine their right to the gendered sports league of their choice because it bans discrimination based on gender identity as a category that's in Prop 1?

Liz Krueger: Prop 1 doesn't change existing law around sports teams or anything else. It actually works hand in hand with federal Title IX law which we can't supersede in our Constitution or our laws which establishes more gender parity in sports. The fact is, the New York State human rights law and a number of other laws we've passed, GENDA, for example, already make clear we can't discriminate against people based on their being trans or any other term that they choose to use within the realm of gender.

It does nothing to sports teams. Local school districts all over the state of New York are making their own decisions about how they handle boys and girls participating in different sports. this will do nothing to change that.

Brian Lehrer: what would it do if it puts protection based on gender identity in the state constitution If it wouldn't do that?

Liz Krueger: It makes sure that in our existing laws, you can't go to court and discriminate against someone based on their being LGBT and frankly, winning court on these cases because right now and in the future, constitutional protections only really matter in court cases. Right now in New York, there are court cases on all kinds of discrimination issues that people end up in court. They believe that the law is protecting them, and a judge says, "I see that law, but it's not in the Constitution, so I'm not accepting the constitutionality of that law, and sorry, you lose that case."

There is the right of legislatures to make laws in the public interest and that's what we do every day. Those laws either can stand up in court or not stand up in court based on whether you have constitutional backing in the context of your Constitution. That's why it's so important to make clear discrimination issues within the context of the Constitution. It doesn't change any laws. Here in New York City, we actually already have city law that says you don't have men or women bathrooms, you have non-gender-specific bathrooms. I don't think the world's ended since the city implemented that law.

I went to college in the Midwest in the '70s. We had non-gender-identified bathrooms. The world didn't end. People are turning this into some kind of hysteria that simply isn't out there in the real world.

Brian Lehrer: Opponents are also running TV commercials that say Prop 1 in New York state would keep undocumented immigrants in the country because it bans discrimination based on national origin. Supporters of the measure definitely disagree with that interpretation, I imagine, including you.

Liz Krueger: Texas and Louisiana and several other extremely red anti-migrant states already have that exact language in their constitution. National origin means if you were born in a different country, you can't be discriminated against under the state of New York's law. It doesn't give you additional legal rights if you don't have legal status. That's a determination of the federal government. The federal law determines immigration status, citizenship status, and as long as you are bringing this up, they were also saying we're going to give undocumented people the right to vote.

There's a separate section of the New York State Constitution that says you actually have to be a citizen and a resident to vote. This section would in no way supersede the other section. All of that is also simply made up to panic people. Even states that just have one word, abortion on their constitutional amendment are getting hit with the same ads saying it will allow undocumented people extra benefits and status and also increase the chances of transgender sports. So this is just a national messaging campaign against choice and against LGBT people that's being funded by the exact same anti-abortion, anti-LGBT pro-Trump funders.

Brian Lehrer: One more critique from the opponents. There's an anti-Prop 1 op-ed in the Daily News by a conservative activist that argues it would disadvantage seniors, ironically because it prevents against age discrimination. They write if Prop 1 passes, you can bet we'll see challenges to senior services, housing communities, and discounts from the state. Your reaction to that.

Liz Krueger: Again, New York State has all kinds of laws that provide different benefits for different subpopulations. The courts have already dealt with these cases and have always ruled in favor of the state law. When we have a senior discount, when we have the rent freeze program for the elderly disabled, when we have discounted MTA fares for certain populations, that's all established law that does not get changed even in a court case. Guess what, we have judges who also use common sense as our legislature uses common sense and we're not going to end all of these standards and protections that are intentionally built into our law. That's not discrimination.

Brian Lehrer: Finally, the reporting from The Times and others says the effort to get Prop 1 passed has been disorganized and ineffective. In the news just in the last few days, Governor Hochul said, referring to herself, "We are stepping in now to provide assistance because it is apparently necessary" What happened to lead the governor to criticize and step in on this effort, as she put it, and are you responsible in any way?

Liz Krueger: Am I responsible for what?

Brian Lehrer: Whatever's being seen as the ineffective promotion effort for Prop 1 since you are the architect.

Liz Krueger: My name is all over this, so sure, hit me whatever you like. The fact is there's a coalition who's been of a very broad arena of organizations who've been trying to get the word out. There's been misinterpretation. They've always said we probably need $20 million to run an effective campaign. They never said they would be able to raise $20 million and they did not. I believe it is the responsibility of the state party to push on ballot initiatives. While I am glad that the governor and maybe even Jay Jacobs is saying now they're trying to do something but we've been urging them to do something for a year.

