When New Yorkers go to the polls this fall, they will most likely be asked to respond yes or no to a proposed ballot question that would guarantee access to abortion statewide. But the amendment’s backers worry that not all voters will understand the question based on how it’s currently worded.
There is still time to change that. Supporters of the New York Equal Rights amendment, as it is known by proponents, are calling out the state Board of Elections for failing to explain the amendment clearly. The proposal would expand the state’s equal protection law by banning discrimination based on age, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender. It would also guarantee access to reproductive care, including abortion.
Supporters say that keyword — abortion — is missing from the language that would appear on the ballot.
A current draft of the question states that the proposal will add certain protections to the state Bill of Rights. The draft reads: “Adds anti-discrimination provisions to state constitution. Covers ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. Also covers reproductive health care and autonomy.”
New Yorkers for Equal Rights’ Campaign Director Sasha Ahuja pointed out that the text doesn’t currently reference abortion.
“This measure has been put before voters to prevent attacks on abortion rights,” Ahuja said. “Voters should see that intent clearly reflected and spelled out in the language.”
She criticized the draft language as unclear — and it’s perhaps illegally so. Under a law known as the “plain language law,” which was adopted last year, the question’s wording must not score more than an eight on a test designed to measure its readability, meaning that it’s appropriate for an eighth-grade reading level. The test is known as the Automated Readability Index.
The current draft question scores a 14, which is at the top of the scale and equivalent to a college professor’s reading level.
A spokesperson for the state Board of Elections noted that anyone can submit comments about the proposed language to the agency by July 26. That feedback can be emailed or mailed to the New York State Board of Elections.
Good government leaders argue that putting forth a ballot measure with a higher reading level than required by the statute will set a bad precedent. The November general election is the first test of the state’s new plain language law.
“People need to be able to go into the polls and understand exactly what they’re voting on,” said Sarah Goff at the nonprofit Common Cause New York, which worked to pass the plain language law. “That’s the purpose of the plain language bill. Overly complex language and legalese makes it unnecessarily hard.”
Goff’s group wants the election board to revise the ballot language to comply with the plain language law’s standards.
The plain language law was also backed by United Neighborhood Houses, a group of settlement houses in the city that has made civic engagement and voter education central to its mission.
“It’s really sad that the first time that the law can make a difference, the New York state Board of Elections is actually not upholding the spirit of that law and making sure that the language in the ballot initiative is written at a level for people to understand what it is being proposed,” said Susan Stamler, UNH’s executive director.
State Sen. Liz Krueger, who sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment, said that translating the proposal into simple language was a complex assignment. But she urged the state Board of Elections to do better.
“Beyond the language simplicity, which is really important, my biggest concern is that they do not use the word ‘abortion’ in the explanation of the Equal Rights Amendment,” she said. She also encouraged the agency to use the letters “LGBT” as opposed to “sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Krueger said she plans to submit a letter to the state elections board and suggest revised language before July 26, and she encouraged others to do the same.
“I absolutely believe there’s easier ways to write this,” she added.
