Proposals on the Ballot in New York City in the 2024 General Election

Proposal 1

This is an amendment to the New York State constitution.  

How It Appears on the Ballot

What the Proposal 1 Would Achieve

Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment

This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

A “YES” vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution.

A “NO” vote leaves these protections out of the State Constitution.

The ballot measure would amend the Equal  Protection Clause of the New York Constitution to prohibit a person’s rights from being denied based on the person’s “ethnicity, national origin, age, [and] disability,” as well as the person’s “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”[1]

As of 2024, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the denial of rights to a person based on “race, color, creed, or religion.’

 

The League of Women Voters of the City of New York and the League of Women Voters of New York State both strongly support a YES vote on Proposal 1.

Proposals 2-6

The five ballot proposals, 2-6, are to revise the New York City Charter based on recommendations by a City Charter Commission appointed by the Mayor.

The City Charter is like the City’s Constitution – it lays out the broad framework under which New York City’s government should function to provide continuity between each administration. The Charter specifies how changes can be made to the Charter and provides the framework for public input on legislation and Charter revisions. One method to change the Charter is by the Mayor appointing a City Charter Revision Commission to review, hold public hearings and make recommendations.

Changing the City Charter is not the only route that can be taken in order to make changes to how the City government functions.  For example, the City Council can pass new legislation within the framework of the Charter.  City Agencies can issue Memorandums of Understanding to alter how services are provided.

Below is a description of what each Proposal will achieve based on the 2024 Charter Revision  Commission’s Final Report, the language that will appear on the ballot, and a list of  Pros and Cons for each proposal developed by the League of Women Voters of the City of New York.   

There is an  important and overriding Con for all the proposals: The timing of this Charter Review process was extremely abbreviated.  It was just two months, June and July, with the Charter Review Commission approving the final report on July 25th.  It was  a very short timeline in which to address a broad range of issues.  During the public hearings, only 240 public testimonies were received, many of which had been by invitation.  Only 2,300 public statements were submitted, out of a city population of eight million.  The League of Women Voters of the City of New York has been on record against truncated Charter Review processes in the past, specifically under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  (Letter about  the 2002 Charter Revision process.)

Also, because of constraints to ballot proposals, each proposal is limited in length and does not reflect the complete details behind the individual proposals.  In most of the proposals, there are several topics combined into one proposal.  For voter clarity and understanding, they could have been addressed separately.   Additionally, the proposals, as they will appear on the November ballot, do not present the full impact of the individual proposals.

We have provided both PROS and CONS for each of the proposals which are listed below. Please be mindful of all aspects of each proposal, both pros and cons, before making your voting decision. 

Proposal 2 – Cleaning Public Property

How It Appears on the Ballot

What the Proposal 2 Would Achieve

Cleaning Public Property

This proposal would amend the City Charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers. 

Voting “Yes” will expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers. 

Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged. 

Source:  2024 Charter Revision Commission’s Final Report

Clean Streets: The CRC proposes an amendment to expand and clarify the New York City Department of Sanitation’s (DSNY) authority to keep the city clean. The amendment would:

  • Enable DSNY, at the mayor’s direction, to clean any city-owned property.
  •  Clarify that DSNY has the authority to require garbage to be containerized.
  • Extend DSNY enforcement authority over street vendors to other types of city property, instead of just streets and sidewalks.

 

 

PROS

  • The Department of Sanitation will have jurisdiction to clean city parks, sidewalks and medians that are not currently stated under its authority.
  • The Department of Sanitation will provide enforcement of street vendors in addition to Parks Enforcement Police and NYPD.
  • The Department of Sanitation can mandate garbage containers.

CONS  

  • The ballot question does not mention that the full revision expands the authority of the Department of Sanitation to enforce vendors in city parks. This change of jurisdiction and interdepartmental co-management does not need to be in the Charter and could be addressed with a Memorandum of Understanding between City Agencies, as has sufficed in the past.
  • A separate agreement will be needed to ensure that local union DC37 employees are not displaced or their work is not impeded.
  • Having three different agencies (NYPD, Parks Enforcement and Sanitation) authorized for street vendor enforcement may lead to conflicts in responsibility and over enforcement.
  • The full impact of this amendment is not stated in the ballot question.

Proposal 3 – Fiscal Responsibility

How it Appears on the Ballot

What the Proposal 3 Would Achieve

Additional Estimates of the Cost of Proposed Laws and Updates to Budget Deadlines

This proposal would amend the City Charter to require fiscal analysis from the Council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the Mayor, and update budget deadlines.

Voting “Yes” would amend the City Charter to require additional fiscal analysis prior to hearings and votes on local laws, and update budget deadlines.

Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.

Source:  2024 Charter Revision Commission’s Final Report

The CRC proposes an amendment intended to improve how the city assesses the fiscal impact of proposed local laws and address certain outdated and inefficient budget deadlines. The amendment would:  

  • Require that an initial fiscal impact statement be prepared prior to a public hearing on a proposed local law.  
  • Require an updated fiscal impact statement prior to a vote on a proposed local law by the full City Council.  
  • Require that fiscal impact statements for proposed laws contain an estimate by the City Council and require that the Council provide an opportunity for the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget to submit fiscal impact statements at the same time.  
  • Update several budget-related deadlines, including moving the preliminary budget deadline from January 16 to February 1 in years following a mayoral election and extending the deadline for submission of the executive budget from April 26 to May 1 in order to ensure the executive budget reflects valuable information about tax collections and revenues obtained at the April 1 tax deadline.  

