Empire State Today

Critics of Proposal Number 1 argue that if passed, the ballot initiative—dubbed the Equal Rights Amendment and billed as protecting abortion rights in the state—will establish New York as a permanent sanctuary state that could see non-citizens voting, taxpayer-funded "gender ideology" practices, and parents losing their rights to oversee their children's healthcare decisions.  

According to the New York Board of Elections website, Proposal Number 1 (Prop 1) would amend Article 1, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution to include anti-discrimination provisions based on "ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. Also covers reproductive healthcare and autonomy." 

Current protections cover race, color, creed, and religion. 

In a New York Daily News op-ed, former Congressman John Faso, who represented New York’s 9th Congressional District from 2017 to 2019, expressed opposition to Prop. 1, calling it a "Trojan Horse" masquerading as the "Equal Rights Amendment." 

Faso asserted the measure, championed by Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul and other legislative proponents, is based on the misleading idea that abortion rights in New York are under threat. 

“The state Legislature adopted New York’s abortion law in 1970 and regardless of one’s position on the topic, there is no genuine threat to these laws,” Faso wrote. “However, Prop 1 would seriously erode parental rights, undermine girls’ sports, and create new rights to taxpayer benefits for non-citizens.” 

Faso argued that while the proposal appears to promote equality, it could have serious repercussions for parental rights, girls’ sports, and the distribution of taxpayer benefits to non-citizens. 

He describes Prop 1 as “a veritable word salad of progressive intentions,” pointing out that it ironically does not even mention the term “abortion.” 

Faso underscored that the term "sex" in the amendment encompasses “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” 

However, he contends that each of these categories is already safeguarded against discrimination under existing state law.

The Editorial Board for the Wall Street Journal has called the amendment “dangerous,” and that it will “impose progressive intolerance.” 

“New York Democrats are pushing a November ballot measure, known as Prop. 1, to create new protected classes in the state constitution. The amendment is an attempt to drive Democratic turnout, and it’s a threat to other freedoms,” the WSJ’s Editorial Board said in an opinion piece. 

The New York Post reported that a new TV ad from the Vote No on Prop 1 Committee states, “The border is broken. New York is paying the price. And Proposal 1 would make it worse,” alleging that the measure could provide undocumented immigrants with taxpayer benefits and constitutional voting rights. 

Polling indicates the measure enjoys majority support, particularly in suburban districts facing competitive congressional races. However, opposition is growing for prop. 1, which would also legalize non-citizen voting in the state

The Vote No on Prop 1 Committee contends that supporters of the initiative, which has received significant funding from backers like the New York Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, are using scare tactics to increase Democrat voter turnout, as abortion rights have been secured and unchallenged in the state since 1970, alongside long-standing nondiscrimination laws enacted by both Republican and Democratic leaders. 

Vote No on Prop 1 Committee has dedicated between $10 million and $20 million in advertising spending against the measure. 

The opposition campaign’s digital advertising strategy includes Google Search, Display, Twitter, CTV (Connected TV), Preroll, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Meta Spanish, Display Spanish, and CTV Spanish. 

Additionally, the opposition group will send targeted mailings to voters in competitive congressional seats.

In a recent interview with Spectrum News, Faso voiced particular concern over how the inclusion of “gender identity” and “gender expression” could impact parental rights, pointing out the conflict between an amended Article 11 and existing parental rights regarding the healthcare decisions of minors.  

He elaborated on potential legal scenarios in which teens could take puberty blockers or receive "gender-affirming" care without needing the consent of parents and further cautioned that the amendment could pave the way for biological males to compete in women's sports. 

“They’re now going to have a constitutional right to say, you're discriminating against me for my gender identity and expression,” he said. 

He also raised alarms about the potential implications for voting rights, specifically regarding non-citizens. 

“This amendment also has the term national origin... It could mean voting rights for non-citizens,” Faso said. 

Faso emphasized that the state, not the federal government, determines qualifications for voting in New York, stressing the need for careful consideration of such changes, as Prop. 1 would ultimately lead to several consequences for civil law.  

In the growing movement of voters opposing Prop 1, Asian Americans have expressed concerns about potential reverse discrimination fallout if the initiative is passed.