October 28, 2024 • 28 mins
As we near election day and early voting continues, we discuss the six ballot proposals for New York City voters with Eric Friedman, of NYC Votes, an initiative of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, the independent city agency that ensures local elections are fair, inclusive, and open. For more, including detailed info about each proposal, visit nycvotes.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to Get Connected with Nina del Rio, a weekly
conversation about fitness, health and happenings in our community on
one oh six point seven Light FM.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Thanks for listening to get connected. As we near election
day and early voting continues, we have a conversation about
the six ballot proposals for New York City voters, and
our guest is Eric Friedman of NYC Votes, an initiative
of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, the independent
city agency that ensures local elections are fair, inclusive, and open.
You can find out more at the website NYC votes
(00:36):
dot org. Eric Friedman, thank you for being on the show.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Before we talk about specific issues, let's just talk about
what you do. What does the New York City Campaign
Finance Board do? And NYC Votes again.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Thanks so much for the opportunity. So New York City
Campaign Finance Board does a couple things. Our role in
the city is to make our local democracy more open,
more transparent, and more equitable, and we do that in
a couple of ways. Oversee the city's Mastering Funds program
for city elections, which helps bring more candidates into the
political system. Gives more people a voice, and we hope
(01:09):
makes government more reflective of the people who live here
and more responsive to their day to day needs. The
other thing we do, and you mentioned this right at
the start, we oversee the city's nonpartisan voter engagement program,
which we conduct under the band around YC Votes, and
we have a mandate to engage voters and convince more
(01:31):
New Yorkers to registered vote and vote with a specific
focus on communities that are underrepresented among voters are So
we do great, big broadcast platforms that speak to everybody,
like our citywide voter Guide, which you mentioned, goes in
the mail to every registered voter, and we also publish
it online at NYC votes dot org. And we also
(01:52):
do specific outreach in organizations where folks may need a
little bit of a specific, targeted information to help them
recognize their power in the political system.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
I think it's worth mentioning too, that while so much focus,
of course is largely on the national races and the
state races, when you vote for local issues, you're really
voting for things that may be more impactful to your
everyday life.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Oh gosh, yes, that's absolutely true. Like everybody, I think
everybody knows we've got a big, high stakes, historic election
coming up in November. Right now, we've got the presidential race.
Most people can't avoid news about the presidential election. They
should be living in an area with a hotly contested
congressional race or a tight race, or state Assembly or
state Senate. You're getting mailers in your mailbox every day,
(02:38):
You're hearing a lot about it. But you know we've
gotten your city. It's some incredibly important questions on the
back of your ballot, questions that will make a difference
in your everyday life. So again, part of the role
that we can play in the city is providing New
Yorkers with information about what's there. We're a nonpartisan government agency.
Our role is to provide trusted, impartial, non partisan information.
(03:03):
We're never going to tell you how to vote, but
we do want you to vote. So we're focused on
making sure that every voter has the information they need
to make an informed decision. Polls in the selection. One
last point I'll make about these ballot questions that will
appear on the back of New Yorker's ballots in November.
I mean, one of the things we see in recent
elections that have had questions on the back of the
(03:26):
ballot like we have this year is a drop off.
People will vote for the races on the front, whether
it's governor or congress or mayor, but they'll forget to
shun their ballot over. About one in five voters forget
to turn their ballot over, and they hand off responsibility
for choosing to everybody else. We want every New Yorker
(03:47):
to remember they've got these questions. They do matter. They
make a difference in what rights they have as citizens
and how government is run, how government organizes itself. And again,
I'm just really happy you're making time for us to
discuss them today.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, let's get to Pallette Proposal number one. So this
one seems relatively straightforward. Adds certain protections to the state
Bill of Rights. Please tell us a little bit more sure.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
So.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
The first proposal is a statewide ballot measure commonly known
as Equal Rights Amendment. If it is passed, it would
amend the state constitution. Now, amending the state constitution is
a really big deal. It's difficult to do. In order
for the Equal Rights Amendment to appear on the ballot
next year, it had to be passed by the New
York State legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions, and as
(04:37):
a result of that happening, it's going to be on
the ballot for New Yorkers to way. And then this
is the last step in the process amending the state constitution.
But the state constitution currently has some fundamental civil rights
protections embedded there, you know, not unlike the United States Constitution.
What it says is that no person shall be denied
(04:58):
the equal protection of the laws of this State eight
or any subdivision there are. So it says that no
person shall, because of race, color, creed, or religion, be
subjected to any discrimination as ahard civil rights. Now, the
effort behind the Equal Rights Amendment says that that list
is kind of eliminating. We we are aiming to expand
(05:18):
the protection of the law to more classes of people, right,
So it adds to that list. The new language, if
it passes, would amend the state consciences to say that
no person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed, religion,
(05:41):
or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy,
pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care, and autonomy, be subjected
to any discrimination in their suborbits. So, you know, supporters
of this of the egal Rights Amendment, you know again
they are there, are excited about protecting event against discrimination
(06:02):
and safeguarding in particular reproductive rights such as abortion and
contraception and in rechar fertilization in the New York State constitution.
And once those rights are there, they're very difficult to
As we discussed, they're there, and because the state constitution
it's difficult to amend. People feel pretty confident about those
protections living on into the future. People who oppose the
(06:28):
Equal Rights Amendment are people who expressed the opposition to
extending these protections for abortion, for other reproductive health measures.
