ALBANY, NY — A New York judge said Friday he will not force state election officials to tell voters that a proposed amendment to the state Constitution designed to prevent discrimination would protect abortion rights, a setback for Democrats who pushed for the change.
The decision by Judge David A. Weinstein came in a lawsuit over the language voters will see on their ballots in November explaining what the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would mean if passed.
Democrats wanted the state election board to include the words ” abortion ” and “LGBT,” arguing that they would make the amendment’s purpose clearer to voters. Supporters of the measure said it would protect abortion access by expanding the state’s anti-discrimination protections.
But Weinstein said he was reluctant to say the amendment would protect abortion rights.
“The central problem with these arguments arises from the wording of the amendment itself,” he wrote.
New York’s Constitution currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed or religion. The amendment would expand the list to include ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and “gender, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.”
According to Weinstein, the amendment’s actual impact on abortion is complex and likely to be the subject of future litigation.
“I do not have the requisite crystal ball to predict how the proposed amendment will be interpreted in particular contexts, nor do I believe it is appropriate for a court to resolve complex interpretive questions about the meaning of a proposal before it is even adopted, or to compel the Council to do so,” Weinstein wrote.
The New York Election Board, which is tasked with clearly explaining the measures on the ballot, decided late last month that it preferred to restate the technical language of the proposal rather than interpret the amendment in its description.
Weinstein said the decision “was not inherently misleading, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for striking down the certified language.”
It is not yet clear whether the ruling will be appealed.
An email requesting comment was sent to a representative of the law firm that filed the lawsuit on behalf of two voters.
Supporters of the amendment and some legal experts have said that if passed, the amendment could be used to challenge future abortion bans that they argue amount to discrimination.
Opponents, many of whom are Republicans, argue that the amendment would give transgender athletes a constitutional right to participate in sports, among other concerns.
David Laska, spokesman for New York Republicans, said Democrats wanted to politicize the wording of the bill, saying it should be rejected by voters.
“Today’s court ruling means voters will have neutral language describing the amendment, and that’s a good thing,” Laska said in an emailed statement.
The judge did order subtle changes in the wording in the brief summary of the proposed amendment that will go before voters, saying, among other things, that they should use the term “unequal treatment” instead of “discrimination.”
Democrats have abortion related questions on ballots in several states after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Voters have expressed support for abortion access in previous elections, and a Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research A recent survey found that 7 in 10 Americans believe the procedure should be legal in all or most cases.
New York currently allows abortions until the fetus is viable, which is usually between the 24th and 26th weeks of pregnancy. Democrats have firm control of the state government, making new restrictions unlikely.