Frankly, as I keep pointing out, if the Democrats because we're all Democrats in this discussion, fail to get this ballot issue passed, there'll be plenty of blame to go around. I will just point out that the state party should be the one taking the lead on ballot initiatives. You might remember we lost a voter rights ballot initiative three years ago because the state party didn't make any effort. They're getting in too late with not enough money and they're looking to blame somebody else. I've been a pawn and a fall guy for lots of things in my life, that's not really relevant to me. What's relevant is voters need to understand how important it is to vote yes and not fall for all this false information being spewed out there.

Brian Lehrer: By the way didn't you all put the word abortion in the text? I think they have it in the ballot measure in Florida and Ohio and other places like that. Rather than just protect against unequal treatment based on pregnancy, reproductive health care, and autonomy.

Liz Krueger: Because the constitutional attorneys said that just using the word abortion would not address any number of issues coming to the courts over time. We are seeing in states that have banned abortion right now that they are also penalizing women and their doctors for treatment on miscarriage. They are outlawing IVF treatment. They are outlawing contraception. They are making the argument that Plan B is a form of abortion.

We live in a complicated world, and the technology of what happens in pregnancies, both for those who want to successfully have a pregnancy and those who choose not to have a pregnancy or those who choose to have to end a pregnancy, that it's not just a simple word, abortion. The data coming out of the states just two years after the end of Roe v. Wade is really terrifying. We're seeing skyrocketing infant mortality rates within the first month of life because these were not viable pregnancies. We're seeing increased maternal mortality rates because doctors aren't allowed to treat their patients.

It's not just one word, abortion, and so we didn't go with one word, abortion. We went with the broad autonomy in rights and decision-making when it comes to reproductive health.

Brian Lehrer: State Senator Liz Krueger, Democrat from Manhattan's Upper East Side and an architect of New York State Ballot Proposition 1. Thanks for coming on. We really appreciate it.

Liz Krueger: Thank you very much, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: After a break, analysis of what we just heard, plus your phone calls, and we'll discuss the other New York Ballot measures with our senior political reporter Brigid Bergin. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now more on Proposition 1 on the ballot in New York State, the New York State Equal Rights Amendment. We'll also discuss the other ballot questions, which are just for voters in New York City. In the case of those other five questions, they're all of a piece, so they're going to be pretty easy to discuss, even though there are five different ones with our senior politics reporter, Brigid Bergin. Hi, Brigid. Happy one week before Election Day.

Brigid Bergin: I can't believe we're already here.

Brian Lehrer: Already so much voting, right?

Brigid Bergin: So much voting. The early voting numbers are record-breaking here in the city and in the state. It is very exciting to see all that enthusiasm out there.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, listeners, we welcome your questions and comments. Now we did the Newsmaker interview with Liz Krueger. Now anything you want to say or ask on any New York ballot question from any point of view electioneering welcome here at 212-433-WNYC. Call or text 212-433-9692. Brigid, you heard Senator Krueger. What's your best understanding of the aims of the New York State Equal Rights Amendment and what it would actually do?

Brigid Bergin: I really valued that interview, Brian. To hear straight from Senator Krueger, who I know has worked for a long time on this particular issue, I thought your last question was especially interesting because it's certainly something that I have encountered talking to voters in my reporting ahead of this election. It is a proposition that its most active and organized supporters talk about in terms of how it will protect women's reproductive health and choice and specifically access to abortion.

Yet that word, for the reasons that Senator Krueger laid out there, advice of counsel, so to speak, is not anywhere in the text or in the explanation. Because there are these additional protections and prohibitions against discrimination that are part of the text, it has allowed for some attempts to misconstrue or argue that it could have different impacts. Again, as she said, I think we know that most legal scholars have come down on the side of saying that the protections that would be afforded New Yorkers if this were to pass are no different than laws that currently exist.

They just enshrine those protections in the state constitution, and yet I was out in Long Island reporting on the fourth congressional district, and I would tell you there are signs that you see on lawns all over the place talking about protecting girls' sports. These are lawns where you may not see a sign for any candidate. Certainly, this conversation is very active potentially among voters who maybe are not necessarily political by nature.

