As the November election day approaches, the proposal of the “Equal Rights Amendment” to the New York State Constitution, known as Proposal One, is set to be put to a public vote, sparking significant controversy. The New York State United For Marriage held a press conference yesterday (16th) with a law professor from Cornell University and some New York State legislators to discuss the impact of this ballot initiative, pointing out that the proposal may lead to the legalization of reverse discrimination under the guise of “equality,” infringing upon various rights.
The first proposal aims to amend Section 11 of Article 1 of the New York State Constitution, which currently consists of about 60 English words, protecting individuals from discrimination based on race, color, creed, and religion. The amended version includes two parts, A and B, expanding the content to 150 English words.
Part A adds 11 protected categories, covering race, national origin, age, disability, and gender, including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, reproductive health, and autonomy. Part B ensures the non-discrimination provisions of Part A, stating that as long as the purpose is to prevent or eliminate discrimination, such provision shall not be restricted. The New York State United For Marriage believes this could allow for so-called “reverse discrimination” under the pretext of preventing discrimination.
The wording of Part B is more obscure, with its translation stating: “none of the content in this section shall render any law, regulation, plan, or practice aimed at preventing or eliminating discrimination based on the characteristics listed in this section ineffective or incapable of passing, nor shall the characteristics listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deprive any individual of their civil rights based on any other characteristics identified in this section.”
Chen Huihua, the founding president of the New York State United For Marriage, expressed concerns that Proposal One, dubbed as the “Equal Rights Amendment” or the “Abortion Amendment,” is not actually related to abortion rights or equal rights. She fears that if passed, the proposal could legalize “reverse discrimination” against certain communities. She worries that renowned specialized high schools in New York City might be abolished due to being deemed having “too many Asian students.” Additionally, certain groups might receive preferential treatment during healthcare for past discrimination, taxation might be based on racial distinctions, and racial biases could affect prosecution decisions in the criminal justice system.
Bill Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell University, pointed out that Part B incorporates concepts from critical race theory, alleging that the United States is a systematically racist country, thereby allowing for reverse discrimination. He views this as a “poison pill” that, if passed, would permit the New York State Constitution to sanction reverse discrimination, as long as the motive is to prevent or eliminate discrimination, leading to endless cycles of division and hatred, which is illogical and harmful.
Furthermore, Jacobson believes that the language on the ballot is deceptive since Part B is not mentioned. He cautioned, “Once this referendum is passed, it will become New York state law and could supersede human rights laws in New York City and New York State.” Therefore, he urges voters to actively participate in voting, cast a negative vote against Proposal One, and not be misled.
Robert Ortt, the Minority Leader of the New York State Senate, highlighted that New York State legalized abortion as early as 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade, and has further strengthened protections in recent years. Not only does New York safeguard abortion rights for its residents, but it also supports out-of-state individuals coming to New York for abortions. He questions the need for pushing this proposal again, citing its potential impact, including compelling biological males to partake in female sports and access female locker rooms. He is concerned that the proposal could also strip parents of their right to be informed and have a say in their minor children’s gender transition decisions.
Edward Ra, a New York State Assemblyman, likened Proposal One to a “Trojan horse,” describing it as vague and expansive, capable of serving multiple purposes. He urges voters to understand the potential harm that this proposal could inflict on the New York State Constitution and daily life, and cast a vote against it, stating, “This is not about equal rights, but rather racism and discrimination.”