They voiced concerns about gender identity and its impacts on
various aspects of public life. But you know, the basic
facts are that, if passed, the amendment would indeed enshrine
(06:50):
those protections in the state constitution.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That is balid proposal number one, which is the least controversial,
perhaps of them. Let's move on to ballid proposal number two.
So we're speaking, by the way, with Eric Friedman of
NYC Votes. You can find out more about the ballot proposals.
The six up for vote at NYC votes dot org. So,
ballot proposal number two is about cleaning public property, and
(07:15):
I'll read just the basic summary of it, and if
you could talk a little bit more so, the Department
of Sanitation of New York would have increased authority to
keep all city property clean, including parks and highway medians,
and to hold street vendors accountable for following rules at
these locations. It would also allow the dsn WY to
regulate how New Yorkers put out their garbage for collection.
(07:36):
Why would someone be for this, why would someone be
against this? Or what are the statements I guess you're
seeing in in response to this?
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Sure? Sure, well, if I could step back for just
a second and sure kind of draw a distinction between
this first question you just discussed the state level ecal
Rights Amendment and the other proposals that folks will see
on their ballots. Yes, sure, so those two, three, four, five, six,
those questions rose from a Charter revision commission called by
Mayor Eric Adams, and he, you know, he charged them
(08:05):
to look at issues around public safety and fiscal responsibility.
And what char Charter Revision Commission, what it does or
can do, is suggesting them as to this New York
City Charter, which is kind of like the city's constitution.
This charter revision, as many others, do both public hearings,
they can conduct outreach to New Yorkers in every borough
(08:28):
to solicit public input, and the proposals that New Yorkers
will see on the ballot are what that commission produced.
There are some New Yorkers, some organizations, some elected officials
have voiced general opposition to these proposals, arguing that the
commission's work was conducted way too quickly and didn't involve
(08:49):
enough input. But the Charter Vision Commission posts its reports
and the testimonies it receives online, and I think supporters
of their work maintained that they conducted a sufficient level
of public input to kind of get to the point
where they're ready to propose changes to the city chart.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
There has definitely been debate about the process. Like you mentioned,
people say that the commission was appointed by the mayor,
things were done very quickly. The City Council has criticized
the process, the NYCLU has criticized the process. There's been
a lot of back and forth on this, but nevertheless,
these proposals are going up in front of us. So
this is what we're looking at. So this one ballot
(09:29):
proposal number two about cleaning public property, which we give
more authority to the Department of Sanitation. And I think
one of the things people are most curious about is
this ability to be able to issue summons to street
vendors those have been climbing in the last few years.
People are saying this will only lead to perhaps more
targeting of people who are just trying to make a
(09:50):
living selling stuff on the street. So that's kind of
the underpinning of this.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
Yes, yeah, I mean, I think you summed up the
arguments that we've heard against this pretty well, as you
certainly heard from folks when we solicited comments from the
public who are concerned that shifting enforcement in this way
over street vendors would would lead to more crackdowns. Currently,
responsibility for keeping public parks clean and enforcing city regulations
(10:22):
over street vendors is within the NYPD. This proposal would
move that enforcement to the Department of Sanitation. Now, the
folks who support this question say that expending and clarifying
DSN wise powers is going to make public splaces clean.
But I think you've hit on one of the subjects
that folks are a little bit worried about. This proposal
(10:46):
have raised as a reason for New Yorkers to vote.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Now you're listening to get connected on one O six
point steven light FM, i'mina del rio. Ballot Proposal number
three is a little bit weedy. So it is about
additional estimates. Would allow additional estimates of the cost of
propose laws and updates to budget deadlines, which in layman's
terms means.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
What ah good question. So, the City Council's legislative process
currently requires, and this is a good thing, right, it
requires the City Council to produce a cost estimate for
the bills that it passes. Right, you pass a bill,
it requires a new program. These programs don't just fall
(11:29):
out of the sky, and so there is a process
on the city council side to estimate the cost of
the programs that it proposes and intends to pass into law.
One of the things that Question number three would do
is to require that before a bill is considered to
getting passed into law, that the mayor, his administration and
(11:53):
his office of a Management budget produce and provide its
own cost estimate of bills that are under consideration by
the city Council. Supporters would say that the folks who
are actually going to be administering these programs to produce
what they feel is a more accurate estimate of the
cost of the legislation that's under consideration by the council.
(12:15):
But you know, we've also heard from critics who are
concerned that a mayor could could delay or kill legislation
by withholding the information needed to conduct that required annalysis.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
And what we're essentially ending up with, as far as
I understand it is two sets of competing facts, are we.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Not potentially Yeah, that's right in those critics who are
concerned about that worry that it might overcomplicate the lawmaking
process in a way that makes the mayor less responsive
to New Yorkers. Again, on the other side, you've got,
you know, supporters, supporters of the measure would say, look,
it's the mayor who's sponsored for these programs. He should
(12:57):
be the one or she should be the one estimating
true cost of new programs or new laws before they
are enacted.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Well, that said, the Campaign Finance Board, according to your website,
has received no statements in support of this proposal. Who
were among those who have made statements in opposition.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, among the folks who provided us with statements in
opposition to Question three a City Council Speaker Adrian Adams,
along with Lee Laid Society and organizations other organizations including
New Yorker's Defending Democracy, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Projects, and
the Jail's Action Coalition and Halt Solitary Campaign. Some of
(13:38):
these are general statements of general opposition to all of
the Charter vision questions. Some, like the comments we received
from the Council speaker were directed pretty squarely at this
question three.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Our guest is Eric Friedman of NYC Votes. It's an
initiative of the New York City Campaign Finance Board. We
are talking about the ballot proposals in front of New
York City voters for Election Day this year. The website
with more information too is NYC votes dot org. You're
listening to get connected on one six point seven light FM.