Brian Lehrer: Yeah, I was in Queens the other day and saw that on a lawn sign. Save Girls sports or Save Women's sports. Vote no on Prop 1. So have experts weighed in authoritatively on those critiques by opponents? Constitutionally protecting trans athletes, ending programs that are only for seniors because they would discriminate against younger people based on age, or protecting undocumented immigrants based on non-discrimination by national origin?

Brigid Bergin: The New York City Bar Association has its assessment of these ballot propositions and says clearly that these changes that people are most concerned about, opponents that have talked about it these are not necessarily things that would be changed if this proposition were to pass. These are protections that exist in potentially other laws. As Senator Krueger mentioned, the New York Human rights law, GENDA, but there's nothing that is being changed. There's no change to abortion access as it currently exists in New York State. This is just ensuring that were someone to try to change those statutes, there's still this constitutional protection.

In this last week, I really feel, Brian, this feels like déjà vu to 2021 with those previous ballot props that Senator Krueger mentioned related to voting rights, no excuse, absentee ballot, and same-day voter registration. What we saw ahead of that general election was this sudden infusion in spending from at that time, Ron Lauder was one of the big supporters of what was called the Just Vote No campaign. We are seeing an echo of that in this proposition. Except this time the money is coming from another billionaire. The New York Times was the first to report on some filings that were posted to the New York State Board of Elections.

About $6.5 million from Dick Uihlein, who runs the Uline Shipping Company as one of the founders of Schlitz Beer. also Thomas Tisch, who was a big backer of Lee Zeldin's gubernatorial campaign back in 2022. These are people who have invested in conservative causes in some cases related to election misinformation and calling to question the results of the 2020 presidential election, who have now also decided to invest in this particular initiative. Uihlein also invested about, according to The Times reporting, $4 million to defeat Ohio's abortion amendment.

You see this right towards the end of the campaign when people are making their decisions when they are most open to being influenced. I certainly saw it on the ground as I've been reporting.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Here's Eric in Bergen County. Eric, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Eric: Hello, can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, I can.

Eric: Hello? Oh, good. I just commented. [inaudible 00:28:39] I really thought the senator skirted the issue that you asked yesterday. Question on Prop 1 about will Proposition 1 allow and I'm just going to use the term boys in the girls' room because I think how she answered was it didn't really answer yes or no. I get that there's gender-neutral bathrooms. You can shut a door. That's a no-brainer. That should have been done 20 years ago. In the locker room now you have boys mingle with-- I really think she started the issue. Everyone knows where I'm coming from. I'm a dad with two daughters, so I really don't appreciate allowing that kind of a thing. It's almost as much as other rights that are being taken away.

Brian Lehrer: For you as a dad of daughters, the quote boys you're talking about are kids who are transgender and identify as girls. Is that threatening to your daughter in some way?

Eric: If he's got a package, he shouldn't be in the girls' room. Yes, I totally agree that I'm a Democrat, but what the Republican candidate said was it could definitely affect psychologically our daughters. I'm sorry, but they don't think like we do necessarily. I know my kids go, "Oh God, she's so LGBT proper. She's a junior in high school."

Brian Lehrer: Oh, go ahead. Finish your thought.

Eric: By the same token, when you get undressed, what do you got? It's not the same thing. I'm sorry, just I don't believe they should be blending the sexes that way and potentially harming girls that identify as girls for no reason.

Brian Lehrer: Eric, thank you for your call. I appreciate your call and your point of view to the question-- and people will hold whatever point of view they will on that question, but to Liz Krueger's answer, as you were listening to our interview, Brigid, did she clarify one way or the other whether it would? I think she said no, it wouldn't change existing law and it wouldn't change the ability of places that are localities like Nassau County currently won't let any team that has trans girls on the girls' sports teams use a public facility in the county. Liz Krueger seemed to be saying that it wouldn't change that.

Brigid Bergin: Yes, she did say that, and that is what most legal experts say, that there are existing laws in the New York State human rights law that already protect against discrimination based on your gender and also under gender. Then there's also guidance that the state Department of Education has given related to some of these issues, not necessarily related to sports issues. Then ultimately there are also federal Title IX issues, but that ultimately that this is about ensuring that there are some protections. Now, there are people who will continue to debate this. We've seen several of the state's major newspapers come out in support of Prop 1.

