2024 New York Proposal 1
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source: New York State Board of Elections[1][2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
New York Proposal 1 was a 2024 ballot proposal for a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the New York Constitution called the Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment, and informally known as the Equal Rights Amendment. It includes several rights in the New York State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, with its chief purpose to preserve the right to abortion.[3] It also adds a prohibition of discrimination on attributes such ethnicity, gender identity, disability, or reproductive autonomy.[4]
The amendment was approved in consecutive legislating sessions in 2022 and 2023. While the text of the amendment was determined by the legislature, the wording of the ballot proposal about the amendment went through several changes and legal challenges before the Board of Elections' draft was replaced by an Albany County Judge. In the leadup to the election, the proposal was the subject of misinformation, with false claims that it would facilitate undocumented immigrant voting or enable children to receive gender-affirming care without parental involvement.
The proposal was approved by voters in a referendum on November 5, 2024, with 56.99% in support, 34.23% opposed, and 8.78% of votes blank.[5] It will take effect on January 1, 2025.[6]
Content
[edit]The amendment, also known as the Equal Rights Amendment,[7] expands the Constitution of New York's Equal Protection Clause, which is limited to protecting people from denial of rights on the basis of "race, color, creed, or religion".[8][9] The full text of the proposal is:[10]
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.
It will modify section 11 of article 1 of the state constitution this way (removals struck, additions underlined):[11]
§ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed
or, religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination inhis or hertheir civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.
b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.
Effects
[edit]The amendment expands the state constitution's protections against discrimination, including ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression), pregnancy and pregnancy related outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.[12] By including protections related to pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare, the amendment enshrines the right to abortion and other reproductive services into the state constitution. This constitutional protection makes it more challenging for future legislatures to enact laws that would restrict access to these services.[13] The explicit inclusion of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression strengthens legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. This change is intended to prevent discrimination in areas such as employment, housing, and public accommodations.[14]
History
[edit]In January 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the right to abortion to be enshrined into the New York Constitution.[15] In 2019, Cuomo again called for a conditional amendment to protect abortion rights in the state at an event with Hillary Clinton at Barnard College, after the Democratic Party took back control of the New York State Senate in the 2018 election, and shortly before the passage of the Reproductive Health Act.[16][3]
To amend the constitution in New York, the state legislature must pass the amendment twice in separate legislative sessions. Only at that point do citizens vote on its approval.[17][18] On July 1, 2022, shortly after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the New York Senate passed the resolution in favor of the amendment by a vote of 49–14, then the New York Assembly also adopted it by a vote of 98–43.[19] On January 24, 2023, in the following legislative session, the New York Senate again passed it by a vote of 43-20 and the New York Assembly again passed it by a vote of 97–46, therefore allowing the referendum to take place.[9]
On May 7, 2024, Livingston County Supreme Court justice Daniel J. Doyle ruled that the referendum cannot take place, since the New York Attorney General issued an opinion of the proposed amendment after lawmakers voted on it, rather than before.[20] New York Governor Kathy Hochul stated that the referendum will still take place in November 2024.[20] On June 18, 2024, the New York State Appellate Court put the referendum back on the ballot.[21]
Proposal wording changes
[edit]In 2023, when the amendment had already been passed, state legislature passed a law to require ballot questions to be written at an eighth-grade reading level.[22][23] When the bipartisan State Board of Elections (BOE) set out to develop the wording, they could not come to an agreement. Finally, Democrats, who wanted to make sure to meet the deadline, agreed to the wording Republicans proposed, written at a college reading level and omitting the terms "abortion" and "LGBT".[7][24][22] Board commissioners admitted at the time that it probably violated the "plain language" law. The attorney general's office proposed a new version, and when the BOE was subsequently sued by voters,[25] they sought to require the board to adopt the attorney general's language.[24][22]
The attorney general's proposed language was:[24]
Protects against unequal treatment by New York and local governments no matter your sex, age, disability status, ethnicity, or national origin. Protects LGBT and pregnant people. Protects abortion.
