Gen sis pwopozisyon ki sou bilten vòt la ane sa a. Pwopozisyon ki sou bilten vòt yo se chanjman ki sijere pou dokiman konstititif pou Eta a ak vil la, Konstitisyon Eta a epi Ak Konstititif Vil la. Elektè yo gen dwa deside sou chanjman yo vle wè ki adopte.
Poukisa Pwopozisyon 1 ki sou Bilten Vòt la sou bilten vòt la?
Pwopozisyon sa a ka chanje Konstitisyon Eta New York la. Chanjman nan Konstitisyon an egzije apwobasyon tout Eta a.
Poukisa Pwopozisyon 2 jiska 6 ki sou Bilten Vòt la sou bilten vòt la?
Komisyon pou Revizyon Ak Konstititif 2025 lan te revize Ak Konstititif Vil New York la, li te òganize odyans piblik, li te konsidere opinyon piblik la epi li te pwopoze senk modifikasyon nan Ak Konstititif la.
Statement Summaries
Still confused about the ballot proposals? We’ve got you.
We invited New Yorkers to submit statements on ballot proposals, whether you support or oppose them. We summarized the submissions we received and published those summaries below, so you can see the key arguments for and against each proposal before you make your own decisions.
We kept submissions from everyday people private, but you can see which organizations and elected officials weighed in. In some cases, we included quotations from their statements, too.
Pwopozisyon yo
Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Otorize eski ak enstalasyon pis konèks yo sou teren forestye pwoteje ki pou Eta a. Sit la mezire 1,039 ekta. Li mande pou Eta a ajoute 2,500 ekta nouvo teren forestye nan Adirondack Park.
Yon vòt wi ap otorize kreyasyon nouvo pis eski ak enstalasyon konèks nan rezèv forestye Adirondack yo.
Yon vòt non p ap otorize itilizasyon sa a.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe pèmèt elajisman nouvo pis eski nan Konplèks Espòtif Olenpik la nan Konte Essex nan New York. Konplèks Espòtif Olenpik la nan teren forestye pwoteje ki pou Eta a. Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe egzije tou pou Eta New York ajoute 2,500 ekta teren forestye nan Adirondack Park.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Aktyèlman, genyen règleman ki estrik pou kalite konstriksyon yo otorize sou teren forestye ki pwoteje Eta a posede. Konplèks Espòtif Olenpik la nan rezèv forestye Adirondack la nan Konte Essex (nan nò Eta New York). Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe pèmèt konstriksyon nouvo pis eski.
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe egzije tou pou Eta New York ajoute 2,500 ekta teren forestye nan rezèv forestye Adirondack la. Sa a se yon pwopozisyon ki sou bilten vòt nan tout Eta a paske li egzije yon chanjman nan Konstitisyon Eta New York la.
Yon vòt “wi” ap chanje Konstitisyon Eta New York la pou otorize kreyasyon nouvo pis nan Konplèks Espòtif Olenpik la sou teren forestye pwoteje yo nan Konte Essex nan New York.
