In a dramatic turn of events, the Democratic majority in the New York State Legislature has come under scrutiny for its conflict with the state Constitution, resulting in potential implications for their political activities going forward.
Violating Constitutional Guidelines
Following their victory in the Senate in 2018, the Democrats, already in control of the Assembly, have repeatedly run into issues by opposing the provisions outlined in the state Constitution. Their most recent infraction involves the proposal of a constitutional Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) without following the correct procedures detailed within this foundational document.
Unexpectedly, their proposed amendment will not feature in the statewide ballot this November, as was initially planned. In upholding the Constitution, a court has rightly ordered it removed. This outcome serves as a stark reminder to politicians that the principles and rules enshrined in the state’s primary legal document shouldn’t be disregarded lightly.
The Democrats also faced backlash for their attempted gerrymandering of congressional districts and refusing to vote for Governor Hochul’s nominee for the chief judge, Hector LaSalle. Both instances highlighted their disregard for constitutional regulations.
Genesis of the Controversy
The incident began after the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision on June 24, 2022, to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade case that has safeguarded the abortion rights of American women for the past fifty years.
Reacting to the ruling, Governor Hochul called a special session of the Legislature a week later, intending to enact a modified version of the ERA. Unlike the federal ERA, which asserts that rights under the law cannot be denied on account of sex, New York’s proposal pledged additional protections for sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and reproductive healthcare.
##Overstepping NY Constitutional Boundaries
According to the state Constitution, any proposed language changes must be referred to the state attorney general to offer an opinion—specifically, reflecting on the potential impact of the proposed amendment on other constitutional provisions. This opinion must come within 20 days, or else the Legislature can proceed to pass the amendment.
However, the Democrats didn’t wait patiently for the attorney general’s views. On the same day they reached out to Attorney General Tish James, they also passed the amendment. James released her official opinion five days later.
Facing Legal Challenges
Following this hasty action, Republican Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes took legal action, successfully arguing that the ERA cannot be voted on by the public this November since the constitutional procedures were not properly followed.
James defended the Legislature’s actions, suggesting that Byrnes did not have the necessary legal standing. However, Byrnes successfully argued that, as a legislative colleague, she should have had access to the AG’s opinion prior to voting.
Interpretation of Legal Language
The Democrats have justified their actions by proposing that the lack of a timely Attorney General opinion does not affect the amendment’s validity. The term “timely,” as the judge notes, doesn’t absolve the Legislature from breaking rules. Although Attorney General James performed her duty properly, the Legislature hastily pushed ahead without waiting for her input.
In conclusion, this ongoing dispute serves a broader reminder about the intrinsic value of constitutional boundaries, and the potential repercussions when these are not adhered to diligently. Our elected officials must respect and uphold the established political procedures within our nation to maintain our democratic core.
Meta description:”Explore the latest developments as the New York State Legislature faces legal challenges over constitutional missteps. Stay informed on this ongoing controversy and understand its broader implications. Dive in now for an insightful analysis!”