On October 16, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (CACAGNY) organized a rally outside New York City Hall to protest Proposal 1, a controversial part of the six constitutional amendments slated for ballot in this November’s election. The proposal, known as the Equal Rights Amendment, has drawn criticism from the alliance, which believes the language is misleading and could potentially lead to the dismantling of specialized high schools in New York City that enroll a significant number of Asian students.
The Alliance’s president, Huihua Chen, articulated concerns that while Proposal 1 ostensibly aims to safeguard abortion rights and promote equality, Part B of the proposal suggests that any actions claiming to reverse past discriminatory practices would be legally protected. Given the existing discourse around the dominance of Asian students in top high schools, Chen fears that this provision could lead to accusations of bias against these institutions, putting Asian students at an unfair disadvantage.
Proposal 1 is divided into two parts: Part A states that no one should face discrimination based on objective characteristics, including race, color, ethnicity, or nationality. Conversely, Part B asserts that “no objective condition listed in this section shall be construed as depriving anyone of their civil rights.” William A. Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell University and attorney, characterized Part B as “the poison hidden in the ballot,” suggesting that any rights protected under Part A could be rendered invalid if they are claimed to discriminate against other groups. “As long as the goal is framed as reversing discrimination, then such discriminatory actions could be seen as constitutional rights,” Jacobson explained.
The rally also featured New York State Conservative Party Chair Gerard Kassar, State Senator George Borrello, and State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt. Ortt asserted that even if the proposal were to fail, the protections for abortion rights in New York State would remain intact. However, if it were to pass, it would allow transgender individuals who are assigned male at birth to compete in women’s sports.
The New York Times reported that this state constitutional amendment emerged in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which previously protected federal abortion rights. Supporters of the amendment saw it as a necessary safeguard against potential restrictions from local politicians. Nevertheless, both proponents and opponents of the proposal have voiced their dissatisfaction with its broad wording, fearing that it could lead to misinterpretations of its original intent.