I'mina del rio. Ballot Proposal number four also very sort
(14:14):
of legally easy, allows for more notice and time before
votes on public safety legislation. Can you break that one
down for us briefly?
Speaker 3 (14:24):
So, this proposal would require additional public notice in time
before the city Council votes on laws that deal with
public safety, but specifically with the operations of the Police Department,
arman correction, or the Fire Department. It would require the
city Council to give an additional thirty days notice before
it votes on bills that deal with public safety, and
(14:46):
it provide the mayor and those agencies additional time to
hold public hearings on their own and solicit additional public input.
You know, if if you look at the report that
was published by the Charter Commission, they highlight two specific
bills that were passed by the City Council over the
detail of the mayor right, one that requires the NYP
(15:09):
to report on common low level encounters as members of
the public and another that essentially was was aimed at
prohibiting like punitive sorts of segregation or solitary confinement in
city jails, especially at Riker's Island. So those bills were
passed by the city Council over the mayor's veto the
(15:31):
mayor's argument and then and supporters of this question suggests
that you know this additional time and an opportunity for
public input is required. So that folks who whose opinions
they feel weren't being hurt have time to express those
opinions and and and weigh in on bills that address
(15:56):
these these really important topics. I think that opponents of
the proposal would say, Look, the City Council already has
a process that allows for and in fact requires public
hearings before bills are considered and passed these bills. This
process applies to bills that address public safety and every
(16:19):
other type of legislation you know. They say, well, you know,
the City Council deals with full range of issues that
are important to New Yorkers everyday lives, education, street safety,
the environment, list off any issue you could choose, and
wonder why this specific subject should be And they wonder
(16:44):
why issues solely on public safety should require a legislative
process that is different.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
And I would point out that even though this seems
relatively straightforward, the campaign Finance Board has received the most
number of public comments opposing it as far as I
could see, not only the City Council, of course, but
the Legal Aid Society, New York Civil Liberties Union, and
on and on. There are many people that think it
hinders the timely response that could be made to public
safety threats. So that's what's going on with that one.
(17:16):
We're rounding the Bend ballot proposal number five. The city
must assess the cost of maintaining city facilities, infrastructure and
investments and publish there are assessments in capital planning reports.
What is the issue here? I know there's some issue
with this one. Controller Brad Lander is particularly incensed with
this one.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Yeah, So this proposal basically require more detail on that
annual assessment city facility is that the administration conducts. It
mandates that what they learned from that assessment those needs
inform the city's capital planning and require and update the
deadlines around capital planning. So, you know, if it passes,
(17:56):
it would expand the christ here as uses to assessment
costs on city property. And it also changed the due
date for those reports and the dates for the public
hearing that goes with it. You know, people who who
were in favor of this measure say that for more transparency,
transparency is a good thing, particularly around the city's infrastructure
(18:20):
and capital planning process, which they say is too big.
But critics of the proposal you pointed out one are
saying that this language actually doesn't do what it says
it does, that it wouldn't meaningfully improve transparency or the
city's infrastructure planning whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
The gist I read from Controller Bradlander is that it's
sort of this billboard on something with nothing behind it.
It really doesn't address all the recommendations that he had
made through his office. So that is ballot proposal number five.
You're listening to get connected on one O six point
seven light FM. I Meana del Rio. We're speaking, by
the way, with Eric Friedman of n y SEE votes.
(19:00):
You can find out more about the ballot proposals the
six up for vote at NYC votes dot Org. Number
six is interesting to me because it kind of winds
a bunch of things all together. It is minority and
women to own business enterprises, a special board would be created,
a new role. It addresses how film permits are given
(19:21):
in the city, and collapses a couple of boards together,
the archive review boards. Can you talk about that one?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Sure? Sure? So this last one, as you alluded to,
it's a three parttern. You know a lot of times,
you know, if you look at the work of past
Charter vision commissions, it's not unusual for commissions to kind
of take a few smaller issues and train them together
in a single question to put in front of the voters.
And that's what we have here with this final question
number six. It would create a new role to support
(19:51):
minority business enterprises. It would allow the mayor to designate
which agency issues film permits and two boards that manage
city records into a single board. So people who who
voice support for this proposal particularly highlighted the establishment of
(20:12):
what would be a permanent Chief Business Diversity Officer. They
appreciate the opportunity to build on the success the city's
scene in the Mayor's office media and entertainment, and see
some benefit consolidating the power to issue film permits with
that agency rather than, you know, having some productions go
through the Department of Small Business Services. And they see
(20:35):
some value in merging two archive boards that might be
a little bit redundant. For folks who are opposing it,
we've heard that questions about why these three issues that
seem to be unrelated are all being crammed together in
a single proposal. They are asking why in the end
we actually need to put these in front of voters.