The New York Daily News Editorial Board, the Albany Times, Union, Buffalo News, Syracuse Post Standard, all have endorsed voting yes on Prop 1, while at the same time critiquing some of the language and saying that some of the wording is vaguer than it should be. Newsday, which is the paper of record for Long Island, came out against it. One of the issues that they raise in their opposition to Prop 1 is that they say that this could potentially start legal action to give the courts the power to decide what they call "cultural and political fights" that currently can't get a majority support in the state legislature.

To Senator Krueger's point, part of what she was saying is by making these protections part of the Constitution, it makes it easier for a court to support claims of discrimination. At this point, what opponents are saying is that potentially maybe new legal claims will emerge, and that is a possibility. I think fundamentally what supporters are trying to say is this is about ensuring that New York has within its state constitution, protections for abortion access and prohibition-- I'm not going to get that word out. To protect against different forms of discrimination than we have currently articulated, because, as she said, this equal protection clause has not been touched since 1938.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Sasha in Brooklyn who says she is the campaign director for Prop 1. Sasha, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Sasha: Hi, Brian. Hi, Brigid.

Brigid Bergin: Hey.

Sasha: I want to make sure that New York voters know and are reminded of how important it is to flip our ballots and vote yes on Prop 1. I just want to remind New York, voters, that moment two and a half years ago when Roe was overturned. Here in New York, we were shocked. We realized suddenly that our rights weren't as safe as we thought they were. We've seen states all across the country put the question of equality and of freedom and of protecting abortion access to voters.

Here's the reality, in some of the toughest political climates, in states like Kansas and Kentucky and Ohio and Michigan and Montana, and even friendlier states like California and Vermont, voters agree that our rights should be protected in the strongest possible way. Now let me be clear. The attacks that we're seeing on Prop 1, we've seen these same attacks in states all across the country. All of those states that have put the question of abortion and of freedom on the ballot, we see these same kinds of attacks. New Yorkers know, and public polling confirms that we live in a state that is overwhelmingly pro-choice, that supports equality, and supports freedom.

Brian Lehrer: Let me jump in on that point. We have a text from a listener who says I am voting against Prop 1 for no reason other than the fact that it is a virtue-signaling piece of legislation that doesn't add anything to already existing law.

Sasha: I'm sorry that that's where you are fellow voter. I will say to you this. We are speaking in a moment where 21 states have banned abortion. One in three women live in a state that does not have access to reproductive health care in the state in which they live. We think that we are safe here in New York. The reality that we've seen all across the country is that the political wind can shift at any time. We're talking about New York in 2024 as a battleground state and we know there are critical battleground races all across the state.

The political tides can continue to shift. I know and I want and I hope to live in a state where my rights and my freedoms are not the political football of politicians who come into office, but instead, they are protected in the safest way possible. They can only be protected if we codify them in our state constitution. We don't have a state constitutional guarantee to abortion. With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we don't have a federal constitutional guarantee. All we are doing with Prop 1 is codifying the protections that we already have on the book.

The laws that we fight to pass every single year, every single cycle, thanks to our legislators here in our state, we're codifying those rights and protections in the strongest possible way in our state constitution. That's what Prop 1 is about.

Brian Lehrer: Would it expand abortion rights in New York per your understanding, pass the Roe versus Wade standard? Somehow some states have no particular limitation like the viability standard that Roe implies.

Sasha: It would not. It would not have anything to do with viability. The law of the lens. What was true under Roe nationally is what is true in New York today, and that Will not change with Prop 1.

Brian Lehrer: Let me play for you since you called and you're the campaign director for Prop 1. I'm going to play one 30-second ad that I've seen and heard running against it and I'm going to give you an opportunity to respond to this, which opponents are using to argue against it. Let's listen.

Speaker 1: The border is broken. New York is paying the price and Proposal 1 would make it worse. This isn't about equal rights. It's about special rights for illegal immigrants. Just look on the ballot. National origin gets constitutional protection. Critics say it could block local efforts to deal with the migrant crisis, give illegals a constitutional right to taxpayer benefits, and open the door to non-citizens voting. Fight back. Vote no on Prop 1.

Brian Lehrer: Sasha, you get 30 seconds to respond to those 30 seconds.

