Power Play in the Voting Booth: How New York City's Propositions Reshape Executive Power and Rights

In the recent New York City election, voters faced six critical ballot initiatives that sparked debate over the future of governance and civil rights in the city. Proposition 1, which passed overwhelmingly, enshrines the right to abortion within the state and extends protections against discrimination. However, the remaining five initiatives, proposed by a Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mayor Eric Adams, have been criticized as a strategic move to consolidate executive power amidst Adams’ own legal challenges. With four of these measures passing, significant questions exist about the ramifications of democratic checks and balances in New York City’s governance. These initiatives will profoundly impact New York City’s legislative landscape and reflect a broader national trend of consolidating power within the executive branch when local and state governments grapple with defining authority and civil rights in an increasingly polarized political environment.

Proposition 1, the Equal Rights Amendment, expands New York State’s Bill of Rights to protect against discrimination based on factors like ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and various gender-related identities. This amendment also adds the right to abortion within the state’s constitution, providing an enduring safeguard for the state after the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade. Passing with a clear majority, the amendment is seen by advocates as a crucial step in shielding New Yorkers from regressive political shifts and ensuring the protection of individual rights. Supported by groups such as the League of Women Voters, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the N.A.A.C.P., the amendment echoes a broader trend across the country of citizens voting to reaffirm or expand reproductive rights at the state level as federal protections recede. Seven states, including red states such as Montana and Missouri, have voted in this election to pass pro-choice ballot initiatives. Interestingly, while abortion-related ballot initiatives saw strong support, this enthusiasm did not translate to the presidential race, suggesting that voters were more motivated by personal stakes in local campaigns than the national race, and that the Harris campaign struggled to mobilize voters around issues such as access to abortion.

Propositions 2 through 6 emerged from a Charter Revision Commission appointed hastily by Mayor Eric Adams in May. These initiatives prevented a City Council-backed proposal that limited the mayor’s power in appointing key commissioners to be on the ballot. By forming the commission to advance other ballot measures, Adams knocked the Council’s proposal off the ballot, ensuring the initiative did not reach voters this election cycle. Council Speaker Adrienne Adams expressed concern over these tactics, suggesting the mayor strategically used complicated ballot mechanics to preserve his influence over key executive appointments. The five propositions have also sparked considerable opposition among city leaders, with figures like the city comptroller, public advocates, and nearly half the City Council condemning the measures as efforts to weaken the legislative branch and centralize power in the executive. In response, No Power Grab NYC, a coalition of nearly 60 organizations, was formed to rally New Yorkers against these propositions. Comprising social justice organizations and progressive nonprofits, the coalition contends that the measures represent an overreach by Mayor Adams and threaten New York’s democratic framework.

Proposition 2, the Street Cleaning and Waste Containers Amendment, expands the Sanitation Department’s jurisdiction over public spaces, including parks and highway medians, and grants the department greater power to regulate street vendors in order to manage waste and curb New York’s rat population. In addition to enforcing rules about garbage containment on sidewalks, the measure also empowers the department to issue tickets to vendors who violate these rules. While proponents argue this will enhance cleanliness and public health, there have been strong opponents such as The Street Vendor Project who fear that this will lead to increased “abusive and often violent enforcement actions” against street vendors. The nonprofit, which provides support and legal aid to vendors, views the amendment as a troubling expansion of executive enforcement that could disproportionately affect vulnerable street vendors across the city. Other critics have also argued that this proposition will further criminalize poverty, allowing the Department of Sanitation to increasingly target unhoused people.

Proposition 3, the Fiscal Analysis and Budget Deadline Amendment, mandates that the City Council conduct a fiscal analysis for proposed laws before holding public hearings or votes. This measure also authorizes the mayor to perform his own fiscal analysis and introduces updated budget deadlines for the City Council. The Charter Revision Commission justifies this proposition by arguing that the Council underestimates the financial impact of legislation, warranting earlier and more rigorous fiscal reviews. Opponents, however, contend that this measure is less about financial transparency and more about shifting control from the legislative to the executive branch, providing the mayor’s office with more leverage over the City Council's decision-making process.

Proposition 4, the Additional Public Notice Before City Council Vote on Public Safety Amendment, requires extended public notice before the City Council votes on any legislation related to the operations of the NYPD, FDNY, or Department of Correction. This amendment has reignited tensions between groups advocating for police reform and those who align with Mayor Adams’ tougher stance on crime. Some Council leaders see this proposition as a vengeful action in response to the Council passing laws around public safety that the Mayor unsuccessfully attempted to strike down through a veto. Proposition 4 mandates that the Council provide at least 30 days’ notice before voting on any changes affecting public safety departments, while also allowing the mayor and relevant agencies to conduct their own hearings on these bills. Proponents, including law enforcement groups, argue that this measure encourages public engagement. However, the New York Civil Liberties Union and other opponents have warned that it grants the mayor excessive control over public safety legislation, which they see as a critical check on law enforcement. Critics also question why public safety legislation, in particular, should be subject to different procedural requirements, suggesting this added layer of bureaucracy is intended to make reforms more challenging to implement.

Proposition 5, known as the Capital Planning Amendment, aims to increase oversight of city facility maintenance by incorporating these needs into the city’s capital planning process. The measure requires the city to produce a more detailed annual report on city-owned facility conditions. It would also mandate that the city consider maintenance needs in a biennial report on new facilities. Although the amendment is intended to improve capital planning, opponents argue it lacks substance to enact real change. City Comptroller Brad Lander criticized the measure as ineffective, arguing it doesn’t meaningfully address issues with capital planning transparency or introduce significant reforms. Similarly, the City Council voiced opposition, contending that the amendment ignores key recommendations that would improve transparency and accountability in capital planning.

Proposition 6, the Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise and Film Permits Amendment, is the only citywide ballot measure that voters rejected. This proposal aimed to increase minority and women-owned business access to the film and television industry by creating a Chief Business Diversity Officer for the city. It would also have authorized the mayor to reassign which city office issues film permits and combined two city boards related to municipal archives. Supporters, including some business owners in the Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises program, testified that centralizing permit authority would help streamline processes and promote business diversity. Opponents, however, viewed the measure as a “grab bag” of unrelated changes, expressing concern that it granted the mayor excessive authority over a range of functions without a clear focus or unifying purpose.

The proposed amendments 2 to 6 on this year’s ballot highlight an ongoing power struggle between Mayor Eric Adams and the New York City Council. Opponents of the proposals see them as an undemocratic attempt to increase Adams’ authority and undermine the City Council’s role in safeguarding accountability. By expanding his influence over council oversight and appointments, Adams risks eroding the separation of powers and centralizing control in ways that may weaken New York’s legislative responsiveness. At a time when the power and immunity of the executive are increasing nationally, local governments such as New York City appear to be following suit. The amendments, framed as procedural issues but with wide-reaching implications, raise concerns over the future of democratic governance and transparency in New York City.

Sylvie Watts is a junior concentrating in political science and computer science. She is a writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at sylvie_watts@brown.edu.

Veronica Dickstein is a junior at Brown University studying International and Public Affairs. She is a staff editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at veronica_dickstein@brown.edu