When ruling on the case, Albany County Judge David Weinstein simply decided to implement his own version of the proposal, against the wishes of either side's lawyers and bypassing the BOE.[7] Absent an appeal, that is the version which appears on the ballot.[22]
Analysis
[edit]New York already has several anti-discrimination laws, and the amendment does not create any new rights. By proposing to add rights to the State Constitution, rather than existing only in laws that can be overturned by legislators, it aims to make those rights more difficult to take away if the balance of power in state government were to change.[26][22][3] According to Cornell University constitutional law professor Michael C. Dorf, the amendment would protect the right to abortion in the state of New York by ensuring that prohibiting abortion would be an unconstitutional form of health-care discrimination because they would be "singling out one form of reproductive health care, and not other kinds of health care".[27] While several parties have been critical of the final draft excluding the word "abortion" in its text, other advocates argue doing so helps to preserve rights of woman for all pregnancy outcomes, as well as for in vitro fertilization and contraception.[28][29]
According to The New York Times, the debate over Proposal 1 "has been rife with misinformation".[4] Regarding gender, the proposal does not affect parental rights or parents' role in their children's health-care decisions, such as gender-affirming care.[26][3] It also does not affect the law regarding participation in sports; transgender women have been permitted to participate in women's sports in New York since 2019.[28] On the subject of immigration, the proposal does not affect existing immigration laws, and does not change state requirements to vote, contrary to false claims that the proposal would make it easier for undocumented immigrants to vote.[4][30] Hell Gate NYC said many of the arguments against the proposal were "lies, plain and simple", highlighting a quote by Elise Stefanik which included several of them: "Proposition 1 would give our hard earned NY taxpayer dollars to illegals, fund sex change operations for minors without parental consent, and force schools to allow men and boys in women and girls sports and bathrooms".[22]
Support and opposition
[edit]The amendment was supported by a number of Democratic politicians in the state, including Governor Kathy Hochul, U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. It was also supported by "left-leaning" organizations such as the NAACP, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood. Supporters argued that the amendment would help protect reproductive rights, and would help reduce discrimination in the state.[31] A campaign in support of the amendment, titled "New Yorkers for Equal Rights", was launched in June 2023.[32][3] While it had ambitious goals for fundraising, it received some criticism for how it managed its money.[33][34]