Sasha: Sure. My friends, Prop 1 does absolutely [sound cut] change federal immigration laws. Prop 1 only protects the rights that we currently have. Prop 1 is about protecting our rights and our freedoms, including the right to abortion in New York State. Now the opposition wants to spread lies and misinformation because they know abortion is popular. They know protecting our rights and our freedoms in the strongest possible way is something that New York voters agree with and they are doing everything possible in a last-minute desperate attempt to divide and distract New York voters. New Yorkers, do not be fooled. Do not fall for these kinds of attacks.

Prop 1 is about protecting our rights and freedoms and you can vote yes by flipping your ballot when you go show up to vote on election day or when--

Brian Lehrer: You very much for calling in. By the way, I'll add this text, Brigid, to our analysis as we understand who the opposition is. Listener writes, "Our Catholic Church bulletin has had vote no to Prop 1 as its header for about a month."

Brigid Bergin: Wow.

Brian Lehrer: If that's true. Now we're going to go on to the other five ballot questions. Brids, I think we're devoting our time proportionately to the amount of attention that's being paid or the impact of one or another of these things. A lot of our time on Prop 1, not much on 2 through 6, but let's talk about these other four ballot measures, which again, unlike Prop 1, which is statewide, are only for voters in New York City. I'll read the text of these two in a minute. They're short, Brigid, am I right to frame these as a group that they're really about a power struggle between Mayor Adams and city council? Vote yes to give more power to the mayor, vote no to give more power to city council?

Brigid Bergin: I Think broadly speaking, yes, that is true. The background on how these particular ballot proposals were conceived, absolutely is yes to your description. This was done in a charter revision commission that lasted essentially two or three months as I think we've talked about probably before on the show. Charter revision commissions tend to last a year. They are usually a very thorough, thoughtful process. Academics are brought in. There is a lot of public comment. You look at the whole charter, which is a very big document, essentially the city's constitution, and that was not this process.

The result are these five questions, which certainly a lot of elected officials, particularly people who are currently opponents of Mayor Adams and his administration, object to strongly and look at this as just a path towards subverting the power of the city council. Preventing the council from putting forth its own ballot question related to giving them more power in approving certain appointments that the mayor has to make.

Brian Lehrer: Right. The council wants more. The US Senate has power to reject some of the mayor's appointees, and that was going to go on the ballot. The mayor has the power under New York City law to just avoid having that on the ballot at all by putting forth charter revision proposal questions of his own. Let's read a few of these. Here's number two. This might be the most different from the set, actually, but it says, "This proposal would amend the city charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation's power to clean streets and other city property and require disposable disposal of waste in containers.

Voting yes will expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation's power to clean streets." Would you explain that?

Brigid Bergin: At this point, some of those particular areas, you have different agencies that they have fallen under control of. Some of those city highways have been under the discretion of the Department of Transportation. This is clarifying that it would be the Department of Sanitation that can keep the city looking cleaner and being cleaner. The portion of that particular measure that starts to raise some eyebrows is related to the laws around street vendors and issuing fines within parks and other city-owned spaces. There are some concerns for advocates for street vendors that this would lead to additional crackdowns of those vendors themselves.

At this point, I think it falls into the space of trying to keep the city clean, trying to take care of these quality of life issues. City officials, particularly, of course, within the Department of Sanitation are very much in support of this measure.

Brian Lehrer: Question three. This proposal would amend the city charter to require fiscal analysis from the council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the mayor, and update budget deadlines. Then, number four, similar, the proposal would require additional public notice and time before the city council votes on laws respecting the public safety operations of the police, correction, or fire department. Number five, this proposal would amend the city charter to require more detail in the annual assessment of city facilities, mandate that facility needs, inform capital planning, and update capital planning deadlines.

Let's see, number six, finally, this proposal would amend the city charter to establish the chief business diversity officer, authorize the mayor to designate the office that issues film permits and combine archive boards. That one's a little obtuse. We'll get to that, but the other ones, they all seem to be aimed at slowing down city council from passing anything that relate in the three instances to anything that's fiscal, having to do with spending, anything to do with public safety, and anything to do with city facilities.

This is the mayor trying to slow down city council, as I think I've heard the mayor himself explain it, to have more time for the mayor to have input before the city council votes on anything.

Brigid Bergin: Right. I think the mayor and the council would agree that that is what these amendments are intended to do, to slow things down. Whether or not that's a good thing depends on who you ask. I think the council would say the mayor's office and his commissioners and these agencies already are invited to these hearings. They are invited to be part of the process. They are invited to testify, and oftentimes they don't. That this is an effort to claw power away from what is supposed to be the legislative branch that is a check to the executive branch, and that this really would gum up the works, so to speak, and slow things down in a way that is just not necessary.

