Vote ‘No’ on Proposition One
Since it was unveiled by Albany lawmakers, Proposition One has received a regular dosage of criticism nearly every day on the campaign trail. Disguised as a way for New Yorkers to enshrine certain “rights” for a myriad of protected classes, we find that it is nothing more than what many have aptly described it as: “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
It’s no secret that New York has been hailed as a sanctuary for abortions and that the rights extended to residents here surpass those offered to residents of other states. If that’s the case, then why the ardent push to further codify said “rights” for which we are a beacon on a hill?
Thus begins the fundamental problem with Proposition One. We understand that legalese can be burdensome and more protections for certain classes and/or services might need protection, but this seems entirely counterintuitive from the messaging we’ve seen in New York, especially in a post-Roe v. Wade environment.
Furthermore, the proposition’s vague language speaks to its evident construction by a lawyer. The two-paragraph proposal lists new protected classes, should the initiative become part of the State Constitution: ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed, religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”
We find these metrics to be intensely subjective and we can only imagine the litigation that will ensue based on current laws, standing, and precedent of other protected classes in New York, namely as it pertains to applicants of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal subsidies.
In short, it creates an entirely new environment in which we’re unsure if those already protected by laws like Title IX would remain protected. Moreover, it seems as if the amendment would start a fierce legal debate over which protected class’ rights end and where another’s begin. The subjectivity of gender expression and identity is another that can easily grow out of proportion, with there being no protection from those who wish to usurp the vague language to their own gain by simply “identifying” as someone from a newfound protected class.
The biggest bait-and-switch aspect of this proposition is that it’s being advertised as an abortion-rights failsafe, yet the word “abortion” is not mentioned once, only the oddly hazy “pregnancy” and “pregnancy outcomes.” New York has some of the most lax abortion laws in the country. With such overarching protections already in existence and with no indication those protections will fade any time soon, it seems redundant to add these measures to the constitution in a measure that’s already a hodgepodge of other stipulations.
Overall, we find Proposition One to be nothing more than a big lollipop for the state’s most progressive voters, one that will inevitably be a Pandora’s Box of litigation and whose intentionally ambiguous language will likely create more problems than it seeks to solve.
The Messenger endorses a “No” vote on Proposition One.
No Stance on Proposition Two
Proposition Two might not be as debated as Proposition One, but it certainly has generated plenty of conversation with Suffolk circles.
Proposition Two is the Suffolk County Water Quality Restoration Act, which, if passed, would institute a one-eighth-cent sales tax increase to help fund wastewater solutions across the county, which includes sewering of vulnerable and downtown areas and Innovative Alternative Wastewater (I/A) Systems in areas where sewers cannot be installed but the environment nonetheless needs that type of mitigation.
This bill was intended for last year’s ballot, but Republicans in the Suffolk County Legislature recessed the vote, claiming they disapproved of the ratios between sales tax funds for sewers and I/A systems – a 75%-15% split, with 10% for administrative costs, in favor of I/A systems, where the remaining 15% was essentially up in the air as far as earmarks were concerned.
Republicans made good on their promise to return the initiative to the ballot this year, this time with a more comfortable 50%-50% arrangement between sewers and I/As.
The process has been more bipartisan than not, with a wide variety of stakeholders lobbying for this policy for the better part of a decade. Moreover, the bill was shepherded through Albany by Assemblyman Fred Thiele (D-Sag Harbor) and Senator Monica Martinez (D-Brentwood), with plenty of Republican counterparts signing on to put this referendum in front of voters.
County Executive Ed Romaine (R-Center Moriches) signed the bill over the summer, marking the penultimate step in the process. The final step is either passage or failure of the amendment on Election Day.
Proponents argue that the one-eighth-cent sales tax is necessary to bring Suffolk County into the Twenty-First Century. This is a fair assessment, as our water infrastructure is critically lagging behind other highly populous areas of the country, and as the nation’s most populous suburban county, we don’t have an excuse. Furthermore, sewers are the lifeline of any downtown, and our downtowns, from Kings Park to Oakdale to Mastic Beach, all urgently require revitalizations in order to create a better, self-sustaining economy here in Suffolk. Heightened water quality initiatives can host a wider array of hospitality and entertainment and be a boon to housing projects that are needed to cool the market and allow younger residents to stay in Suffolk.
Opponents of the idea say that the County already has enough in reserves to start massive implementation now and that another tax is not what the bipartisan slate of its backers ran on. The two Hauppauge holdouts are Legislator Leslie Kennedy (R-Nesconset) and Rob Trotta (R-Fort Salonga). They were the only two Legislators to vote against putting this referendum on the ballot, citing their constituents’ opposition to another tax. Trotta, even since last year, has been especially critical of former County Executive Steve Bellone (D-West Babylon) and other previous administrations from bilking taxpayer-approved sales tax increases to fund water quality restoration.
We can respect their diligence in representing their constituents accurately, and we can also agree that this county has learned the same history lesson time and time again by instituting these increases, just to find ourselves in the same problem we had forty years ago.
It’s what makes this a hard call for us. We can easily say that all legislators, those in Hauppauge or Albany, Republican or Democrat, are not at all opposed to water quality restoration efforts. They certainly recognize the need, but in the cases of Legislators Kennedy and Trotta, their grievances are more with the logistics and historical lack of transparency than anything else.
On the other hand, we understand how pressing of a concern water quality remediation is in Suffolk. We also firmly believe that as long Executive Romaine and the incumbent Legislature are overseeing the slight tax increase and ensuing projects, should the initiative pass on Tuesday, then the funds will end up in their required destination. What happens after Romaine and company leave office is what makes us somewhat concerned that we could have a repeat of history on our hands.
Overall, there are good points to be made on either side, and we can’t dock anyone for voting for or against this measure. We’ll leave this one up to the voters.
The Messenger takes no stance on Proposition Two.