The New York Republican State Committee and the New York Catholic Conference opposed the amendment, while Republican state senator George Borrello and state assemblyman Christopher Tague spoke out against it on religious grounds.[35][36][26] Former congressman Lee Zeldin campaigned against the bill, calling it an "attack on women's rights and girls' rights".[3] With the majority of New Yorkers in favor of protecting abortion rights, many opponents focused on transgender issues, suggesting that including age among anti-discrimination provisions would give children the same power as parents. The Coalition to Protect Kids, which was primarily funded by an anti-abortion activist, formed to defeat the proposal; the Coalition referred to Proposal 1 as the "Parent Replacement Act".[3] A small number of wealthy donors provided millions to campaigns opposing the proposal.[33] Shortly before Election Day, Richard Uihlein gave $6.5 million to a political action committee (PAC), Vote No on Prop 1, to oppose the amendment. The PAC-funded advertisements falsely claiming the amendment would give undocumented immigrants the right to vote.[33][4][30]
The wording of the proposal received criticism from multiple perspectives. An opinion piece in the National Review called the language "vague and all-encompassing", arguing that it provided too much latitude to future progressive litigants.[37] Hell Gate NYC called the language "a bland gruel of obfuscation", blaming Republicans for producing language which fails New York's "plain language" law and subsequently led to the version installed by Judge Weinstein.[22]
Opinion polls
[edit]| Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size[a] |
Margin of error |
For | Against | Don't know/refused/won't vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siena College Research Institute[38] | October 13–17, 2024 | 872 (LV) | ± 4.1% | 69% | 22% | 9% |
| Siena College Research Institute[39] | September 11–16, 2024 | 1,003 (LV) | ± 4.3% | 64% | 23% | 13% |
| Siena College Research Institute[40] | July 12–13 & 16–17, 2024 | 805 (RV) | ± 4.1% | 59% | 27% | 15% |
| Siena College Research Institute[41] | May 13–15, 2024 | 1,191 (RV) | ± 3.9% | 59% | 26% | 15% |
- ^ Key: A – all adults; RV – registered voters; LV – likely voters; V – unclear
Results
[edit]On November 5, 2024, at 9:00 PM ET, polls in New York closed. On the same night, at 9:31 PM PT, the Associated Press projected the passage of Proposal 1.[42] According to the certified results from the New York Board of Elections, the proposal passed with 56.99% in support, 34.23% opposed, and 8.78% of votes blank.[5] According to The New York Times, although the proposal faced right-wing opposition, it succeeded in several counties where voters otherwise voted for Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate.[43]
| County | Yes | Yes % | No | No % | Blank | Blank % | Void | Void % | Total votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albany | 92,489 | 61.32% | 51,167 | 33.92% | 7,175 | 4.76% | 41 | 0.03% | 150,872 |
| Allegany | 6,789 | 34.52% | 12,210 | 62.08% | 670 | 3.41% | 0 | 0.00% | 19,669 |
| Bronx | 266,970 | 72.84% | 53,487 | 14.59% | 46,072 | 12.57% | 817 | 0.22% | 367,346 |
| Broome | 48,041 | 52.46% | 37,073 | 40.49% | 6,455 | 7.05% | 38 | 0.04% | 91,607 |
| Cattaraugus | 12,920 | 37.48% | 18,944 | 54.96% | 2,605 | 7.56% | 10 | 0.03% | 34,479 |
| Cayuga | 17,489 | 47.60% | 17,873 | 48.65% | 1,378 | 3.75% | 5 | 0.01% | 36,745 |
| Chautauqua | 24,156 | 42.09% | 30,922 | 53.88% | 2,317 | 4.04% | 15 | 0.03% | 57,410 |
| Chemung | 18,648 | 49.18% | 17,039 | 44.94% | 2,229 | 5.88% | 8 | 0.02% | 37,924 |
| Chenango | 8,789 | 38.67% | 11,417 | 50.23% | 2,523 | 11.10% | 10 | 0.04% | 22,739 |
| Clinton | 20,289 | 56.00% | 14,310 | 39.50% | 1,633 | 4.51% | 6 | 0.02% | 36,238 |
| Columbia | 21,109 | 58.35% | 13,704 | 37.88% | 1,366 | 3.78% | 1 | 0.00% | 36,180 |
