New York - Proposition #1

[shadowkat]

Any New Yorker's out there? If so, what do you think of... Proposition #1?

I have no idea how to vote on this issue. It's very controversial.

The New York State Constitution requires that every 20 years the people decide if a Constitutional Convention should be held to consider amendments to the State Constitution. The purpose of this Ballot Question is to allow the voters of New York State to determine whether a Constitutional Convention will be held in 2019.

If a majority voting on this Question votes NO, there will be no Constitutional Convention.

If a majority votes YES, three delegates from each state senatorial district and 15 atlarge statewide delegates will be elected in November 2018. The delegates will convene at the Capitol in April 2019. Amendments adopted by a majority of the delegates will be submitted to the voters for approval or rejection in a statewide referendum to be held at least six weeks after the Convention adjourns. The delegates will determine whether to submit proposed amendments as separate questions. Any amendments that the voters approve will go into effect on the January 1 following their approval.

If a majority votes in favor of a Constitutional Convention, then the delegates will receive for their services the same compensation as that payable to Members of the Assembly. The delegates also will be reimbursed for actual traveling expenses while the Convention is in session, to the extent that Members of the Assembly would be entitled reimbursement during a session of the Legislature.

The delegates will have the power to appoint the officers, employees, and assistants that they deem necessary and to fix the compensation of those officers, employees, and assistants. The delegates also will have the power to provide for the expenses of the Convention, including the printing of its documents, journal, and proceedings. The delegates will determine the rules of their proceedings, choose their officers, and be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of their members. A vacancy in an office of district delegate will be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates representing the district in which the vacancy occurs; a vacancy in the office of a delegate-at-large will be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates-at-large.

For: The Committee for a Constitutional Convention, one of the groups registered to support the question, stated:[19]

“ A constitutional convention, designed to enable the public to overcome entrenched interests, will in all likelihood be opposed by those entrenched interests, including the Legislature. That’s precisely the situation that the Constitution anticipates by giving the public every 20 years the right to convene a constitutional convention. All the entrenched interests will fight hard against a convention to preserve their prerogatives. If a convention is ultimately called, they will also fight to elect Delegates willing to protect those prerogatives. But for all of us a constitutional convention is a unique opportunity to secure needed change, and the election of Delegates committed to needed change has happened before and can be achieved again.[9] ”

Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb (R-131) said the state is long overdue for a constitutional convention. He stated:[14]
“ The beauty and necessity of a Constitutional Convention lies in its ability to reform the system and empower the people of New York to facilitate needed change. Voter empowerment is part of the very fabric of who we are as a nation. There is no more effective way to engage the public than a Constitutional Convention, and there is no place that needs it more than Albany. ...

It took seven years for the Legislature to act on a bill that strips convicted public officials of their taxpayer-funded pensions. This is among the most basic, common-sense bills I have come across in my 16 years in the Assembly. But it took seven years for it to move. Albany doesn’t act quickly or decisively enough. But, through a Constitutional Convention, the people can force action that lawmakers are unwilling to take.[9]"

Against:

The United Federation of Teachers stated the following on the constitutional convention question:[35]
“ A constitutional convention is unlimited in the scope of what it could change. This would place New York State’s rights and protections at risk of alteration or elimination, including the guarantee of a free public education, a prohibition against aid to non-public schools and the right to Workers’ Compensation. The right to unionize and bargain collectively and state requirements regarding pensions and social welfare could also wind up on the chopping block.[9] ”

District Council 37, a public employee union, stated:[36]
“ If this sounds like a long and cumbersome process, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. This is also a wasteful process that would give big business interests and anti-worker interests the opportunity to attack public services and the retirement security of the men and women who provide them.

If successful, these special interests would:

do untold damage to our retirement security by changing pension laws to reduce retirement benefits;
weaken the power of the state legislature on budget matters;
restrict and redefine the state government’s role in providing services for those in need; and
turn back the clock on workers’ compensation laws.”

Anthony Figliola, vice president of Empire Government Strategies, said:[37]
“ History has shown that a constitutional convention is nothing more than a carbon copy of a typical legislative session. In short, it’s a $335 million-plus workforce development initiative for the politically connected. ...

There is a less costly and more effective approach to changing our constitution and that is the public referendum process, which has successfully amended the constitution more than 200 times. ...

Voters seeking good government solutions can’t afford the luxury of another convention.”

I've no idea what to do on this one. I'm conflicted. The groups that have aligned against it are rather diverse and interesting:

It includes for example -- Planned Parenthood and Right to Life, also most unions and the Republic National Convention, along with Bill de Blasio.

Basically both liberals and conservatives. So I doubt it will get passed.

But, two people told me last week I should vote yes on it because it gives power back to the people. One, is a political activist who would be serving as a delegate. She's African-American and heavily involved in politics. They asked, don't I trust the people? (Well, no, not really. But I don't trust myself half the time.)

Suggestions, opinions would be welcome. Just try to back up your arguments and not rant. I've heard the rants, and they aren't helpful.

Comments

[cactuswatcher]

Unless you are unhappy with the general way your state's government works, you'd probably be well advised to vote no. This kind of convention at a time when we have deep divisions in the country is not really a good idea.

"Don't you trust the people?" They aren't talking about the people. They're pretending their views are "the people," and as they've already shown you, if you oppose them you must be against "the people." They don't even realize how dangerous that kind of thinking is!

[shadowkat]

Thank you. Very interesting response and articulates well some of my own misgivings about it.

This kind of convention at a time when we have deep divisions in the country is not really a good idea.