(20:56):
You know, aren't these issues that could be handed DoLS
administratively by you know, by city hall, rather than putting
them out in from the voters.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Is there a particular need for it, I mean, collapsing
city agencies. Is that not something that can just be
done through the mayor's office without a public vote.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Well, there are certain certain things if you're talking about
creating a new agency, if you're talking about disbanding an agency,
Questions like that I think normally do go through a
kind of a ballot referendum, you know, particularly if they
involve altering or expending or or contracting the power of
the mayor or other elected officials. But there are other
(21:36):
pieces where we're looking at kind of the scope of
a particular agency, or if we're creating a staff position.
You know. A lot of these are are are items
that can and oftentimes are done administratively by agency action
without going through a charter vision process.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Going back to the beginning of the conversation, and we
talked about ballot Proposal one, which is a statewide proposal,
and proposals two through six again that we're sort of
that were ushered through the mayor's office. Given and whether
you can comment on this or not I realize given
the sort of the mayor's situation at the moment, will
(22:22):
voters be aware of where those the origin of two
through six came from. It they come from, you know,
the mayor's office versus some other the city council or
whomever else, because by law, the city council cannot have
their ey as I understand it, cannot have the proposals
on the same ballot.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Correct, that's correct, Yeah, that's correct. There they're part of
the public referendum, the process to mend the charter. A
charter vision commission appointed by the mayor does sort of
block the opportunity for the city council to place its
own referendum on the ballot.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
And is that typical every election, by the way.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
Not at all. You know, we have in recent years
had several charter referendum on the ballot. You know, if
you go back to twenty twenty two, there is a
series of proposals that were proposed by a Charter division
commission convened by Mayor build Blasio. The Racial Justice Commission
(23:27):
proposed several changes to the charter. Prior to that, in
twenty nineteen, there were charter proposals that were offered up
by commission appointed by the city Council, and that included
instituting rank tchist voting for city elections and primaries. Prior
to that, it was a commission appointed by Mary to
Blasio that posed changes to the city's campaign finance program
(23:52):
and those were accepted by voters. So we've had over
the years ballot questions that have come from both there
from from a mayor point commission, from a council point commission.
It is not that frequent where you have sides kind
of competing over over which proposals would take precedence. But
(24:15):
you know what I mean, what is clear is that
this year we've got questions that come from a charter
charter vision commission to be to be clear, appointed by
the mayor. But commissions should be somewhat arms length from
a mayoral administration, right the mayor appoints the commissioners. But
(24:36):
you know, in theory that commission, you know, once it convenes,
is free to go where ever it chooses, once it
opens up the charter and starts solicitening input and taking
recommendations from the public. You know, I know some of
the public commentary and we've talked a little bit about
it earlier in the conversation is that you know, this
(24:58):
this particular process a little rushed and some of the
issues were kind of baked in at the start. But
you know, we've certainly had in previous Charter Vision Commissions
discussions that truly did take on a broad range of
issues that kind of went beyond their their initial charge
or where the appointing authority thought they would go. You know,
(25:19):
whether this is one of those I suppose I will
leave to other commentators to.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Sit through just in our last minute or so, because
we've gone a little over. But I think this is
really such a useful conversation. Can you just for people
who have missed the beginning of this conversation, can you
just maybe make the point again about how important it
is to turn over the ballot and take a look
at these issues, because they really do have an impact
on people's lives in a much larger way, sometimes than
even the federal government.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Oh gosh, that's for sure. You know something. We get
these questions, and I think you've alluded to them. They
feel a little wonky, right, and a little bit in
the weeds, and sometimes it takes a little work to
figure out kind of what am I really being asked
to vote on here. But that's part of the reason
(26:08):
why you know, we at NSC votes in the campaign
financeport you know, really see this as a gap that
we can help fill. You know. That's why the voter
Guide that we printed and mail to voters earlier this
month hopefully sitting in your mailbox as you're listening, uh,
deals with these ballot proposals and starts voters starts to
(26:30):
get voters of the information that they need to vote
with confidence on the questions that are going to appear
on the ballot. That's why we focused on it as
as a major part of our online voter guide, which
you can access at YC votes dot org. But again,
you know, there is news practically everywhere about what's happening
at the national vevement. You know, you can't you know,
(26:52):
fire up your web browser or turn on the TV
without seeing news of the presidential election, you know, and
and it's it's it's really hard to find someone who
doesn't have an opinion. But you know, you said it,
and I would absolutely echo it. Some of these questions
that that voters are going to see on their back
of the ballot deal with fundamental issues, but basic civil
(27:15):
rights that New Yorkers will or will not have. They
deal with with basic questions about how our government functions
and serves us as residents of New York City. And
you know, I think once you understand that, I hope
folks will will really feel motivated and take that extra
(27:38):
couple of minutes, do a little bit bit of research,
process the information that's out there, and and turn your
ballot over. Whether you're voting by mail, whether you're going
to show up at the polls for early voting or
or on election day, make sure to turn that ballot
(27:59):
over and make your voice heard on these ballot questions.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Our guest is Eric Friedman of NYC Votes. You can
find out so much more about these issues in detail
at NYC votes dot org. Eric, thank you for joining
me on Get Connected.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Guess I really appreciate the time. Thank you for inviting.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
This has been Get Connected with Nina del Rio on
one oh six point seven Light FM. The views and
opinions of our guests do not necessarily reflect the views
of the station. If you missed any part of our
show or want to share it, visit our website for
downloads and podcasts at one oh six to seven lightfm
dot com. Thanks for listening.