| Cortland | 11,038 | 49.43% | 9,941 | 44.52% | 1,351 | 6.05% | 0 | 0.00% | 22,330 |
| Delaware | 10,420 | 44.53% | 11,724 | 50.10% | 1,255 | 5.36% | 2 | 0.01% | 23,401 |
| Dutchess | 84,497 | 54.87% | 62,143 | 40.35% | 7,361 | 4.78% | 37 | 0.02% | 154,038 |
| Erie | 241,010 | 52.21% | 186,248 | 40.35% | 34,341 | 7.44% | 189 | 0.04% | 461,788 |
| Essex | 9,886 | 50.63% | 8,446 | 43.26% | 1,194 | 6.11% | 3 | 0.02% | 19,529 |
| Franklin | 9,417 | 48.09% | 8,853 | 45.21% | 1,313 | 6.70% | 7 | 0.04% | 19,590 |
| Fulton | 9,157 | 37.91% | 13,455 | 55.70% | 1,544 | 6.39% | 2 | 0.01% | 24,158 |
| Genesee | 10,481 | 36.38% | 17,066 | 59.23% | 1,265 | 4.39% | 9 | 0.03% | 28,821 |
| Greene | 11,147 | 43.53% | 13,024 | 50.86% | 1,437 | 5.61% | 1 | 0.00% | 25,609 |
| Hamilton | 1,249 | 36.29% | 1,956 | 56.83% | 237 | 6.89% | 0 | 0.00% | 3,442 |
| Herkimer | 11,746 | 40.48% | 15,550 | 53.59% | 1,718 | 5.92% | 10 | 0.03% | 29,024 |
| Jefferson | 18,481 | 42.79% | 22,413 | 51.89% | 2,296 | 5.32% | 12 | 0.03% | 43,202 |
| Kings | 567,108 | 66.15% | 149,304 | 17.41% | 140,927 | 16.44% | 4,571 | 0.53% | 861,910 |
| Lewis | 4,154 | 31.36% | 8,632 | 65.17% | 459 | 3.47% | 1 | 0.01% | 13,246 |
| Livingston | 12,850 | 40.92% | 17,478 | 55.65% | 1,078 | 3.43% | 2 | 0.01% | 31,408 |
| Madison | 16,673 | 48.67% | 16,429 | 47.95% | 1,158 | 3.38% | 5 | 0.01% | 34,265 |
| Monroe | 201,615 | 54.89% | 143,932 | 39.19% | 21,762 | 5.92% | 57 | 0.02% | 367,366 |
| Montgomery | 8,124 | 38.85% | 11,098 | 53.07% | 1,690 | 8.08% | 10 | 0.05% | 20,922 |
| Nassau | 364,431 | 50.63% | 289,785 | 40.26% | 65,545 | 9.11% | 575 | 0.08% | 720,336 |
| New York | 515,395 | 78.59% | 84,146 | 12.83% | 56,296 | 8.58% | 10,762 | 1.61% | 666,599 |
| Niagara | 47,499 | 46.02% | 50,668 | 49.09% | 5,042 | 4.89% | 17 | 0.02% | 103,226 |
| Oneida | 47,050 | 46.44% | 48,509 | 47.88% | 5,764 | 5.69% | 19 | 0.02% | 101,342 |
| Onondaga | 133,324 | 57.56% | 77,805 | 33.59% | 20,481 | 8.84% | 97 | 0.04% | 231,707 |
| Ontario | 29,085 | 47.83% | 28,992 | 47.68% | 2,731 | 4.49% | 6 | 0.01% | 60,814 |
| Orange | 82,482 | 46.29% | 78,563 | 44.09% | 17,156 | 9.63% | 34 | 0.02% | 178,235 |
| Orleans | 5,947 | 32.50% | 10,846 | 59.27% | 1,506 | 8.23% | 2 | 0.01% | 18,301 |
| Oswego | 24,168 | 44.25% | 27,818 | 50.94% | 2,628 | 4.81% | 14 | 0.03% | 54,628 |
| Otsego | 14,577 | 50.87% | 12,609 | 44.00% | 1,469 | 5.13% | 23 | 0.08% | 28,678 |
| Putnam | 26,140 | 46.34% | 26,269 | 46.57% | 4,003 | 7.10% | 9 | 0.02% | 56,421 |
| Queens | 469,504 | 65.30% | 158,314 | 22.02% | 91,124 | 12.67% | 2,995 | 0.41% | 721,937 |
| Rensselaer | 39,093 | 49.11% | 34,133 | 42.88% | 6,370 | 8.00% | 16 | 0.02% | 79,612 |
| Richmond | 92,497 | 45.99% | 90,223 | 44.86% | 18,417 | 9.16% | 447 | 0.22% | 201,584 |
| Rockland | 66,515 | 43.98% | 68,332 | 45.19% | 16,379 | 10.83% | 77 | 0.05% | 151,303 |
| St. Lawrence | 18,615 | 41.79% | 22,453 | 50.40% | 3,481 | 7.81% | 0 | 0.00% | 44,549 |
| Saratoga | 67,678 | 50.96% | 58,124 | 43.77% | 7,005 | 5.27% | 10 | 0.01% | 132,817 |
| Schenectady | 41,143 | 56.28% | 28,902 | 39.54% | 3,055 | 4.18% | 12 | 0.02% | 73,112 |
| Schoharie | 6,490 | 40.04% | 9,019 | 55.65% | 698 | 4.31% | 1 | 0.01% | 16,208 |
| Schuyler | 4,358 | 45.59% | 4,965 | 51.94% | 236 | 2.47% | 3 | 0.03% | 9,562 |
| Seneca | 7,017 | 46.09% | 7,623 | 50.07% | 586 | 3.85% | 1 | 0.01% | 15,227 |
| Steuben | 17,507 | 38.28% | 26,371 | 57.66% | 1,854 | 4.05% | 90 | 0.20% | 45,822 |
