‘Yes’ to state proposals
Seven years ago, we described the proposed constitutional amendment to create a new redistricting process in New York as a sham of indepen- dence. Time, unfortunately, has only borne out that assessment.
A polarized board appointed mostly by politicians can’t agree on new legislative and congressional districts, so it looks like the matter will go back to the very Legislature that wasn’t supposed to be in charge of this process anymore. What a shocker!
So we realize it may come as something of a surprise that we support a proposal on the ballot this year to merely tweak that amendment rather than toss it altogether.
Proposal 1 would allow all residents of the state to be counted for redistricting purposes regardless of their citizenship status or inclusion in the census. Incarcerated people would be counted where they last lived, not in the prison they’re in. It would delete some unconstitutional language, streamline the commission’s rules to end some of the gridlock, fix language on the drawing of Senate districts, and freeze the number of state senators at 63 so lawmakers can’t tinker with it for partisan ends.
They’re all sensible proposals — not, as some are calling it, a Democratic power grab. Yes, scrapping the whole mistake and starting from scratch would be ideal. But politics is often the art of the possible rather than the perfect. We urge people to vote yes, and keep pressing the Legislature and governor to come up with a truly independent process for the future.
Three other proposals of statewide concern are on the ballot (there’s another concerning New York City courts that we don’t take a position on):
Proposal 2: This amendment is simple in wording and sweeping in its potential benefits: “Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.”
Opponents of this amendment tend to frame their argument as essentially, “We’re all for clean air and water and a healthful environment, but at what cost?” They paint a picture of courts flooded with litigation and judges usurping the Legislature’s budgetary and regulatory roles, ordering government and industry to pay untold sums of money so we can all live in an unrealistically pristine world.
To the contrary: New York’s courts are well aware of the role of the Legislature (and local governments) to set spending and policy. Consider that New York’s constitution and education law require that the state establish a public school system and fund it sufficiently to provide a sound, basic education. In the landmark Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, courts found the state’s funding inadequate, but left it to lawmakers to come up with an exact figure and a plan to provide it.
That’s exactly how the system should work on such a fundamental right. First, it’s essential to declare that the right exists, whether it’s the right of children to an education, or the right of all people to not breathe toxic chemicals or have their drinking water polluted — especially not for the sake of the private gain of some person or company that greased the right campaign accounts. And then lawmakers make laws that respect that right, governments carry out those laws to protect it, and aggrieved citizens can petition their government or courts when they believe that right has been violated.
We endorse this proposal. Proposals 3 and 4: These two proposals would strengthen voting rights.
Proposal 3 would end the requirement that people register to vote at least 10 days before an election; they could instead register as late as Election Day. This isn’t just for procrastinators, but for people who move or come of age right around an election and simply forget to register in all the excitement.
Opponents of this proposal suggest it would somehow allow people to vote who shouldn’t. Why that would be so isn’t clear. Elections boards are as capable of ensuring people are eligible voters on Election Day (or during early voting periods) as they are every other day of the year.
Proposal 4 is one we have long advocated: to allow no-excuse absentee voting. It would end the rule that people can only vote by absentee ballot if they are out of the county on Election Day, or have an illness or disability that prevents them from going to a polling place.
As we saw last year, absentee voting was wildly popular during the height of the pandemic. A Pew Research Center poll found that 46 percent of Americans voted by mail. Yes, the percentage was higher among Democrats than Republicans — 58 vs. 32 percent, respectively — which is no doubt the real reason many Republican leaders, from Donald Trump on down, oppose it, not the lie of voter fraud they keep going on about. It’s as baseless as it would be for Democrats to say that in-person voting (more popular with Republicans) is rife with fraud without a shred of proof.
Let voters vote, period. We endorse both of these proposals.