Yon vòt “non” ap kite Konstitisyon New York la jan li ye a.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 1
Those who submitted statements in support of Proposal 1 state that by authorizing limited development and requiring the state to compensate the public with 2,500 acres of new protected forest land, the measure adequately protects the nature of the Adirondack Forest. They point out that any changes to state forest preserves require the approval of both voters and the legislature. The Adirondack Council, an organization whose mission is to protect the ecological integrity of Adirondack Park, says, “This amendment would bring into compliance with the NY Constitution several apparent land-use violations by the state’s Olympic Regional Development Authority” by allowing the state to keep already-constructed Olympic facilities, later build new sports facilities, and retain the lands under the sports complex in the Forest Preserve. Additionally, the Adirondack Council writes, “When the training facilities become obsolete, state law would require their removal so the site could revert to wild forest. The amendment also specifically prohibits tourist attractions at Mt. Van Hoevenberg (zip lines, hotels, condominiums, off-road vehicle rentals, etc.) and bans commercial buildings above 2,200 feet (to protect sensitive sub-alpine forest).”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Center for the Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- The Adirondack Council
Number of statements: 5
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 1
Respondents expressed concern about weakening or carving out constitutional protections for New York’s “forever wild” forest preserves, either because doing so could create a precedent for future encroachments on protected land, or because they feel state forests should remain free of ski trails. One respondent shared they plan to not vote on this proposal due to their lack of information about the origin of and support for it. Council Member Robert Holden writes, “New York’s ‘forever wild’ protections are not a suggestion. I oppose carving exceptions into the Constitution for new construction on protected lands. Once we weaken these safeguards, it becomes easier to do it again.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 3
Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Akselere konstriksyon lojman ki abòdab fon piblik la finanse. Akselere demann ki fèt pou founi lojman ki abòdab nan distri kominotè ki ofri mwens lojman ki abòdab yo, sa ki ap redwi tan analiz la konsiderableman. Kenbe Egzamen Komisyon Kominotè a.
“Wi” pou akselere aplikasyon yo nan Komisyon Nòm ak Apèl ak oswa Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal la.
“Non” soumèt lojman abòdab la anba yon revizyon ki pi long ak desizyon final la nan Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ap kreye de nouvo pwosesis pou akselere sèten pwojè lojman abòdab. Premye pwosesis la se pou pwojè lojman abòdab fon piblik la finanse. Dezyèm pwosesis la se pou pwojè lojman abòdab ki nan 12 distri kominotè yo ak tarif devlòpman lojman abòdab ki pi ba.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Pifò pwojè lojman yo dwe pase atravè Pwosedi Inifòm pou Egzaminasyon Itilizasyon Teren yo (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP), yon pwosesis egzamen ki dire sèt mwa. Pwopozisyon sa a ap kreye de nouvo pwosesis pou sèten pwojè lojman abòdab.
Premye an ap pèmèt Komisyon Nòm ak Apèl (Board of Standards and Appeals, BSA) la apwouve pwojè lojman abòdab fon piblik la finanse, apre yon egzamen 60 jou Komisyon Kominotè lokal la fè ak yon egzamen 30 jou BSA fè.
Dezyèm pwosesis la ap kreye yon egzaminasyon pi rapid pou pwojè yo nan 12 distri kominotè yo ak tarif devlòpman lojman abòdab ki pi ba. Pwosesis sa a ap pèmèt Komisyon Kominotè a ak Prezidan Awondisman lokal la fè egzamen an menm tan, apresa gen yon egzamen 30 jiska 45 jou Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal (City Planning Commission, CPC) la fè. Se CPC a ki ta gen apwobasyon final la olyede Konsèy Minisipal la.
Yon vòt “wi” fè de pwosesis yo akselere pwojè lojman abòdab yo.