I have to agree. Having a convention, when there's a lot of fear and anger and divisiveness in the air may not be the best idea. Interestingly enough, according to the history of NY's Constitutional Conventions...they were held in the 1880s, shortly after or around the Civil War - another period of divisiveness. But when it came up again in the 70s and late 90s, 85% of the voters said no.

"Don't you trust the people?" They aren't talking about the people. They're pretending their views are "the people," and as they've already shown you, if you oppose them you must be against "the people." They don't even realize how dangerous that kind of thinking is!

There's some truth to this. The two women who handed me the handout -- want the convention so that they can amend the Constitution to allow every New Yorkers to vote in every primary, without having to register as Democrat or Republican. That's their big agenda by the way. They are upset that their lack of a party affiliation or refusal to register as a Democrat or Republican made it impossible for them to vote in the Republican and Democratic Primaries held last year. And they are convinced if they had...Bernie would have won NY (not necessarily, I wasn't affiliated with either party and would have voted for Hillary Clinton. Also various states, such as Illinois, who do not have this rule went with Clinton and Trump, so I honestly don't believe it mattered as much as they wish to think it does.).

The handout I have says:

* Our constitution should defend the right of every New Yorker to vote in every election without having to join a political party. That is what a constitution is supposed to do.

Except technically we do have that right. During the primaries, in NY, you have the right to vote in your political parties primary, and if you don't have one, you don't vote in the primaries, but in the major election. The major election isn't necessarily determined by primaries -- there are write in candidate options.

I also don't think it can pass. Too much fear in the air. And mainly because there's too many people out there who have become politicized in a manner that is divisive.

[conuly]

Fascinating. I didn't get a handout about a NYS convention, but I got one about a USA convention of states and that was super conservative: https://conuly.dreamwidth.org/2576922.html

[shadowkat]

Proposition One handout that I got was from a far left, social justice activist.

And it's very different than a Convention of States on the US Constitution. This is just regarding the New York State Constitution. (There is no way in heck I would vote to amend the US Constitution, okay wait a minute I take that back. I would amend the clause regarding who can run for President of the US. Trump should never have been permitted to run for President. The Constitution should be amended to ensure that never happens again.)

[cjlasky7]

My wife is a NYC schoolteacher. As much as I theoretically like the idea of a Constitutional Convention, in the current political environment, I view this proposition as a direct threat to her tenure and her employment in general.

So "no."

[shadowkat]

But how is it a direct threat to her tenure and employment in general? I read through it twice and don't see anything.

The people at work believe it is a direct threat to our pensions, we're government employees and union represented. So they are afraid it could cost us jobs and pensions. But no where does it say that.

Meanwhile the people pushing for it, want it because they think it would give New Yorker's the right to self govern, and to vote in every election without having to join a political party. (They are upset about what happened in 2016, when 50% of New Yorker's couldn't vote in the primaries because they were registered with third parties, while other states did not have this rule. And when any Senate seat becomes vacant in the State Senate at mid-term -- it's up to the party to refill the seat, and often just that party votes, not everyone in the district.)

The people against it -- are scared that it will permit the delegates to change everything. And for special interests to remove stuff.

The people for it -- explained that you can't really do away with a teacher's tenure track or do away with a person's pension via the constitution, because those are dictated by their union contracts. (Which is actually true to an extent.) Also any changes to the constitution would have to be voted on by everyone in the state not just the delegates. Basically it would do to NY what is currently happening in California, where you have referendums. So from a legal perspective, no, they can't do away with your wife's tenure via changing a clause in the New York State Constitution. That's governed by her contract, and it's pre-existing.

The problem I'm having with politics right now -- is there is a lot of misinformation out there, and no factual back-up.

The reason, I'm thinking strongly of voting against it -- is that right now, there is no consensus, lots of fear, anger, and hate, and too much misinformation. And no, I don't think the people can self-govern right now, too much self-interest.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that our government is corrupt on the state, local and federal levels. I see it first hand in my job, daily. But, I'm not certain a constitutional convention is the way to resolve it. Cactuswatcher makes some valid points, from an objective perspective.

[cjlasky7]

Yes, tenure is guaranteed by the current contract.

But I fear that a Constitutional Convention in the current climate would result in devastating losses for the NYC public school system and a severe weakening of union power. I do not want the state to start rolling down that slippery slope.

[shadowkat]

That's sort of what people in my work place are afraid of, along with other public sector employees...which is that it could potentially cause a weakening of union power in various industries. (All the unions are against Proposition #1. I looked at the list, it was basically every single union in the state.)

The argument is that our contracts protect us. But I'm contract specialist and I know that changes in constitutional and state laws can affect and change contracts. It's 1)Constitutional Law, 2) Legislative Laws, 3) Contractual Agreements. Where there's a conflict, it depends, but often the hierarchy governs.

I'm thinking no. The arguments to vote yes, seem rather politically naive.
(Also I don't think it can and should pass for the reasons Cactuswatcher states above...and the mere fact that there is so much opposition. People and groups that despise each other, agree not to pass it. The consensus is currently against it.)

PS: Still interested in seeing Thor: Ragnorack this month?

[conuly]

The UFT doesn't like it, judging from lawn signs.

[shadowkat]

None of the unions due. Just look at the link I provided. The AF-CLU doesn't, United Federation of Teachers, etc. It's basically every union in the state.

It's not getting passed. The only people who like it are either the ones serving as delegates, the poli-sci geeks who think it will be cool (and I understand that group actually, because I'm a poli-sci/history geek) and ... the people who are desperate for change. And they're in the minority.

I personally don't see the need for it, and the fact that our crazy-ass governor is all for it, gives me pause.