| Suffolk | 391,069 | 50.84% | 331,228 | 43.06% | 46,860 | 6.09% | 403 | 0.05% | 769,560 |
| Sullivan | 16,174 | 45.48% | 16,167 | 45.46% | 3,225 | 9.07% | 7 | 0.02% | 35,573 |
| Tioga | 11,404 | 45.97% | 12,719 | 51.27% | 687 | 2.77% | 2 | 0.01% | 24,812 |
| Tompkins | 33,376 | 71.51% | 10,156 | 21.76% | 3,140 | 6.73% | 5 | 0.01% | 46,677 |
| Ulster | 59,762 | 59.77% | 34,710 | 34.71% | 5,521 | 5.52% | 31 | 0.03% | 100,024 |
| Warren | 17,117 | 47.14% | 17,897 | 49.29% | 1,297 | 3.57% | 7 | 0.02% | 36,318 |
| Washington | 12,572 | 43.60% | 15,002 | 52.03% | 1,262 | 4.38% | 19 | 0.07% | 28,855 |
| Wayne | 18,159 | 40.35% | 25,225 | 56.04% | 1,625 | 3.61% | 6 | 0.01% | 45,015 |
| Westchester | 290,369 | 62.45% | 135,007 | 29.03% | 39,605 | 8.52% | 0.00% | 464,981 | |
| Wyoming | 5,639 | 29.05% | 13,031 | 67.13% | 741 | 3.82% | 4 | 0.02% | 19,415 |
| Yates | 4,199 | 39.43% | 6,214 | 58.35% | 236 | 2.22% | 6 | 0.06% | 10,655 |
| Totals | 4,757,097 | 56.99% | 2,857,663 | 34.23% | 732,834 | 8.78% | 21,569 | 0.26% | 8,369,163 |
See also
[edit]- Abortion in New York
- 2022 Kansas abortion referendum
- 2022 California Proposition 1
- 2022 Michigan Proposal 3
- 2022 Vermont Proposal 5
- November 2023 Ohio Issue 1
- 2024 Arizona Proposition 139
- 2024 Colorado Amendment 79
- 2024 Florida Amendment 4
- 2024 Maryland Question 1
- 2024 Missouri Amendment 3
- 2024 Montana Initiative 128
- 2024 Nebraska Initiative 439
- 2024 Nevada Question 6
- 2024 South Dakota Amendment G
References
[edit]- ^ "New York State Board of Elections". Retrieved November 12, 2024.
- ^ "Voter Enrollment by County". New York State Board of Elections. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
- ^ a b c d e f g Ashford, Grace; Fahy, Claire (May 18, 2024). "Why the Equal Rights Amendment Is Again a Hot Topic in New York". New York Times.
- ^ a b c d McFadden, Alyce and Ashford, Grace (October 25, 2024). "What Know To About New York's Six Ballot Measures". The New York Times.
- ^ a b "New York State Board of Elections". New York State Board of Elections. Retrieved December 23, 2024.
- ^ NY Const. art. XIX, §1
- ^ a b c Wang, Beth (August 23, 2024). "Judge Tweaks Language of NY Abortion Rights Ballot Measure (2)". Bloomberg Law.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ a b "New York Equal Protection of Law Amendment (2024)". Ballotpedia. Archived from the original on May 7, 2024. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
- ^ "Text of Proposal Number One, a Proposition" (PDF). New York State Board of Elections.
- ^ "Text of Proposal Number One, An Amendment". New York State Board of Elections.
- ^ "NY Voters Approve New ERA Proposal in 2024". NBC New York. November 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
- ^ "New York Voters Approve Expansive Equal Rights Amendment". Associated Press. November 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
- ^ "NY Proposal 1 Marks Historic Win for LGBTQ+ Rights". Ms. Magazine. October 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
- ^ Brody, Leslie (January 30, 2017). "New York Gov. Cuomo Wants to Amend State Constitution to Protect Abortion Rights". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on May 8, 2024. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
- ^ Campbell, Jon. "Andrew Cuomo wants to make abortion a constitutional right in New York". Democrat and Chronicle. Archived from the original on June 30, 2024. Retrieved June 30, 2024.