Would give more power to the executive, in this case, Mayor Adams and his administration. At this particular moment, given everything that's happening at City Hall, some of the critics are pretty vocal about raising questions about whether or not you want to continue to consolidate power in such a way.

Brian Lehrer: Supporters of these measures would probably ask, how does it actually take power away from city council just to require more analysis or more time for the mayor to comment?

Brigid Bergin: You know, I spoke to Congressman Jerry Nadler, who actually was one of the people who has come out and signed this letter with several other lawmakers talking about being opposed to it, and to him, it's an infringement on the checks and balances. It's getting things out of order that to have to rely on the mayor's budget office analysis ignores the fact that the council has its own budget office and that they do an analysis. Why should the mayor's office's budget analysis take precedence over the council's?

It really starts to take away from their authority and that then takes some of the power away from this branch of government that is supposed to, as I said, serve as a check to the executive.

Brian Lehrer: Finally, on this Prop 6, which I admit I really don't understand. I'm going to read the text again. This proposal amend the city charter to establish the chief business diversity officer, authorized the mayor to designate that office, the office that issues film permits and combine archive boards. What? It's got diversity in there. It's got film permits, it's got archive boards. I have no idea.

Brigid Bergin: Brian, this is your grab bag ballot prop question. Essentially what this amendment would do is it would take a role of the chief business diversity officer, a position that was created by the Adams administration, and make it part of the city charter. Then it would realign some of the authorities to these other agencies and in some cases, it sounds like consolidate some agencies. I think the proponents of this legislation might say this is about making government more efficient, more effective. It feels a little bit like that game where you move the thing under the walnuts. It's kind of moving things around.

Fundamentally I think the big takeaway is that it enshrines this chief business diversity officer in the city charter. I would really recommend that listeners go to our website gothamist.com. My colleague Michelle Bocanegra wrote a great piece looking at all of these initiatives, both how they will appear in your ballot, what the amendment actually does. Give that a read. We also give you some links to additional information, but the most important thing is just to remember to flip over your ballot.

When I was out talking to voters on Saturday, people were more than happy to tell me why they were out, in some cases who they voted for, in some cases not. I was surprised in talking to some of the people who said that they were motivated by wanting to protect women's rights, women's right to choose. When I asked the follow-up, "Oh, did you flip over your ballot?" I got some blank stares. These are very lengthy ballots if you haven't voted yet, so prepare yourself for that.

I encourage listeners to go online, look up where your poll site is. You can go through the New York City Board of Elections website. The easy way to find it is just vote.nyc and then follow the prompts right there on the homepage, to look up your poll site, make sure you know where you're going. Then you can also put in your address and it will give you-- you can click to see a sample ballot. I think you can actually print it out even. That way you know all of the different candidates that you're going to be asked to vote on. You can make some of your decisions before you head to the poll site.

I have heard from people that there are lines. Now, lines aren't a bad thing. Sometimes lines can be a little bit fun, but you'll have some time to make up your mind. Brian, my last little plug, because I know listeners to the show might just be into this kind of thing. If you wait and go and early vote on Thursday, they have these Halloween-themed I-voted stickers and temporary tattoos for the kids.

Brian Lehrer: With chocolates?

Brigid Bergin: If you're lucky. Depends on your poll site. I suspect there's a limited number, but I may be waiting till Thursday to go vote so I can get my own sticker.

Brian Lehrer: Just one quick follow-up on Prop 6 from everything that you said. If it's basically to enshrine the position of chief diversity officer in the city charter, that sounds like something that progressives on city council might be in favor of, even if they're opposed to all these other ones that seem like power grabs by the mayor. Is that the case?

Brigid Bergin: Most progressives on the council are opposed to all of these questions. There is a campaign that they're calling NICs two through six, and that's in part not just because of some of the way power will shift, but really as we talked about at the beginning, the process. That a charter revision commission is supposed to do a certain set of things in a certain way. It should be done with time and care and expertise. The people who are a member of this particular charter revision commission, they took feedback from the public, but generally speaking, the public gets a lot more time to have more thorough conversation.

It just wasn't the expansive process that I think people think a charter revision commission should be.

Brian Lehrer: WNYC senior politics reporter Brigid Bergin, thank you so much.

Brigid Bergin: 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.