Recently, as is common during election years, there have been a lot of political signs set up in people’s yards and on the side of the roads. It’s typical, nothing eye-catching for the usual presidential or local election signs, however there is one type of sign that was atypical this time around. This type of sign concerns Prop 1, and from what I have observed it is either advertising the protection of women’s sports or saying that Prop 1 will give taxpayer benefits to illegal immigrants. This is propaganda and misinformation; none of this information concerns the actual contents of Prop 1. It’s obviously meant to get a reaction out of people, and it does; it creates concern and anger both for the people who believe it and for the people who don’t, albeit for different reasons.

Misinformation is damaging to everyone, no matter their political beliefs and ideologies. Whether or not you’re for or against something, the spread of misinformation will only damage your ability to either properly represent what you believe in, or conversely, argue against something you’re opposed to. It is undeniable that misinformation is rampant in our society, and no person is safe from it. No matter what political party you support, no matter what news site or social media you get your information from, there will be bias. I am of the belief that the best way to avoid as much misinformation as you can is to strip away the opinion and propaganda and instead look at something at its source. In this case, that would be reading Prop 1 from the New York government website.

Prop 1 is, at its core, simply a proposition to further clarify those protected from discrimination in the New York Constitution. Prop 1 would accomplish this by making an amendment to Article 1 Section 11 of the New York State Constitution. As of now, before this bill is either passed or denied, the protections in the Constitution cover “race, color, creed, and religion.” Prop 1 would add “ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” to the protected groups. 

Furthermore, all of these groups are currently protected under the New York Human Rights Law, a law that outlines more protected groups than would be added into the State Constitution in Prop 1. Some of these additional groups are “citizenship or immigration status, military status, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, or status as a victim of domestic violence.” The only thing Prop 1 would do is allow for a constitutional cause of action for these groups in the event of discrimination. In summarized terms — nothing would change about how schools, businesses, and homes operate with the passing of this proposition as everything in it is already in effect in New York State, it is simply giving protected groups more clear and defined content to use to support them in efforts to push back against discrimination.

There are many dissenters to this proposition, and many arguments against it. I would like to look at some claims made against this proposition and use the facts that have been presented to the public to determine whether these arguments hold any validity. 

The first of the claims I would like to discuss is that Prop 1 would remove parental rights regarding their children’s gender identity and surgery. This claim states that Prop 1 would grant children the “right to transgender and other types of medical interventions” without “parental notification/consent.” Disregarding the grammatical error of making “transgender” a verb (which occurred twice during this article), this claim has several other glaring issues. The first being, again, the fact that Prop 1 is doing nothing but adding to the groups protected from discrimination. Prop 1 does not at any point take a stance on surgeries and operations relating to the topic of gender, and it does not state anywhere that parents will have any changes made to their rights regarding their children.

The second claim is that with the addition of “national origin” as a protected class, illegal migrants will gain taxpayer benefits. Illegal migrants have not and will not be given taxpayer benefits through Prop 1. The only way for immigrants in the United States to gain access to Federal Public Benefit Programs is to obtain a “Green Card” that signifies they are both legal migrants and residents of 5 years in the United States. Prop 1 does not delve into the complexities of immigrant issues in New York, instead it offers blanket protection from discrimination to everyone born outside of the United States. This also could not open the door to possible future taxpayer benefits for illegal migrants, as it is a civil offense to be an illegal immigrant. Another interesting fact to add to this topic is that illegal migrants do pay some taxes, including income and payroll taxes, while also having high working rates.

The third and final argument is not necessarily a false claim, but one misconstrued to better suit the needs of the people writing it. It is the claim that Prop 1 is adding things into the State Constitution that already exist in State Law, so it is either useless or a ploy for unchecked Democratic power. The claim that Prop 1 would be useless due to this is untrue; Prop 1 would grant stricter, better defined protections with an easier ability to act against unfair treatment and discrimination than if it stayed as only State Law. Prop 1 would also further cement these protections, making it harder to take the rights of protected individuals away at a later date. On the opposite side of this, the claim that Prop 1 would lead to unchecked Democratic power is also untrue. It is not granting any new rights, and it is not opening any obvious gateways to new regulations by Democrats.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of all possible facets of Prop 1. While I have provided my viewpoint on this situation, I would encourage readers to take 5 minutes out of their day to go to the government website and read the content of Prop 1 for themselves to be able to better understand what they are speaking about.