- ^ Campbell, Jon; Bergin, Brigid (May 7, 2024). "Equal Rights Amendment tossed off NY ballot, but an appeal is expected". Gothamist. Retrieved November 3, 2024.
- ^ Weixel, Nathaniel (May 7, 2024). "New York judge tosses abortion-related Equal Rights Amendment from state ballot". The Hill. Retrieved November 3, 2024.
- ^ Young, Shannon (July 1, 2022). "New York's abortion amendment clears first major hurdle". Politico. Archived from the original on May 7, 2024. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
- ^ a b Bragg, Chris; Smith, Rachel Holliday. "Judge Strikes Abortion Referendum From November Ballot". New York Focus. Archived from the original on May 8, 2024. Retrieved May 8, 2024.
- ^ Roy, Yancey (June 18, 2024). "NYS appellate court puts Equal Rights Amendment back on Nov. ballot". Newsday. Archived from the original on June 18, 2024. Retrieved June 18, 2024.
- ^ a b c d e f g "Hell Gate's Guide to the Six Ballot Propositions". Hell Gate. November 1, 2024. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
- ^ "Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Strengthen Democracy in New York | Governor Kathy Hochul". www.governor.ny.gov. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
- ^ a b c "Board of Elections sued over ERA ballot language". City & State NY. August 5, 2024. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
- ^ Wang, Beth (August 5, 2024). "'Abortion' Should Be Added to NY Ballot Measure Text, Suit Says". Bloomberg Law.
- ^ a b c Kahn, Rachel (October 9, 2024). "A Guide to the Six Ballot Questions New Yorkers Will Vote on in 2024". THE CITY - NYC News. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
- ^ Izaguirre, Anthony (July 29, 2024). "In New York, a ballot referendum meant to protect abortion may not use the word "abortion"". CityNews Toronto. Associated Press. Archived from the original on August 2, 2024. Retrieved August 2, 2024.
- ^ a b "Q&A: Proposition 1 – New York's lone statewide ballot measure in 2024". spectrumlocalnews.com. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
- ^ Johnson, Alexis McGill (November 1, 2024). "Reproductive Freedom Is on the Ballot In New York". ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
- ^ a b "Prop 1 (New York Equal Rights Amendment): What the Amendment Will and Won't Do". New York City Bar Association. Retrieved November 2, 2024.
- ^ Rubinstein, Dana (June 29, 2023). "Democrats to Use $20 Million Equal Rights Push to Aid 2024 N.Y. House Bids". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Reisman, Nick (June 29, 2023). "How Democrats, advocates are mobilizing for Equal Rights Amendment". spectrumlocalnews.com. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ a b c Ashford, Grace (October 25, 2024). "Mega-Donors Pour $8 Million Into Late Push Against N.Y. Abortion Measure". New York Times.
- ^ Mahoney, Bill (October 24, 2024). "Campaign for pro-abortion amendment in New York spends big on overhead. Not so much on ads". Politico.
- ^ Reisman, Nick (January 24, 2023). "Equal Rights Amendment will head to New York voters next year". spectrumlocalnews.com. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Ashford, Grace (July 1, 2022). "New York Moves to Enshrine Abortion Rights in State Constitution". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 22, 2024. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Lynch, James (October 1, 2024). "N.Y. Ballot Measure Would Enshrine the Left's Social Revolution in the State Constitution". The National Review.
- ^ Siena College Research Institute
- ^ Siena College Research Institute
- ^ Siena College Research Institute
- ^ Siena College Research Institute
- ^ "2024 Election Results: New York Prop 1 and NYC Ballot Measures". Fox 5 New York. Retrieved November 12, 2024.
- ^ Bellafante, Gina (November 7, 2024). "A Silver Lining for New York Democrats". Archived from the original on December 15, 2024. Retrieved December 24, 2024.