2013 NY Ballot Proposals

Learn Something

MYD is not taking an official position on the upcoming ballot proposals, but here are my personal opinions, along with brief explanations.  Feel free to email policy@gomyd.com with any questions or concerns.

Many of my stances are informed by the voter card produced by the League of Women Voters of New York City. You can view their guide, and the original text of the amendments, here.

Again, these are my opinions and Manhattan Young Democrats does not take any official stance on the proposals listed below.

Ballot Proposal #1 – NO
Ballot Proposal #2 – YES
Ballot Proposal #3 – YES
Ballot Proposal #4 – YES
Ballot Proposal #5 – YES
Ballot Proposal #6 – YES

Ballot proposal #1 would allow to legislature to approve up to 7 casinos in New York State.  I am opposed to this proposal because I believe that the dangers casinos pose to communities greatly outweigh whatever the potential benefits might be.  For more on opposition to this proposal, you can read the New York Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/opinion/no-to-more-casinos-in-new-york-state.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Proposals #2 and #3 deal with civil service points for disabled veterans and excluding sewage construction costs from town debt.  The League of Women Voters could find no expressed opinions in opposition to either of these proposals.

Ballot proposals #4 and #5 deal with the Constitution’s “Forever Wild” clause, which forbids the lease, sale, exchange or taking of any forest preserve land.  In the first case, a land exchange would be made to settle a century old land dispute, with the state receiving more land for the forest preserve.  In the second case, the state would also receive more land for the forest preserve, in exchange for allowing mining on a small parcel of land, which would then be restored once mining is complete.

Ballot proposal #6 would allow judges to serve an additional 4 years on the State Supreme Court, and would allow Appeals Court judges to finish their term of service, even if they reach the age of 70 before their term is complete.  I support this amendment because I believe that 70 is arbitrary and we should not be removing excellent members of the judiciary based solely on age.  If someone is found competent to continue their work as a judge, they should be allowed to continue.