Yon vòt “non” kontinye pwosesis egzamen sèt mwa a avèk kontribisyon Komisyon Kominotè lokal la, Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, CPC a, Konsèy Minisipal la ak Majistra a.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 2
Those who support Proposal 2 see it as a solution to New York City’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. Multiple respondents referred to the proposal as a set of “common-sense reforms” and argued there should be a distinct process to approve and build modest housing developments as opposed to skyscrapers and large developments. Supporters believe the measure would help accelerate the construction of affordable housing, reduce bureaucratic or “politicized” barriers, and expand access to homes for low- and moderate-income residents. Many discuss rising rents and the limited supply of affordable units, emphasizing that without reforms, working and middle-class New Yorkers will continue to struggle to remain in their communities. Several argue the proposal would compel all neighborhoods to build their fair share of affordable housing. New York Housing Conference points out that according to their research, “Over the past decade, the top 10 producing City Council districts added nearly 540 affordable apartments per year on average, while the bottom 10 districts added just 11.” Regarding concerns that the City Council would not be included in the new approval processes, Citizens Budget Commission writes, “With its members appointed by the Mayor, Borough Presidents, and Public Advocate, the City Planning Commission can readily balance the whole city’s housing needs with various neighborhoods’ concerns. Importantly, Community Board and Borough President reviews continue to provide neighborhoods with a critical voice.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Habitat for Humanity New York City and Westchester County
- Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD)
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- New York Housing Conference
- Citizens Budget Commission
Number of statements: 8
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 2
Those who submitted statements in opposition to Proposal 2 believe it would weaken public oversight in housing decisions by taking the City Council out of the process and reducing opportunities for community input by making the Borough President and Community Board review proposals happen at the same time. Manhattan Community Board 3 writes, “The role of the community board is to provide a place for the community to have a voice in planning. The Borough President should be hearing input from the community through the community board before taking action.” Respondents also argue the proposed method to fast-track development would risk prioritizing real estate profit over genuine affordability, with several pointing out the proposal is favorable to developers. They call for clearer policies to ensure truly affordable housing and solutions that center the needs of people who require affordable housing over those of the real estate industry, such as by minimizing market-rate or luxury housing and promoting holistic community investment.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 9
Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Senplifye egzamen montan modès pwojè lojman ak enfrastrikti minè adisyonèl yo, sa ki ap redwi tan an yon fason siyifikatif. Kenbe Egzamen Komisyon Kominotè a, kote desizyon final la se Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal la k ap pran l.
“Wi” senplifye egzamen pou chanjman limite itilizasyon teren yo, ki enkli pwojè lojman modès ak enfrastrikti minè.
“Non” soumèt chanjman sa yo anba yon egzamen ki pi long, ak desizyon final Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ap kreye yon pwosesis egzamen ki pi rapid pou sèten pwojè itilizasyon teren, tankou pwojè ki pi piti yo pou chanje fason yo itilize teren yo pou prepare vil la pou kondisyon meteyowolojik ekstrèm oswa lòt defi alavni. Pou pifò pwojè sa yo, pwosesis ki pwopoze a ta dwe retire egzamen final la nan men Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Aktyèlman, pifò pwojè itilizasyon teren yo dwe pase atravè Pwosedi Inifòm pou Egzaminasyon Itilizasyon Teren yo (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP), yon pwosesis egzamen ki dire sèt mwa. Pwopozisyon sa a ap kreye yon Pwosedi Akseslere pou Egzamen Itilizasyon Teren yo (Expedited Land Use Review Procedure, ELURP) pou pwojè ki pi piti yo pou chanje fason yo itilize teren yo pou prepare vil la pou tanperati ekstrèm oswa lòt defi alavni. Pwosesis sa a t ap gen ladan yon peryòd egzamen 60 jou pou Komisyon Kominotè lokal la ak Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, apresa ap gen yon egzamen 30 jou epi desizyon final nan men Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal (City Planning Commission, CPC) la.
Yon vòt “wi” kreye yon pwosesis ki pi rapid pou chajman zonaj ki pi piti ak lòt aksyon itilizasyon teren yo. Li retire egzamen Konsèy Minisipal la pou pifò pwojè yo.
