2024 Ballot Proposals Simplified

By Anna Humphrey

Photo by Bob Cooley.

Ballot Proposal 1: Add Protections to the State Bill of Rights

This proposal would add anti-discrimination protections to the New York State Constitution.

A “YES” vote means you want to add protections against discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy, including abortion rights.

A “NO” vote means the state constitution will not change, and protections will continue to be based on current state and federal laws, such as the New York Human Rights Law and the U.S. Constitution.

Why this matters:

  • Protects abortion access: Ensures abortion rights are safeguarded under the state constitution, regardless of changes at the federal level.
  • Closes loopholes: Strengthens anti-discrimination laws, closing gaps that could be exploited to deny civil rights.
  • Keeps power in New Yorkers’ hands: Solidifies protections for civil rights in the NYConstitution, putting decision-making in the hands of state residents.

Ballot Proposal 2: Clean Public Property

This proposal would give the Department of Sanitation (DSNY) more power to clean streets and city property and require trash to be put in containers.

A “YES” vote gives the DSNY more authority to enforce cleanliness rules and require trash containers.

A “NO” vote vote keeps the current system, where businesses and residents are generally allowed to place trash bags on the curb without using containers. The DSNY enforces cleanliness rules under existing regulations, but enforcement is more limited.

Why this matters:

  • Increases small business enforcement: Expands the DSNY’s authority to regulate trash placement and enforce cleanliness rules, impacting businesses citywide.
  • Undermines public input: Reduces opportunities for the public to influence sanitation law changes, as the proposal skipped the usual lawmaking process.
  • Expands regulations: Grants the DSNY more power over trash management in public spaces.

Ballot Proposal 3: Cost Estimates for New Laws & Budget Deadlines

This proposal would require city officials to figure out the cost of proposed laws before voting and adjust deadlines for the city’s budget process.

A “YES” vote means lawmakers must provide cost estimates before voting, and the mayor gets more time for the budget.

A “NO” vote keeps the current rule, where cost estimates are sometimes provided but not always required before voting on laws. The existing budget process gives less time for the mayor to finalize the budget but allows more time for public review and input before the budget is passed.

Why this matters:

  • Increases bureaucracy and taxpayer costs: Adds redundant reviews that could delay laws and waste taxpayer money.
  • Weakens budget transparency: Shortens the time the public and oversight bodies have to review the mayor’s proposed budget.
  • Slows problem-solving: Delays timely solutions to city issues by adding more steps in the lawmaking process.

Ballot Proposal 4: More Time for Public Input on Public Safety Laws

This proposal would require more time and public notice before voting on laws that affect the Police, Fire, and Corrections Departments.

A “YES” vote requires a 30-day notice before voting on these laws, giving the public more time to weigh in.

A “NO” vote keeps the current rule, where there is no requirement for a 30-day notice before voting on public safety laws. Public hearings may still happen, but the timeline is shorter and can be more flexible.

Why this matters:

  • Delays public safety laws: Adds bureaucratic steps that could slow down the response to urgent safety issues, such as fire safety.
  • Undermines accountability: Could give the mayor more influence over lawmaking on public safety, affecting transparency and accountability.
  • Blocks urgent safety fixes: Prevents quick action on safety laws in the final month of legislative sessions.

Ballot Proposal 5: Capital Planning

This proposal would require the city to provide more detail on its facility needs (like buildings and infrastructure) and adjust deadlines for long-term capital plans.

A “YES” vote means more detailed planning and changing deadlines for capital improvement plans.

A “NO” vote keeps the current process, where the city produces capital improvement plans but with less detailed information about long-term infrastructure needs. The deadlines for submitting these plans are also shorter.

Why this matters:

  • Fails to advance reform: Ignores recommendations for more meaningful changes to the city’s capital planning process.
  • Distracts from real problems: Focuses on changes that affect less than 1% of the city’s infrastructure, like schools, roads, and water systems.
  • Leaves NYC without clear infrastructure review: The proposal doesn’t address critical gaps in the city’s infrastructure planning and transparency.

Ballot Proposal 6: Support for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses & Film Permits

This proposal would create a new position to help minority and women-owned businesses, change which office issues film permits, and merge two boards that manage city records.

A “YES” vote establishes this new role, shifts film permit duties, and combines the archive boards.

A “NO” vote keeps the current structure, where the Chief Business Diversity Officer already exists but is not part of the city constitution. The Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment currently handles film permits, and two separate boards manage city archives.

Why this matters:

  • Formalizes an existing role: Adds the current Chief Business Diversity Officer position to the city constitution, without significant changes.
  • Gives the Mayor more control over permits: Shifts authority for issuing film permits to the mayor’s office, increasing their influence over the process.
  • Changes city archive processes: Combines two boards that oversee city archives, reducing public input into those decisions.