Full Employment for Lawyers
On the back of your November ballot is Proposition 1, which is a proposed amendment to the NY State Constitution. It requires a yes vote to pass it and a no vote to reject it.
First, what does Proposition 1 actually say? This is the wording on the ballot:
“This proposal amends Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Constitution. Section 11 now protects against unequal treatment based on race, color, creed, and religion. The proposal will amend the act to also protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, as well as reproductive healthcare and autonomy. The amendment allows laws to prevent or undo past discrimination.”
Got it? Understand what you are voting on?
Below is what the actual wording of the NY Constitution will be if it passes:
(Italicized/bold words are the additions to the Constitution from Proposition 1)
“§ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.”
“b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.”
Whoa! Wait a second. Section ‘b’ does not seem to be addressed by the description on the ballot? Try reading it again. Shouldn’t you understand what you are voting to approve and enter into the Constitution? So, what in hell does Part b mean? Or for that matter, Part a, too?
Per their web page: “The Empire Center for Public Policy, Inc. (ECPP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank based in Albany, New York.”
On August 16th, ECPP wrote about their study called: “Ballot Proposal One: A Constitutional Amendment Fraught With Uncertainty.”
ECPP wrote: “Prop One could open many New York civil rights laws—and other laws that may discriminate based on classification—to legal challenges. And those challenges could include irreconcilable differences between classes like religious belief and gender identity.“ (Emphasis added)
ECPP added: “Resolving those cases would make the courts—not the Legislature—the decision-makers on value judgments that determine civil rights policies in New York.”
Then ECPP added: “…Prop One contains vague language that invites legal challenges to existing laws. And it contains no guideposts for the courts in its application. Prop One elevates almost every class of person to a special status and places those different classes of persons and multiple laws into conflict, leaving it up to the judiciary to make up solutions to those conflicts as it goes along.” (Emphasis added.)
Two thoughts.
Full employment for lawyers!
Religions are a constitutionally protected class that cannot be discriminated against. But a religion that opposes abortion or the current gender identity movement would be in conflict with those newly constitutionally protected classes. (Catholic hospitals that refuse to do abortions would, without doubt, be amongst the first challenged under this proposal.) It would be up to the courts to decide for or against – without much guidance from the NY Constitution. Welcome to legislation from the bench!
Note: Appeals judges are the final NY State legal authority and they are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature, which means leftists will be appointing…leftists. Or, to paraphrase Andrew Cuomo, there is no place in NY State for conservatives.
ECPP continues: “Prop One threatens the status quo by adding so many suspect classes—leaving aside the vagueness of some—that applying the test may render many existing laws unconstitutional or pit classes against each other in ways that are unworkable.” (Such as the previous example of religious liberty versus abortion rights.)
ECPP adds: “Part B of Prop One attempts to address the inherent conflicts in naming so many suspect classes…But it is unclear how that provision can work in practice.”
They know it works in theory so don’t worry about how it works in actual practice.
ECPP adds something that should terrify anyone who believes in 1st and 2nd Amendment rights: “Part B also includes permission for the state to discriminate through ‘any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed’ in Prop One.”
You can expect a NY State law to push the edge-of-the-envelope by proposing a law making illegal to speak out against a constitutionally protected right such as gender identity.
And certainly, some legislator will figure out a way that firearms discriminate against minorities based on high crime rates in minority neighborhoods and propose another anti-2A law. After all, under Part b, NY State can discriminate against a protected class if it does so in the interest of another protected class that it disfavors. (And gun rights are certainly a disfavored class In Albany.)
And here is the gun rights kicker, the right to “keep and bear arms” is NOT protected in the NY Constitution, opening the door for anti-2A legislation. Since we are not even in a constitutionally protected class, feel free to discriminate.
Music to Kathy Hochul and the anti-2A movement’s ears.
ECPP concludes: “In short, Prop One and its added suspect classes threatens to throw New York civil rights law into chaos.”
“Thus, the amendment may be unworkable unless New York courts devise workarounds to its application. And that means the amendment will place decisions on civil rights policy in the hands of the judiciary and not the Legislature where they belong.” (Emphasis added.)
By the way, it will potentially put NY State in conflict with the U S Constitution. But that small matter has never stopped Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature.