Yon vòt “non” kontinye pwosesis egzamen piblik sèt mwa a avèk kontribisyon Komisyon Kominotè lokal la, Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, CPC a, Konsèy Minisipal la ak Majistra a.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 3
Supporters of Proposal 3 discuss two key reasons to create a new process to review modest land use changes: building more housing and preparing the city for extreme weather and climate impacts. Respondents focused on housing reference “red tape” and believe the new process would increase housing production significantly by differentiating the process to approve “modestly-sized” housing development from “large, complex, and sometimes controversial proposals” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council) to incentivize more housing development at different scales. They argue that under the current system, “only large-scale projects, which can generate more profit, are proposed” (Abundance New York), and subjecting smaller proposals to the same process “slows them, makes them more costly, and very often prevents them from happening at all” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council). Respondents focused on climate resilience cite increased flooding, heat waves, electrical grid brownouts, and the need for renewable energy projects like solar panels. Several mention the importance of not letting bureaucratic process slow down measures to prepare the city and its residents for the impacts of extreme weather and climate change. Nearly all respondents in support of the proposal feel positive developments have been stymied under ULURP (the current process), and that the city should be able to respond more quickly and nimbly to emerging needs.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- Citizens Budget Commission
- The Health & Housing Consortium
- Citizens Housing and Planning Council
- Dattner Architects
- Climate Changemakers Brooklyn
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 25
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 3
Respondents who oppose Proposal 3 think it removes power from the City Council and reduces community input while using misleading and overly broad language (such as “modest”), which developers could take advantage of. Council Member Robert Holden writes, “ Modest can become a loophole.” Respondents express concern that the proposal would shift decision-making power away from everyday New Yorkers, undermining communities' say in what gets built in their neighborhoods. Manhattan Community Board 3 “is adamant about preserving the already limited ability of the community boards to provide input.” Critics warn of negative impacts like displacement, continued affordability issues, disinvestment in neighborhoods, and pushed-through zoning changes that primarily benefit developers.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 5
Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Etabli yon Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ansanm ak Prezidan Konsèy la, Prezidan Awondisman lokal la epi Majistra a pou egzamnie aksyon Konsèy la ki rejte oswa chanje aplikasyon ki pou kreye lojman abòdab yo.
“Wi” kreye Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ki gen twa manm ladan l pou reflete vizyon Konsèy Minisipal la, Awondisman an ak Tout Vil la annantye.
“Non” soumèt lojman abòdab la a veto Majistra a ak desizyon final Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe chanje pwosesis egzamen itilizasyon teren aktyèl la lè Konsèy Minisipal la rejte oswa chanje yon pwojè lojman abòdab. Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe kreye yon Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab (Affordable Housing Appeals Board), ki gen ladann Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, Prezidan Konsèy Minisipal la epi Majistra a. Pwopozisyon an ta dwe pèmèt Komisyon Apèl la ranvèse desizyon Konsèy Minisipal la nan yon vòt de kont youn.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Aktyèlman, pifò pwojè lojman abòdab yo dwe pase atravè Pwosedi Inifòm pou Egzaminasyon Itilizasyon Teren yo (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP), yon pwosesis egzamen ki dire sèt mwa ki fini ak yon vòt final Konsèy Minisipal la. Majistra a gen pouvwa pou li mete veto sou desizyon sa a, epi Konsèy Minisipal la ka ranvèse veto a.
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe aplike ak pwojè lojman abòdab Konsèy Minisipal la rejte oswa chanje yo. Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe kreye yon Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ki ta dwe gen pouvwa pou ranvèse desizyon Konsèy Minisipal la. Komisyon Apèl la ta dwe gen ladan l Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, Prezidan Konsèy Minisipal la epi Majistra a. Yo ta dwe adopte pwojè yo si de nan twa manm yo bay apwobasyon yo.
Yon vòt “wi” kreye Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ki ta dwe kapab ranvèse desizyon Konsèy Minisipal la sou pwojè lojman abòdab yo ak yon vòt de kont youn. Komisyon Apèl la ta dwe gen ladan Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, Prezidan Konsèy Minisipal la epi Majistra a.
