Millions of people in New York will make their voices heard this election cycle, casting their votes for the presidency, the Senate, the State Legislature, and in a number of key congressional races that will help determine which party controls the House.
But if voters flip their ballots over, they can also weigh in on ballot proposals that could amend the state’s Constitution and change the law in New York City.
The first measure, Proposition 1, which will appear on all ballots throughout the state, will ask voters if they support a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights. The other five, which will only appear on ballots in New York City, would make changes to the city’s governing charter.
The citywide proposals, known as Propositions 2 through 6, were suggested by a 13-member Charter Revision Commission that Mayor Eric Adams appointed earlier this year. The move effectively killed a ballot proposal floated by the City Council, which would have curtailed the mayor’s power to unilaterally make some commissioner-level appointments.
Leading elected officials, including the city comptroller, public advocate and nearly half the Council, oppose all five citywide measures. Council members have argued that approving them would give the mayor too much power over their ability to pass laws. The Council warned in a guide to the measures that passing them could “weaken checks-and-balances, making city government less responsive to New Yorkers.”
All six ballot initiatives will appear in clear language after a state law passed last year required them to be written at an eighth-grade reading level.
Early voting starts in New York on Saturday, Oct. 26, and runs through the following Sunday, Nov. 3. Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 5.
Voters in New York City and across the state can check the Board of Elections’ websites to find out more about where, when and how to vote.
Here’s an overview of the proposals. And for a rundown of six key House races to watch across the state, go here.
Proposition 1: Amendment to protect against unequal treatment
A “yes” vote would approve an amendment to the state’s Constitution to include protections against discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive health care and autonomy.
Who supports this?
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, Democrats across the state, including Gov. Kathy Hochul, prioritized the passage of this amendment. They say it will protect New Yorkers from future political headwinds by enshrining in the state’s Constitution a broad set of rights, including the right to an abortion.
The measure would also protect New Yorkers from discrimination based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability status, among others. It was endorsed by the League of Women Voters, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the N.A.A.C.P., and is “overwhelmingly” supported by 69 percent of likely voters, according to a recent Siena poll.
Who opposes this?
Republicans and anti-abortion activists are among the measure’s opponents. Some point out that abortion is already legal in New York and argue that changing the Constitution isn’t necessary. Others are concerned about the protections related to sexual orientation, national origin and gender identity that would be enacted if the measure were to pass.
The most heated attacks have centered on the protections the amendment would offer to transgender people — particularly transgender girls, who many Republicans believe should not be allowed to play on sports teams with cisgender girls. Such protections already exist in New York.
What else to know: The debate has been rife with misinformation.
Opponents of the measure have warned that the amendment would allow undocumented migrants to vote and allow children to make health care decisions without their parents’ consent. Neither is true, according to the New York City Bar Association.
Proposition 2: Cleaning public property
A “yes” vote would give the New York City Department of Sanitation jurisdiction over public spaces like parks and highway medians, in addition to the streets and sidewalks already under its purview. The change would also enable the department to enforce regulations about how street vendors operate in parks, and empower it to regulate how garbage should be stored on sidewalks before it is collected, as a part of the city’s push to containerize trash.
Why was this proposal suggested?
In its final report outlining recommended changes to the City Charter, the Charter Revision Commission said expanding the department’s enforcement powers would clear up ambiguity about what zones it can clean. The charter currently says the department is responsible for “the cleanliness of the streets,” and the proposed ballot measure would expand that responsibility to other kinds of city property.
What do critics say?
A coalition called No Power Grab NYC, which is made up of nearly 60 groups, including social justice organizations and progressive nonprofits, is urging New Yorkers to vote against all of the city propositions.
The Street Vendor Project, a nonprofit that supports vendors and offers legal advice and is part of the coalition, is particularly concerned with Proposition 2.
“When you read the ballot question, what it doesn’t mention is that it will increase these abusive and often violent enforcement actions against street vendors,” said Carina Kaufman-Gutierrez, the organization’s deputy director.
The proposal, Ms. Kaufman-Gutierrez said, “sounds innocent,” but its title and description don’t reflect the potential consequences for vendors, many of whom say they have been unfairly targeted.
Proposition 3: Additional estimates of the cost of proposed laws and updates to budget deadlines
Before voting on legislation, the City Council estimates the financial effect it would have. Proposition 3 would require the Council to release fiscal impact statements earlier, before it holds public hearings on a bill. It would also mandate that the Council notify the mayor eight days before public hearings or votes on new legislation and enable the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget to draft its own financial assessments of Council bills.
Why was this proposal suggested?
The Charter Revision Commission’s final report said that the Council can underestimate the cost of new programs and initiatives, forcing the city to find money to fund them beyond what it had budgeted.
