NEW YORK – On Tuesday, voters in New York will have the once-in-a-generation opportunity to vote for or against holding a state constitutional convention.

The question goes to the voters every 20 years, and in 1977 and 1997, New Yorkers said 'no.' A 'yes' vote would begin the process of electing delegates next year who could propose amendments to the state's governing document.

Priscilla Grim with Citizens Union, a good-government advocacy group, says a constitutional convention could take on issues that the state legislature consistently fails to address.

"We could expand voting access to all New Yorkers, and modernize those processes," she says. "We could install term limits for corrupt politicians, and figure out how to make it easier for everyday people to run for office."

Gov. Andrew Cuomo initially supported holding a constitutional convention but has since expressed reservations, and the leaders of both houses of the legislature oppose it.

There's also opposition from civil liberties groups, labor unions and environmental groups, who fear that the process would jeopardize rights in the current document. Grim thinks those fears are unfounded. She notes that citizens have three opportunities to vote in the process.

"There's one for the meeting, one to elect delegates, and the third vote is to reject or ratify the outcome of the convention," she explains. "This is the closest thing we have to participatory democracy in the system that we live in."

The last constitutional convention was held in 1967 - when voters ultimately rejected the amendments that the delegates proposed.

Grim adds that the turmoil from the last presidential election has sparked widespread interest in getting involved in the political process.

"People are more energized and more excited about running for office than ever," she notes. "People are so thirsty for real political solutions. We could do that in this process."

But others, concerned about the $50-100 million cost of a convention, believe it would be controlled by legislators, and waste taxpayer money - ultimately for no purpose.


get more stories like this via email

Massive protests and tent encampments opposing the war in Gaza are growing at universities across California, with classes canceled at the University of California-Los Angeles Wednesday, after tensions boiled over into violence there.

Police arrested 25 students at California State Polytechnic University-Humboldt Tuesday.

An organizer named Rithik from the Students for Gaza encampment at San Francisco State University recently spoke to Sonali Kolhatkar for her TV and radio show Yes! Presents: Rising Up with Sonali.

"Students everywhere are appalled at the current genocide occurring in Gaza that is being perpetrated by Israel and backed by the United States," Rithik stated. "We understand that our taxpayer money is not going towards our own education, but rather to fund this genocide and wars of aggression across the world."

At San Francisco State, students are demanding the California State University System divest any holdings in companies selling arms to Israel, assurances the student protesters will not be sanctioned by the school, and for the university president to make a statement opposing Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and declaring the war a genocide.

Pro-Israel groups argued the war is justified given the massacre perpetrated by Hamas, which kicked off the most recent violence. They also worry Jewish students will feel intimidated on campus. However, a Jewish student named Jacob at San Francisco State said it has not been his experience.

"I don't think we've ever felt that any of the actions being taken in the name of anti-Zionism and anti-colonialism are antisemitic," Jacob asserted. "Never felt unsafe, never felt unwelcome in these spaces. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism."

San Francisco State President Lynn Mahoney has emphasized the university's support for peaceful protest and said the university has already taken steps to divest.

This story was produced based on original reporting by Sonali Kolhatkar for Yes! Media.


get more stories like this via email

A new report showed turnover among California chief election officials reached 57% in 2022, a record high. It then declined this year to 40%.

Researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles partnered with the Bipartisan Policy Center to analyze the data from 18,000 jurisdictions nationwide.

Rachel Orey, senior associate director of the Elections Project for the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the jobs of election workers have become significantly harder in recent years.

"Today, election officials must manage everything from cybersecurity risks posed by foreign adversaries to people who are doubting the outcome of elections, to information technology, legal disputes, political pressures," Orey outlined.

The turnover rate is defined as the percentage of jurisdictions in a state where the chief local election official changed within the prior four years. It has been an issue in California for decades. The turnover rate stood at 41% back in 2004. But things got much worse after 2020, when election officials became targets of threats and harassment, often spurred by former President Donald Trump's evidence-free claims about a rigged election.

Orey noted she expects this year's presidential election to go smoothly, because dozens of states, including California, have done a lot to "beef up" the elections workforce.

"Sixty-five percent of local election officials have experience running a presidential election," Orey pointed out. "Where there are new officials, we find that they have an average of eight years of experience in an election office. So all in all, we see that election officials are well-prepared to administer the 2024 presidential election."

The report recommended better funding for elections offices, higher salaries and more training in order to attract and retain a highly skilled election workforce.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota's June 11 primary is inching closer and those running for legislative seats are trying to win over voters, including Native American candidates who are part of a movement energized by newly drawn political boundaries.

The organization North Dakota Native Vote said there are seven candidates with Indigenous roots seeking spots in the Legislature. Most are running in District 9, which was recently updated to reflect representation needs for two Native American tribes.

Natasha Gourd, a board member of North Dakota Native Vote, described them as a good mixture of candidates coming from both reservations in the area, with some running as Democrats and others as Republicans.

"We've seen an upturn in participation and just getting leadership development through Native candidates," Gourd observed.

The election wave comes after the state saw 10 Native candidates in legislative races two years ago. For her group, Gourd acknowledged the boost can be tricky because they cannot endorse everyone running. But she noted having greater assurances the areas will be represented by people from their community -- no matter if they have a different stance on certain issues -- is still a positive.

Gourd added trying to build on the momentum is also important for off-reservation districts.

"What they do at the state level, regardless of Native American people in North Dakota (being part of) federally recognized tribes, it does affect us," Gourd pointed out. "Most Natives in North Dakota do live off the reservation, so it does affect our populations."

Gourd stressed they need more Native voices at the state level speaking out about priorities within education, the housing crisis, energy issues and health care. She hopes the positive trends they're seeing inspire more civic participation among other racial and ethnic groups trying to get a seat at the policy table in North Dakota.