A New York judge has ruled against a request to include the word “abortion” in the description of a proposed constitutional amendment. The amendment, known as Proposal Number One, aims to expand anti-discrimination protections in the state constitution. Democrats had argued that including terms like “abortion” and “LGBT” would provide voters with a clearer understanding of the amendment’s scope.
However, Albany County Supreme Court Judge David Weinstein concluded that it was inappropriate to mandate the inclusion of the term “abortion” in the ballot’s explanatory text. In his ruling issued on August 23, Weinstein stated that while the proposed amendment could impact abortion, it was not necessary for it to be explicitly mentioned.
The lawsuit challenging the ballot language was brought by two Democratic voters who argued that without explicit references to abortion and LGBT rights, voters would not fully understand the implications of the amendments. They claimed that using technical language instead of plain language violated state law requirements for ballot measures.
Opponents of Proposal Number One, including many Republicans, welcomed Weinstein’s decision. They believe that enshrining protections for abortion and transgender athletes into the state constitution would be controversial.
Weinstein acknowledged that predicting how this proposed amendment will be interpreted is difficult and likely to face legal challenges. He emphasized that it is not appropriate for a court to answer complex interpretive questions before an amendment has been enacted.
Although he declined to include “abortion” in the description, Weinstein did make some changes to clarify other aspects of Proposal Number One. He revised both its wording and abstract to provide more clarity on its intent.
The revised text now reads: “Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment.” It specifies protections against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age disability, sex (including sexual orientation), gender identity and pregnancy outcomes.
David Laska from New York Republican Party expressed satisfaction with Weinstein’s decision as it ensures voters receive a neutral description without bias or ambiguity.
The Epoch Times has reached out for comment from both parties involved in this case: plaintiffs’ law firm and New Yorkers for Equal Rights coalition supporting this amendment.