The Citizens Budget Commission, a nonpartisan think tank, supports Proposition 3. The group’s president, Andrew S. Rein, testified in favor of publishing the financial analyses earlier in the legislative process and endorsed the proposal in a statement.
“Knowing a proposed bill’s estimated fiscal impact would better enable the public and Council members to weigh the legislation’s costs and benefits,” Mr. Rein wrote.
What do critics say?
Opponents of Proposition 3 say that it would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the legislative process. In testimony to the commission, Jason Adolfo Otaño, the general counsel for the City Council, cautioned that the earlier deadline would “deter the work of the legislative body.”
Amanda Jack, director of policy for the Legal Aid Society’s criminal defense practice, said the proposal would do little to clarify the costs of new laws. The measure, she added, was a part of an attempt to “wrest control into the executive and out of the legislature.”
Proposition 4: More notice and time before votes on public safety legislation
This measure would require the City Council to give at least 30 days’ notice before it votes on changes to the public safety operations of the Police, Fire and Correction Departments. It would also allow the mayor and public safety agencies to hold their own hearings on public safety bills proposed by the Council.
Why was this proposal suggested?
Officials from the city’s Police, Fire and Correction Departments, and leaders of their associated unions, told the Charter Revision Commission that the agencies should be consulted before certain policy changes are enacted.
Law enforcement groups say Proposition 4 would encourage more public engagement with public safety bills before they become law. John Nuthall, a spokesman for the Police Benevolent Association, the police officers’ union, said the group “supports the proposal’s goal of increasing public input on public safety legislation.”
What do critics say?
The New York Civil Liberties Union has urged voters to vote no on Proposition 4. Donna Lieberman, the group’s executive director, said that the measure would grant the mayor’s office undue power over legislation intended to keep the Police, Fire and Correction Departments in check.
“This addition of a layer of bureaucracy around what the Council can do is designed 100 percent to give the mayor more time and more power to get in the way,” Ms. Lieberman said.
Reinvent Albany, a good government group, also opposes the measure, saying in a statement that it is “arbitrary and illogical” that certain kinds of legislation would be subject to different rules and timelines.
“We believe that one type of issue does not deserve more consideration than another by the City Council,” the statement said.
Typically, proposed legislation must be finalized at least seven calendar days (excluding Sundays) before a vote.
Proposition 5: Capital planning
The city produces an annual report that lays out plans to expand, close or build new city facilities. This measure would require it to include more information about the condition of city-owned facilities. It would also mandate that the city consider the maintenance needs of its facilities when it drafts a different report that is published every two years.
Why was this proposal suggested?
According to the Charter Revision Commission’s final report, the proposal is intended to “improve capital planning and help ensure that future generations of New Yorkers benefit from world-class infrastructure.”
What do critics say?
The city’s comptroller, Brad Lander, had said in recommendations to the commission that the city needed to “overhaul” its capital planning. But he has come out in opposition to Proposition 5 because he said it “fails to improve the city’s capital planning process in any way.” The measure, he said in a statement, wouldn’t do enough to make the city’s capital planning more transparent.
The commission has cited his recommendations to explain why the proposal is needed, but Mr. Lander has called the move a “transparently false attempt to lend credibility to a meaningless measure.”
Proposition 6: Minority and women-owned business enterprises, film permits and archive review boards
If it passes, this proposal would codify a new position filled by Mr. Adams last year: the chief business diversity officer, which is a part of the Mayor’s Office of Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises. The measure would also give the mayor the power to change which city office issues film permits, and would combine two city boards that deal with municipal archives.
Why was this proposal suggested?
During the Charter Revision Commission’s hearings, several business owners who have participated in the Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises program testified in favor of centralizing the office.
Assemblywoman Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, the Brooklyn Democratic leader, is the chair of a committee that oversees the program. She testified in favor of formalizing the program as an independent city office, a recommendation some members of the commission endorsed but that the commission did not adopt.
Still, Ms. Bichotte Hermelyn said in a statement that she supported Proposition 6 “because it would ensure the chief business diversity officer is a permanent addition to City Hall.”
As for the two archival boards, Pauline Ann Toole, the commissioner of the department that oversees them, testified to the commission in favor of consolidating them, in the interest of increasing “efficiency and accountability.”
What do critics say?
Opponents of the measure describe it as a grab bag of changes to unrelated offices that could have been accomplished through City Council legislation. Make the Road New York, an immigrant rights group, opposes the proposal.
“The ballot measures do actually have some pretty big changes that would be felt in the lives of the average New Yorker,” said Theo Oshiro, the group’s co-executive director. “Proposition 6, however, is not one of those.”