Welcome to Get Connected with Nina del Rio, a weekly
conversation about fitness, health and happenings in our community on
one oh six point seven Light FM.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Thanks for listening to get connected. As we near election
day and early voting continues, we have a conversation about
the six ballot proposals for New York City voters, and
our guest is Eric Friedman of NYC Votes, an initiative
of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, the independent
city agency that ensures local elections are fair, inclusive, and open.
You can find out more at the website NYC votes
(00:36):
dot org. Eric Friedman, thank you for being on the show.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Before we talk about specific issues, let's just talk about
what you do. What does the New York City Campaign
Finance Board do? And NYC Votes again.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Thanks so much for the opportunity. So New York City
Campaign Finance Board does a couple things. Our role in
the city is to make our local democracy more open,
more transparent, and more equitable, and we do that in
a couple of ways. Oversee the city's Mastering Funds program
for city elections, which helps bring more candidates into the
political system. Gives more people a voice, and we hope
(01:09):
makes government more reflective of the people who live here
and more responsive to their day to day needs. The
other thing we do, and you mentioned this right at
the start, we oversee the city's nonpartisan voter engagement program,
which we conduct under the band around YC Votes, and
we have a mandate to engage voters and convince more
(01:31):
New Yorkers to registered vote and vote with a specific
focus on communities that are underrepresented among voters are So
we do great, big broadcast platforms that speak to everybody,
like our citywide voter Guide, which you mentioned, goes in
the mail to every registered voter, and we also publish
it online at NYC votes dot org. And we also
(01:52):
do specific outreach in organizations where folks may need a
little bit of a specific, targeted information to help them
recognize their power in the political system.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
I think it's worth mentioning too, that while so much focus,
of course is largely on the national races and the
state races, when you vote for local issues, you're really
voting for things that may be more impactful to your
everyday life.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Oh gosh, yes, that's absolutely true. Like everybody, I think
everybody knows we've got a big, high stakes, historic election
coming up in November. Right now, we've got the presidential race.
Most people can't avoid news about the presidential election. They
should be living in an area with a hotly contested
congressional race or a tight race, or state Assembly or
state Senate. You're getting mailers in your mailbox every day,
(02:38):
You're hearing a lot about it. But you know we've
gotten your city. It's some incredibly important questions on the
back of your ballot, questions that will make a difference
in your everyday life. So again, part of the role
that we can play in the city is providing New
Yorkers with information about what's there. We're a nonpartisan government agency.
Our role is to provide trusted, impartial, non partisan information.
(03:03):
We're never going to tell you how to vote, but
we do want you to vote. So we're focused on
making sure that every voter has the information they need
to make an informed decision. Polls in the selection. One
last point I'll make about these ballot questions that will
appear on the back of New Yorker's ballots in November.
I mean, one of the things we see in recent
elections that have had questions on the back of the
(03:26):
ballot like we have this year is a drop off.
People will vote for the races on the front, whether
it's governor or congress or mayor, but they'll forget to
shun their ballot over. About one in five voters forget
to turn their ballot over, and they hand off responsibility
for choosing to everybody else. We want every New Yorker
(03:47):
to remember they've got these questions. They do matter. They
make a difference in what rights they have as citizens
and how government is run, how government organizes itself. And again,
I'm just really happy you're making time for us to
discuss them today.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, let's get to Pallette Proposal number one. So this
one seems relatively straightforward. Adds certain protections to the state
Bill of Rights. Please tell us a little bit more sure.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
So.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
The first proposal is a statewide ballot measure commonly known
as Equal Rights Amendment. If it is passed, it would
amend the state constitution. Now, amending the state constitution is
a really big deal. It's difficult to do. In order
for the Equal Rights Amendment to appear on the ballot
next year, it had to be passed by the New
York State legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions, and as
(04:37):
a result of that happening, it's going to be on
the ballot for New Yorkers to way. And then this
is the last step in the process amending the state constitution.
But the state constitution currently has some fundamental civil rights
protections embedded there, you know, not unlike the United States Constitution.
What it says is that no person shall be denied
(04:58):
the equal protection of the laws of this State eight
or any subdivision there are. So it says that no
person shall, because of race, color, creed, or religion, be
subjected to any discrimination as ahard civil rights. Now, the
effort behind the Equal Rights Amendment says that that list
is kind of eliminating. We we are aiming to expand
(05:18):
the protection of the law to more classes of people, right,
So it adds to that list. The new language, if
it passes, would amend the state consciences to say that
no person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed, religion,
(05:41):
or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy,
pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care, and autonomy, be subjected
to any discrimination in their suborbits. So, you know, supporters
of this of the egal Rights Amendment, you know again
they are there, are excited about protecting event against discrimination
(06:02):
and safeguarding in particular reproductive rights such as abortion and
contraception and in rechar fertilization in the New York State constitution.
And once those rights are there, they're very difficult to
As we discussed, they're there, and because the state constitution
it's difficult to amend. People feel pretty confident about those
protections living on into the future. People who oppose the
(06:28):
Equal Rights Amendment are people who expressed the opposition to
extending these protections for abortion, for other reproductive health measures.