Yon vòt “non” kenbe pwosesis egzamen pou pwojè lojman abòdab yo, ki gen ladan l yon desizyon final, nan men Konsèy Minisipal la.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 4
Supporters argue Proposal 4 represents a step to build more affordable housing across the city. They criticize the current City Council practice of “member deference,” in which the Council member who represents the district in which a given housing development is being proposed can effectively veto it. They argue that member deference prevents affordable housing from being built and contributes to inequity. The Anti-Discrimination Center writes that member deference is “is a process without accountability, one shared by some of the most segregated major cities in the U.S., and one which helps explain why we produce so much less housing per 1,000 residents than some other parts of the metro area.” Abundance New York says with a vacancy rate for apartments at 1.4%, landlords have outsized power to jack up rents, and this is because “it is far easier for the city to say ‘no’ to new affordable housing than to say 'yes.’” Altogether, respondents reject the current system in which council members can block housing projects even in the face of widespread support and clear benefits to the city, and they embrace the proposal to balance neighborhood and citywide priorities by shifting decision-making to the Council Speaker, Mayor, and local Borough President.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- Citizens Budget Commission
- Anti-Discrimination Center
- Citizens Housing and Planning Council
- Dattner Architects
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 14
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 4
Those who submitted statements in opposition to Proposal 4 warn it would strip community members of their power to influence development decisions in their neighborhoods by shifting toward centralized power held by a few city leaders. They warn the proposal will not actually lead to housing that addresses residents’ needs, with concerns about catering to developers’ interests, government corruption, gentrification and displacement. Respondents believe council members (and community boards) should be able to represent the interests of the neighborhoods they represent, and that the people deserve a seat at the table for decision-making to ensure transparency, trust, and accountability. Council Member Robert Holden says, “New York needs housing built with trust, transparency, and strong conflict of interest rules, not another venue to rubber stamp bad projects.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 8
Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Konsolide kat jeyografik awondisman yo epi adrese asiyasyon fonksyon yo, epi kreye yon Kat Jeyografik Minisipal nimerik nan Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipa la. Jodi a, Kat Jeyografik Minisipal la gen ladan l kat jeyografik an papye ki repati nan senk biwo.
“Wi” kreye yon Kat Jeyografik Minisipal nimerik byen konsolide.
“Non” kite an plas senk kat jeyografik separe epi adrese asiyasyon fonksyon yo, Biwo Prezidan Awondisman yo ap jere.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe rann Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipal (Department of City Planning, DCP) la responsab pou li kreye, konsève epi nimerize yon sèl Kat Jeyografik Minisipal.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Kat Jeyografik Minisipal la defini non ri yo, lajè yo ak trasaj yo. Aktyèlman, se senk Biwo Topografik k ap jere Kat Jeyografik Minisipal la, nan chak biwo Prezidan Awondisman yo. Kat Jewografik Minisipal la gen ladan l 8,000 kat jewografik an papye. Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe egzije Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipal la (Department of City Planning, DCP) pou konsolide kat jeyografik an papye yo ki konsève separeman nan yon sèl Kat Jeyografik Minisipal santralize e nimerize.
Yon vòt “wi” kreye yon Kat Jeyografik Minisipal nimerik santralize Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipal la konsève.
Yon vòt “non” kite kat jeyografik papye chak awondisman yo separe epi sou kontwòl biwo Prezidan Awondisman an.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 5
Supporters of Proposal 5 see the creation of a unified digital City Map as an important step toward speeding up months- or years-long processes that depend on city maps, such as infrastructure and housing projects. Supporters think this proposal would make public information more readily available, especially to New Yorkers with disabilities. “Modernizing administration of the City Map would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and speed up the time needed to advance public and private projects that involve changes to the public realm” (Citizens Budget Commission). The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) writes that the current system of 8,000 paper maps in five different borough offices present challenges for people with mobility or vision disabilities, and “a digitized map will provide clearer, more consistent information on street names and layouts, while allowing residents to access this information from home.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Citizens Budget Commission
- Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 6
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 5
Those who oppose Proposal 5 range in their reasoning, from concerns about the vagueness of the proposal and doubts about its value, to belief in the value of paper maps, to warnings that the Department of City Planning is ill-equipped to take on the work of each borough’s Topographical Bureau. Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella writes, “By design, the Topographical Bureaus are kept local and close to the expertise of both their workers, who maintain highly technical maps, and to the professionals and Borough residents who often need and use these maps,” and when Staten Islanders need help resolving a land use or property issue, “because the Topographical Bureau is managed by staff who understand their community, they deliver fast, direct service to residents.” Fossella continues, “this move would put these functions in an agency that lacks the genuine human interaction that is needed for results. DCP is also notorious for being overburdened, with long backlogs and inaccuracies. This move has the potential to slow processes, create further service backlogs, weaken accountability and make it harder for everyday New Yorkers to get help.” Council Member Robert Holden adds, “A single digital map sounds helpful, but this measure is vague on cost, privacy, and who gets to change it.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 5
Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Deplase dat eleksyon primè minisipal yo ak eleksyon jeneral yo konsa eleksyon Minisipal yo ap fèt nan menm ane ak eleksyon Prezidansyèl Federal yo, lè lwa Eta a pèmèt sa.
