ALBANY, N.Y. — A New York judge said Friday he won’t force state election officials to tell voters that a proposed antidiscrimination amendment to the state’s constitution would protect abortion rights, dealing a blow to Democrats who pushed for the change.
The decision from Judge David A. Weinstein came in a lawsuit over the language that voters will see on ballots this November explaining what the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would do if passed.
Democrats wanted the state Board of Elections 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 antidiscrimination protections.
But Weinstein said he was reluctant to declare that the amendment would protect abortion rights.
“The central problem with these arguments arises out of the language of the amendment itself,” he wrote.
New York’s Constitution currently bans discrimination based on race, color, creed or religion. The amendment would expand the list to ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.”
Weinstein said the amendment’s actual impact on abortion is complex and likely to become the subject of future court battles.
“I lack the requisite crystal ball to predict how the proposed amendment will be interpreted in particular contexts, nor do I believe it appropriate for a court to answer complex interpretive questions regarding the meaning of a proposal before it has even been enacted, or to compel the Board to do so,” Weinstein wrote.
New York’s Board of Elections, which is tasked with writing plain explanations of measures on the ballot, decided late last month that it also preferred to repeat the proposal’s technical language rather than interpret the amendment in its description.
Weinstein said that decision “was not inherently misleading, and thus cannot serve as a basis for striking the certified language.”
It was not immediately clear if the ruling will be appealed.
An email seeking comment was sent to a representative for the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of two voters.
New Yorkers for Equal Rights, the coalition behind the amendment, said the current ballot language is a disservice to voters because it doesn’t mention the proposed abortion protections.
The amendment “will permanently protect New Yorkers’ fundamental freedoms, including the right to abortion — and voters deserve to know that at the ballot box,” said Sasha Ahuja, the coalition’s campaign director.
Backers of the amendment and some legal experts have said that the amendment, if passed, could be used to challenge future abortion bans on the grounds that they would amount to discrimination.
Opponents, including many Republicans, counter that the amendment would provide a constitutional right for transgender athletes to compete in sports, along with a host of other concerns.
New York Republican spokesperson David Laska said Democrats sought to politicize the wording of the proposition, which he said should be rejected by voters.
“Today’s court decision means that voters are presented with neutral language describing the amendment and that is a good thing,” Laska said in an emailed statement.
The judge did order subtle wording changes in the short summary of the proposed amendment that will be given to voters. Among other things, he said they should use the phrase “unequal treatment” rather than “discrimination.”
Democrats have put abortion-related questions on the ballot in multiple states after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Voters have shown support for abortion access in previous elections, and an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll recently found that 7 in 10 Americans think the procedure should be legal in all or most cases.
New York currently allows abortion until fetal viability, which is usually between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy. Democrats have firm control of state government, making any new restrictions unlikely.