They voiced concerns about gender identity and its impacts on
various aspects of public life. But you know, the basic
facts are that, if passed, the amendment would indeed enshrine
(06:50):
those protections in the state constitution.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That is balid proposal number one, which is the least controversial,
perhaps of them. Let's move on to ballid proposal number two.
So we're speaking, by the way, with Eric Friedman of
NYC Votes. You can find out more about the ballot proposals.
The six up for vote at NYC votes dot org. So,
ballot proposal number two is about cleaning public property, and
(07:15):
I'll read just the basic summary of it, and if
you could talk a little bit more so, the Department
of Sanitation of New York would have increased authority to
keep all city property clean, including parks and highway medians,
and to hold street vendors accountable for following rules at
these locations. It would also allow the dsn WY to
regulate how New Yorkers put out their garbage for collection.
(07:36):
Why would someone be for this, why would someone be
against this? Or what are the statements I guess you're
seeing in in response to this?
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Sure? Sure, well, if I could step back for just
a second and sure kind of draw a distinction between
this first question you just discussed the state level ecal
Rights Amendment and the other proposals that folks will see
on their ballots. Yes, sure, so those two, three, four, five, six,
those questions rose from a Charter revision commission called by
Mayor Eric Adams, and he, you know, he charged them
(08:05):
to look at issues around public safety and fiscal responsibility.
And what char Charter Revision Commission, what it does or
can do, is suggesting them as to this New York
City Charter, which is kind of like the city's constitution.
This charter revision, as many others, do both public hearings,
they can conduct outreach to New Yorkers in every borough
(08:28):
to solicit public input, and the proposals that New Yorkers
will see on the ballot are what that commission produced.
There are some New Yorkers, some organizations, some elected officials
have voiced general opposition to these proposals, arguing that the
commission's work was conducted way too quickly and didn't involve
(08:49):
enough input. But the Charter Vision Commission posts its reports
and the testimonies it receives online, and I think supporters
of their work maintained that they conducted a sufficient level
of public input to kind of get to the point
where they're ready to propose changes to the city chart.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
There has definitely been debate about the process. Like you mentioned,
people say that the commission was appointed by the mayor,
things were done very quickly. The City Council has criticized
the process, the NYCLU has criticized the process. There's been
a lot of back and forth on this, but nevertheless,
these proposals are going up in front of us. So
this is what we're looking at. So this one ballot
(09:29):
proposal number two about cleaning public property, which we give
more authority to the Department of Sanitation. And I think
one of the things people are most curious about is
this ability to be able to issue summons to street
vendors those have been climbing in the last few years.
People are saying this will only lead to perhaps more
targeting of people who are just trying to make a
(09:50):
living selling stuff on the street. So that's kind of
the underpinning of this.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
Yes, yeah, I mean, I think you summed up the
arguments that we've heard against this pretty well, as you
certainly heard from folks when we solicited comments from the
public who are concerned that shifting enforcement in this way
over street vendors would would lead to more crackdowns. Currently,
responsibility for keeping public parks clean and enforcing city regulations
(10:22):
over street vendors is within the NYPD. This proposal would
move that enforcement to the Department of Sanitation. Now, the
folks who support this question say that expending and clarifying
DSN wise powers is going to make public splaces clean.
But I think you've hit on one of the subjects
that folks are a little bit worried about. This proposal
(10:46):
have raised as a reason for New Yorkers to vote.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Now you're listening to get connected on one O six
point steven light FM, i'mina del rio. Ballot Proposal number
three is a little bit weedy. So it is about
additional estimates. Would allow additional estimates of the cost of
propose laws and updates to budget deadlines, which in layman's
terms means.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
What ah good question. So, the City Council's legislative process
currently requires, and this is a good thing, right, it
requires the City Council to produce a cost estimate for
the bills that it passes. Right, you pass a bill,
it requires a new program. These programs don't just fall
(11:29):
out of the sky, and so there is a process
on the city council side to estimate the cost of
the programs that it proposes and intends to pass into law.
One of the things that Question number three would do
is to require that before a bill is considered to
getting passed into law, that the mayor, his administration and
(11:53):
his office of a Management budget produce and provide its
own cost estimate of bills that are under consideration by
the city Council. Supporters would say that the folks who
are actually going to be administering these programs to produce
what they feel is a more accurate estimate of the
cost of the legislation that's under consideration by the council.
(12:15):
But you know, we've also heard from critics who are
concerned that a mayor could could delay or kill legislation
by withholding the information needed to conduct that required annalysis.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
And what we're essentially ending up with, as far as
I understand it is two sets of competing facts, are we.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Not potentially Yeah, that's right in those critics who are
concerned about that worry that it might overcomplicate the lawmaking
process in a way that makes the mayor less responsive
to New Yorkers. Again, on the other side, you've got,
you know, supporters, supporters of the measure would say, look,
it's the mayor who's sponsored for these programs. He should
(12:57):
be the one or she should be the one estimating
true cost of new programs or new laws before they
are enacted.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Well, that said, the Campaign Finance Board, according to your website,
has received no statements in support of this proposal. Who
were among those who have made statements in opposition.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, among the folks who provided us with statements in
opposition to Question three a City Council Speaker Adrian Adams,
along with Lee Laid Society and organizations other organizations including
New Yorker's Defending Democracy, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Projects, and
the Jail's Action Coalition and Halt Solitary Campaign. Some of
(13:38):
these are general statements of general opposition to all of
the Charter vision questions. Some, like the comments we received
from the Council speaker were directed pretty squarely at this
question three.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Our guest is Eric Friedman of NYC Votes. It's an
initiative of the New York City Campaign Finance Board. We
are talking about the ballot proposals in front of New
York City voters for Election Day this year. The website
with more information too is NYC votes dot org. You're
listening to get connected on one six point seven light FM.