“Wi” deplase eleksyon minisipal yo ale nan menm ane ak eleksyon Prezidansyèl Federal yo, lè lwa Eta a pèmèt sa.
“Non” ap kite lwa yo jan yo ye a.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe deplase dat eleksyon pou fonksyon vil yo ale nan menm ane ak eleksyon prezidansyèl federal yo.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Aktyèlman, eleksyon minisipal yo fèt nan ane ki fini ak chif enpè epi eleksyon prezidansyèl federal yo fèt nan ane ki fini ak chif pè, chak kat lane. Pwopozisyon sa a pral fè eleksyon minisipal ak eleksyon prezidansyèl federal yo fèt nan menm ane a. Sa a vle di eleksyon pou fonksyon minispal yo (pou Majistra, Defansè Piblik, Kontwolè, Prezidan Awondisman ak Konsèy Minisipal) ta dwe fèt nan menm ane ak eleksyon prezidansyèl federal yo. Pwopozisyon sa pral egzije yon chanjman nan lwa Eta New York la anvan li efektif.
Yon vòt “wi” deplase eleksyon minisipal yo pou yo fèt nan menm ane ak eleksyon federal yo, selon yon chajman ki fèt nan lwa Eta a.
Yon vòt “non” kite eleksyon minisipal la fèt nan ane ki fini ak chif enpè, nan yon sik eleksyon ki diferan ak eleksyon prezidansyèl federal yo.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 6
Supporters of Proposal 6 say shifting the local election calendar to align with presidential election years would significantly increase voter turnout and increase representation among those who vote, so voters are more reflective of the city. They point to other U.S. cities that have enacted this change – Los Angeles, Baltimore, Phoenix, El Paso, Austin – which have seen the “benefits of a more inclusive, representative democracy” (Brennan Center for Justice). The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) also lifts up that “higher-turnout elections typically come with more investment in accessible poll sites, better training for poll workers, and greater outreach to voters.” Respondents agree moving local elections to even years would allow more New Yorkers to have a say in the city’s leadership. Multiple submissions note the discrepancy between presidential election turnout (60% in 2020) versus local election turnout (23% in 2021). Abundance New York notes, “The leaders who run our city day-to-day have a major impact on the city’s cost of living, quality of life, and safety; off-year elections mean that very few New York voters are actually choosing who those leaders are. ... Higher turnout means more New Yorkers having a voice in our politics, more representativeness and responsiveness from our elected leaders, and better outcomes for all.” Several submissions add that this change would save millions of dollars by reducing the number of elections overall.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Citizens Union
- Abundance New York
- Brennan Center for Justice
- Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- Reinvent Albany
- League of Women Voters of the City of New York
Number of statements: 14
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 6
Those who oppose Proposal 6 believe local issues deserve the focused attention of an election year distinct from presidential elections. Some express a lack of trust in changing the status quo and believe the current calendar grants needed focus on local issues. The statements reflect skepticism that the calendar is the cause of low voter turnout, and posit that rebuilding trust and strengthening civic engagement would better address the issue of low voter participation. Council Member Robert Holden says, “In the 1960s and 1970s New York often saw turnout above 70 percent with one day to vote. The issue is not the calendar, it is engagement and confidence in local government.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 5
Piblikasyon deklarasyon nan Gid Elektè a pa garanti. Konsèy Finansman Kanpay la/NYC Votes konsève kontwòl editoryal sou Gid Elektè a epi li ka modifye l, rezime l, oswa refize pibliye nenpòt deklarasyon piblik.
