New York ballot wording change is the wrong move

As some voters know, proposals to change the New York State Constitution must be approved by two consecutively elected legislatures, then appear on ballots statewide for voters to accept or reject. A salient example is the amendment now sought by the state's dominant elected Democrats to explicitly allow middecade redistricting. The required second passage, and then a referendum, are planned for next year.

If you've voted on any ballot question before, you know the exact wording of any amendment might not be easy for everyone to read and retain. It is complex — often by necessity — and cast in legal language. To add clarity, the state Board of Elections issues a plain-language summary known as an abstract.

Last week as the annual Albany session wrapped up, Gov. Kathy Hochul and both legislative chambers quickly enacted a measure that will disrupt and tilt the process of how amendments are officially described to the public.

Unfortunately, control of the crucial words and sentences on which voters rely to make decisions will shift — from the bipartisan elections board to the state's legislative chambers. Since the State Senate, Assembly and governor's office are all Democrat-controlled, that party's preferences will exclusively shape not just the text of the ballot questions but how they are summarized in voters guides and by news media and civic groups.

Major good-government groups — Citizens Union, the League of Women Voters of New York State, the New York Public Interest Research Group, and Reinvent Albany — raised stern and solid objections to the bill in a joint June 3 memo after it suddenly popped out before the end of session.

"Legislators will have little incentive to draft anything but a ballot question that tilts voters to vote ‘yes,' and New Yorkers will likely be left with no impartial description of ballot proposals," the organizations' memo said. They note that the new law also removes a mandatory public comment period which had been set up to catch misleading or self-interested framing of the issue at hand. It also seems bent on watering down existing "plain language" requirements.

These organizations called it a "short-sighted power grab" aimed at next year's redistricting fix. The sponsors, departing Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris of Astoria and Assembly elections committee Chair Latrice Walker of Brooklyn, ignored the warning. Republicans in both chambers voted "No."

The critics are right. The process was balanced well enough two years ago when state courts tangled with lawmakers over the Equal Rights Amendment's original abortion wording. The measure passed at the polls without it. Judicial review shouldn't be sidestepped in these disputes.

This law's impact could be like allowing the manufacturers of a product to replace the owner's manual with a promotional sales brochure. The process wasn't broken and shouldn't have been "fixed." Voters should respond by staying skeptical of what is presented to them on the ballot.