I'mina del rio. Ballot Proposal number four also very sort
(14:14):
of legally easy, allows for more notice and time before
votes on public safety legislation. Can you break that one
down for us briefly?
Speaker 3 (14:24):
So, this proposal would require additional public notice in time
before the city Council votes on laws that deal with
public safety, but specifically with the operations of the Police Department,
arman correction, or the Fire Department. It would require the
city Council to give an additional thirty days notice before
it votes on bills that deal with public safety, and
(14:46):
it provide the mayor and those agencies additional time to
hold public hearings on their own and solicit additional public input.
You know, if if you look at the report that
was published by the Charter Commission, they highlight two specific
bills that were passed by the City Council over the
detail of the mayor right, one that requires the NYP
(15:09):
to report on common low level encounters as members of
the public and another that essentially was was aimed at
prohibiting like punitive sorts of segregation or solitary confinement in
city jails, especially at Riker's Island. So those bills were
passed by the city Council over the mayor's veto the
(15:31):
mayor's argument and then and supporters of this question suggests
that you know this additional time and an opportunity for
public input is required. So that folks who whose opinions
they feel weren't being hurt have time to express those
opinions and and and weigh in on bills that address
(15:56):
these these really important topics. I think that opponents of
the proposal would say, Look, the City Council already has
a process that allows for and in fact requires public
hearings before bills are considered and passed these bills. This
process applies to bills that address public safety and every
(16:19):
other type of legislation you know. They say, well, you know,
the City Council deals with full range of issues that
are important to New Yorkers everyday lives, education, street safety,
the environment, list off any issue you could choose, and
wonder why this specific subject should be And they wonder
(16:44):
why issues solely on public safety should require a legislative
process that is different.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
And I would point out that even though this seems
relatively straightforward, the campaign Finance Board has received the most
number of public comments opposing it as far as I
could see, not only the City Council, of course, but
the Legal Aid Society, New York Civil Liberties Union, and
on and on. There are many people that think it
hinders the timely response that could be made to public
safety threats. So that's what's going on with that one.
(17:16):
We're rounding the Bend ballot proposal number five. The city
must assess the cost of maintaining city facilities, infrastructure and
investments and publish there are assessments in capital planning reports.
What is the issue here? I know there's some issue
with this one. Controller Brad Lander is particularly incensed with
this one.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Yeah, So this proposal basically require more detail on that
annual assessment city facility is that the administration conducts. It
mandates that what they learned from that assessment those needs
inform the city's capital planning and require and update the
deadlines around capital planning. So, you know, if it passes,
(17:56):
it would expand the christ here as uses to assessment
costs on city property. And it also changed the due
date for those reports and the dates for the public
hearing that goes with it. You know, people who who
were in favor of this measure say that for more transparency,
transparency is a good thing, particularly around the city's infrastructure
(18:20):
and capital planning process, which they say is too big.
But critics of the proposal you pointed out one are
saying that this language actually doesn't do what it says
it does, that it wouldn't meaningfully improve transparency or the
city's infrastructure planning whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
The gist I read from Controller Bradlander is that it's
sort of this billboard on something with nothing behind it.
It really doesn't address all the recommendations that he had
made through his office. So that is ballot proposal number five.
You're listening to get connected on one O six point
seven light FM. I Meana del Rio. We're speaking, by
the way, with Eric Friedman of n y SEE votes.
(19:00):
You can find out more about the ballot proposals the
six up for vote at NYC votes dot Org. Number
six is interesting to me because it kind of winds
a bunch of things all together. It is minority and
women to own business enterprises, a special board would be created,
a new role. It addresses how film permits are given
(19:21):
in the city, and collapses a couple of boards together,
the archive review boards. Can you talk about that one?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Sure? Sure? So this last one, as you alluded to,
it's a three parttern. You know a lot of times,
you know, if you look at the work of past
Charter vision commissions, it's not unusual for commissions to kind
of take a few smaller issues and train them together
in a single question to put in front of the voters.
And that's what we have here with this final question
number six. It would create a new role to support
(19:51):
minority business enterprises. It would allow the mayor to designate
which agency issues film permits and two boards that manage
city records into a single board. So people who who
voice support for this proposal particularly highlighted the establishment of
(20:12):
what would be a permanent Chief Business Diversity Officer. They
appreciate the opportunity to build on the success the city's
scene in the Mayor's office media and entertainment, and see
some benefit consolidating the power to issue film permits with
that agency rather than, you know, having some productions go
through the Department of Small Business Services. And they see
(20:35):
some value in merging two archive boards that might be
a little bit redundant. For folks who are opposing it,
we've heard that questions about why these three issues that
seem to be unrelated are all being crammed together in
a single proposal. They are asking why in the end
we actually need to put these in front of voters.
