Friends and Neighbors:
Tomorrow is General Election Day for local elections in New York State -- whomever you're supporting, and whatever your political leanings,
remember to vote!
If you're a New York City voter and you don't remember where your polling place is, or you're wondering if it's changed (a number of them have), you can look up your poll site here: http://nyc.pollsitelocator.com/
Finally, in addition to local elections for mayor, city council, and other city offices, there are six proposed amendments to the state constitution
on the ballot
tomorrow.
Constitutional amendments have to pass the legislature twice and then are referred to the voters for approval -- so it is your decision whether these changes to the state constitution are approved tomorrow. Proposals One through Six, as the amendments will be labeled on the ballot, range from the well-publicized to the obscure, and deal with a wide variety of different issues.
Proposal One is easily the most-publicized of the amendments, and would authorize the creation of up to seven new casinos in New York State. While my political affiliations are usually pretty straightforward and predictable, on this particular issue I've found myself disagreeing with many of my colleagues in both major parties, and agreeing with an interesting coalition including upstate environmentalists, old-guard conservatives who usually disagree with me on everything like NYS Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long, and some religious groups. Many newspaper editorial boards from around the state have expressed real concerns with the casino amendment and its implementing legislation, including The New York Times,
New York Post,
Albany Times Union (Capital Region), and
Watertown Daily Times (North Country).
I'm including below a shortened version of the write-up we included in my office's October Community Bulletin, so you have a concise description of what each of these amendments would do, and so you know my thoughts on them. I hope this helps!
Best regards,
Liz Krueger
State Senator
Proposed Amendments on the Ballot for Approval
Proposal One - Authorizing Casino Gaming:
The wording of this amendment on the ballot is misleading, in that it focuses more about economic development and job creation (the hoped-for after-effects) than what the amendment actually does, which is authorize an expansion of casino gambling. This proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the state constitution is to allow the legislature to authorize and regulate up to seven casinos.
I voted in the Senate against this proposal for multiple reasons, largely stemming from my concerns that the amendment and the previously-passed implementing legislation do not ban political contributions from casino operators, do not adequately address issues of local control over casino siting and preserve a community's right to say no, and do not permanently guarantee a fair portion of gambling revenue will be allocated to local governments.
Proposal Two – Additional Civil Service Credit for Veterans with Disabilities Certified Post-Appointment:
This proposed amendment would create an exception to the one-time-only additional credit rule in the civil service system. It would permit veterans who are certified disabled after having already received credit at one appointment or promotion (because of their status as veterans) to receive additional civil service credit one more time after certification of their disability.
I support this proposal.
Proposal Three – Exclusion of Indebtedness Contracted for Sewage Facilities:
The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 5 of article 8 of the state constitution is to continue to allow counties, cities, towns, and villages to exclude from their constitutional debt limits indebtedness incurred for the construction or reconstruction of sewage facilities.
I support this proposal, which provides flexibility to localities in ensuring access to clean water.
Proposal Four – Settling Disputed Title in the Forest Preserve:
This amendment would allow the legislature to settle 100-year-old disputes between the state and private parties over ownership of certain parcels of land in the forest preserve by giving up the state's claim to disputed parcels. In exchange, the state would receive land for incorporation into the forest preserve.
I support this proposal, which is necessary because of an esoteric constitutional prohibition on any changes to forest preserve land.
Proposal Five – In Relation to a Land Exchange in the State Forest Preserve with NYCO Minerals:
This amendment would allow the state to convey approximately 200 forest preserve acres to NYCO Minerals for mining. In exchange, NYCO Minerals would give the state as much or more land of at least the same value, with a minimum assessed value of $1 million. This land would be added to the forest preserve.
I support this proposal, which, as with the previous one, is necessary because of an esoteric constitutional prohibition on changes to forest preserve land.
Proposal Six – Increasing Age Until Which Certain State Judges Can Serve:
The purpose of this amendment is to increase to the age of 80 the maximum age until which Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals may serve, upon certification of need and competence.
I support this proposal, which recognizes the reality that people are living longer and remaining active contributors to society at older ages. I generally do not support mandatory retirement ages, which I believe are a form of age discrimination, so I see this amendment is a step in the right direction.