 

PROS

  • This proposal would provide an estimate of the cost of legislation from two different agencies.
  • The proposal allows more time for new mayors to prepare a budget immediately after an election.

CONS

  • A request for a fiscal impact statement currently exists in the Charter
  • A requirement for a fiscal statement from the Office of Management and Budget may delay a vote on urgent legislation.
  • As written, this proposal combines two separate topics – both the fiscal analysis and new budget deadlines – that should be considered separately.

Proposal 4 – Public Safety

How it Appears on the Ballot

What the Proposal 4 Would Achieve

More Notice and Time Before Votes on Public Safety Legislation

This proposal would require additional public notice and time before the City Council votes on laws respecting the public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire Departments.  

Voting “Yes” will require additional notice and time before the Council votes  on laws respecting public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire  Departments.

Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged. 

Source:  2024 Charter Revision Commission’s Final Report

The CRC proposes an amendment intended to promote public input and deliberation before the City Council votes on local laws affecting public safety operations of certain agencies. The amendment would:  

  • Establish additional procedural requirements when the City Council considers proposed local laws affecting the public safety operations of three city agencies: the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Correction, and the Fire Department of the City of New York.  
  • Specifically, it would require that when the full Council intends to vote on a covered public safety proposal, the Council must give an additional notice to the public, the mayor, and the commissioners of affected agencies at least 30 days in advance of such a vote. During the period between the notice and the ultimate vote, the mayor and affected agencies could hold one or more additional public hearings on the proposal in order to solicit additional public input, though they would not be required to hold such hearings. These hearings could include, where appropriate, public hearings in all boroughs to facilitate input from impacted communities.  

 

PROS

  • This proposal seeks to address the lack of attendance at public hearings by increasing the number of non-legislative agencies that can hold public hearings. 
  • It identifies and classifies legislative topics that affect public safety to expand the process to allow for more public input.

CONS

  • While this revision provides for possibly more public hearings, it does not improve the process for greater public participation. City Council is already required to hold public hearings.
  • It erodes the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government by empowering non-legislative agencies to hold hearings on public safety legislation.
  • The Mayor is already empowered to hold hearings, as well as to provide input at Council hearings.
  • Adding more time for review and public hearings may impede emergency public safety law changes.

Proposal 5 – Capital Planning

How it Appears on the Ballot

What the Proposal 5 Would Achieve

Capital Planning 

This proposal would amend the City Charter to require more detail in the  annual assessment of City facilities, mandate that facility needs inform capital  planning, and update capital planning deadlines.  

Voting “Yes” would require more detail when assessing maintenance needs of  City facilities, mandate that facility needs inform capital planning, and update capital  planning deadlines.

 Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.

Source:  2024 Charter Revision Commission’s Final Report

The CRC proposes an amendment intended to improve the city’s capital planning process by promoting transparency and ensuring the city collects critical information to inform capital planning, and update capital planning deadlines. The amendment would:  

  • Promote transparency by ensuring the city publishes more detailed information about the state of repair for facilities.  
  • Ensure that the New York City Department of City Planning and the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget consider city facility conditions and maintenance needs, together with other factors such as geographic distribution, impact on resiliency, and the criticality of an asset to an agency’s function or mission when developing the 10-Year Capital Strategy.  
  • Amend the date that the 10-Year Capital Strategy is due from November 1st to align with the date for the city’s preliminary budget, and similarly change the date for the public hearing associated with the 10-Year Capital Strategy to accommodate the later date for the initial submission.

 

PROS

  • The proposal could provide more information on projects for city planning. 

CONS

  • This proposal does not need to be incorporated into the Charter.  The issue it is trying to address can be resolved through administrative measures.

Proposal 6 – Minority- and Women-Owned Business and Modernization of City Operations

How it Appears on the Ballot

What the Proposal 6 Would Achieve

Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBEs), Film Permits, and Archive Review Boards 

This proposal would amend the City Charter to establish the Chief Business  Diversity Officer (CBDO), authorize the Mayor to designate the office that issues  film permits, and combine archive boards. 

Voting “Yes” would establish the CBDO to support MWBEs, authorize the  Mayor to designate the office that issues film permits, and combine two boards. 

Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.

Source:  2024 Charter Revision Commission’s Final Report

The CRC proposes an amendment to update several charter provisions intended to improve city government operations. The amendment would:  

  • Enshrine the chief business diversity officer in the charter and provide that this position will serve as the point of contact for M/WBEs, evaluate the efficacy of city policies to address disparities in procurement, and propose needed changes to city policy.  
  • Empower the mayor to give the office that processes film permits — the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment — the power to issue those permits.  
  • Combine two charter-created boards that share the same mission of reviewing municipal archives.  

 

PROS

  • By making the position of Chief Business Diversity Officer a required position in the City Charter, it demonstrates support for the importance of Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises.
  • It would combine two different archive boards that exist under the current Charter.

CONS

  • This proposal does not need to be in the Charter as this position already exists in the current administration.
  • By codifying the position, it would impede future mayors from making decisions on roles in city government that meet their administrations’ needs.
  • This proposal addresses three different topics, each of which should be considered separately.