(20:56):
You know, aren't these issues that could be handed DoLS
administratively by you know, by city hall, rather than putting
them out in from the voters.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Is there a particular need for it, I mean, collapsing
city agencies. Is that not something that can just be
done through the mayor's office without a public vote.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Well, there are certain certain things if you're talking about
creating a new agency, if you're talking about disbanding an agency,
Questions like that I think normally do go through a
kind of a ballot referendum, you know, particularly if they
involve altering or expending or or contracting the power of
the mayor or other elected officials. But there are other
(21:36):
pieces where we're looking at kind of the scope of
a particular agency, or if we're creating a staff position.
You know. A lot of these are are are items
that can and oftentimes are done administratively by agency action
without going through a charter vision process.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Going back to the beginning of the conversation, and we
talked about ballot Proposal one, which is a statewide proposal,
and proposals two through six again that we're sort of
that were ushered through the mayor's office. Given and whether
you can comment on this or not I realize given
the sort of the mayor's situation at the moment, will
(22:22):
voters be aware of where those the origin of two
through six came from. It they come from, you know,
the mayor's office versus some other the city council or
whomever else, because by law, the city council cannot have
their ey as I understand it, cannot have the proposals
on the same ballot.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Correct, that's correct, Yeah, that's correct. There they're part of
the public referendum, the process to mend the charter. A
charter vision commission appointed by the mayor does sort of
block the opportunity for the city council to place its
own referendum on the ballot.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
And is that typical every election, by the way.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
Not at all. You know, we have in recent years
had several charter referendum on the ballot. You know, if
you go back to twenty twenty two, there is a
series of proposals that were proposed by a Charter division
commission convened by Mayor build Blasio. The Racial Justice Commission
(23:27):
proposed several changes to the charter. Prior to that, in
twenty nineteen, there were charter proposals that were offered up
by commission appointed by the city Council, and that included
instituting rank tchist voting for city elections and primaries. Prior
to that, it was a commission appointed by Mary to
Blasio that posed changes to the city's campaign finance program
(23:52):
and those were accepted by voters. So we've had over
the years ballot questions that have come from both there
from from a mayor point commission, from a council point commission.
It is not that frequent where you have sides kind
of competing over over which proposals would take precedence. But
(24:15):
you know what I mean, what is clear is that
this year we've got questions that come from a charter
charter vision commission to be to be clear, appointed by
the mayor. But commissions should be somewhat arms length from
a mayoral administration, right the mayor appoints the commissioners. But
(24:36):
you know, in theory that commission, you know, once it convenes,
is free to go where ever it chooses, once it
opens up the charter and starts solicitening input and taking
recommendations from the public. You know, I know some of
the public commentary and we've talked a little bit about
it earlier in the conversation is that you know, this
(24:58):
this particular process a little rushed and some of the
issues were kind of baked in at the start. But
you know, we've certainly had in previous Charter Vision Commissions
discussions that truly did take on a broad range of
issues that kind of went beyond their their initial charge
or where the appointing authority thought they would go. You know,
(25:19):
whether this is one of those I suppose I will
leave to other commentators to.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Sit through just in our last minute or so, because
we've gone a little over. But I think this is
really such a useful conversation. Can you just for people
who have missed the beginning of this conversation, can you
just maybe make the point again about how important it
is to turn over the ballot and take a look
at these issues, because they really do have an impact
on people's lives in a much larger way, sometimes than
even the federal government.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Oh gosh, that's for sure. You know something. We get
these questions, and I think you've alluded to them. They
feel a little wonky, right, and a little bit in
the weeds, and sometimes it takes a little work to
figure out kind of what am I really being asked
to vote on here. But that's part of the reason
(26:08):
why you know, we at NSC votes in the campaign
financeport you know, really see this as a gap that
we can help fill. You know. That's why the voter
Guide that we printed and mail to voters earlier this
month hopefully sitting in your mailbox as you're listening, uh,
deals with these ballot proposals and starts voters starts to
(26:30):
get voters of the information that they need to vote
with confidence on the questions that are going to appear
on the ballot. That's why we focused on it as
as a major part of our online voter guide, which
you can access at YC votes dot org. But again,
you know, there is news practically everywhere about what's happening
at the national vevement. You know, you can't you know,
(26:52):
fire up your web browser or turn on the TV
without seeing news of the presidential election, you know, and
and it's it's it's really hard to find someone who
doesn't have an opinion. But you know, you said it,
and I would absolutely echo it. Some of these questions
that that voters are going to see on their back
of the ballot deal with fundamental issues, but basic civil
(27:15):
rights that New Yorkers will or will not have. They
deal with with basic questions about how our government functions
and serves us as residents of New York City. And
you know, I think once you understand that, I hope
folks will will really feel motivated and take that extra
(27:38):
couple of minutes, do a little bit bit of research,
process the information that's out there, and and turn your
ballot over. Whether you're voting by mail, whether you're going
to show up at the polls for early voting or
or on election day, make sure to turn that ballot
(27:59):
over and make your voice heard on these ballot questions.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Our guest is Eric Friedman of NYC Votes. You can
find out so much more about these issues in detail
at NYC votes dot org. Eric, thank you for joining
me on Get Connected.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Guess I really appreciate the time. Thank you for inviting.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
This has been Get Connected with Nina del Rio on
one oh six point seven Light FM. The views and
opinions of our guests do not necessarily reflect the views
of the station. If you missed any part of our
show or want to share it, visit our website for
downloads and podcasts at one oh six to seven lightfm
dot com. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.