Ballotpedia covered the five proposed charter amendments combining a total of 19 proposals on the ballot for New York City voters on November 5, 2019. Voters approved each of the five charter amendments.
The New York City 2019 Charter Revision Commission added five proposed charter amendments to the ballot. The ballot questions consisted of 19 different proposals combined into five measure each addressing different topics.
HIGHLIGHTS
Question 1 (Elections) included a proposal to establish ranked-choice voting for primary and special elections in the city.
Question 2 contained five proposals concerning the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), including proposals to provide for a minimum budget for the CCRB based on the number of NYPD officers, allow the Public Advocate to appoint one CCRB member, and authorize the city council to appoint members without confirmation from the mayor. Question 4 included a provision to set minimum Public Advocate and Borough President budgets.
Click here to read about the 2019 charter revision commission and proposals for the 2019 ballot.
In 2019, Ballotpedia covered local measures that appear on the ballot for voters within the top 100 largest cities in the U.S. Ballotpedia also covered all local measures in North Carolina, all local measures in California, and all statewide ballot measures. Ballotpedia's 2019 local ballot measure coverage includes New York City.
New York City
- See also: New York City, New York ballot measures
• Ballot Question 1, New York City Elections Charter Amendment: Ranked-Choice Voting, Vacancies, and City Council Redistricting Timeline 
a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
- establish ranked-choice voting to be used for primary and special elections beginning in 2021;
- increase the time between a city office vacancy and the special election to fill it from 45 days (60 for mayor) to 80 days; and
- change the timeline for city council redistricting to complete it prior to city council nominating petition signature collection.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against amending the city charter regarding elections policy, thereby
- leaving in place a plurality (or first-past-the-post) system for most city elections;
- leaving the time between a city office vacancy and the special election to fill it at 45 days (60 days for mayor); and
- leaving the timeline for city council redistricting unchanged.
|
• Ballot Question 4, New York City City Budget Charter Amendment: Revenue Stabilization Fund, Public Advocate and Borough President Budgets, and Reporting by Mayor a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
- authorize a rainy day fund to go into effect with required state law changes;
- set minimum Public Advocate and Borough President budgets based on the 2020 fiscal year adjusted based on inflation or the total change in the city's total budget;
- move the deadline for the mayor's revenue report (excluding property taxes) to the city council from June 5 to April 26; and
- set a deadline of 30 days for the mayor to submit changes to the city's financial plan requiring budget changes to the city council.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against amending the city charter regarding certain elements of the city budget, thereby
- leaving charter provisions precluding a rainy-day fund in place;
- leaving the Public Advocate and Borough President budgets set through the standard budget process;
- leave the deadline for the mayor's revenue report to the city council at June 5; and
- leaving no specification about when the mayor must submit certain budget changes to the city council.
|
• Ballot Question 2, New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board Charter Amendment a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
- add two members to the 13-member Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB)—one appointed by the Public Advocate and one jointly by the mayor and speaker of the council;
- allow the city council to appoint members directly without the mayor having final appointing authority;
- require the CCRB annual budget to be enough to hire employees for at least one CCRB for every 154 police officers (0.65% of the city's police force) unless the mayor determines that fiscal necessity prevents it;
- add to the city charter the requirement that the city police commissioner to provide an explanation to the CCRB whenever the board's disciplinary recommendations aren't followed;
- authorize the CCRB to investigate the truthfulness of statements made during its investigation of complaints; and
- allow the CCRB to delegate its authority to issue and enforce subpoenas.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against amending the city charter regarding the CCRB, thereby
- leaving 13 board members, with five designated by the city council and three designated by the police commissioner and all final appointments made by the mayor;
- leaving no minimum budget requirements based on a ratio to police officers;
- leaving a 2012 agreement in place that the city police commissioner provide a report to the CCRB when disciplinary recommendations aren't followed but without a provision requiring it in the city charter;
- leaving existing practices of the CCRB in place to forward evidence of false statements during investigations to the NYPD for investigation; and
- leaving the CCRB, but not certain CCRB staff such as the CCRB executive director, with authority to issue and enforce subpoenas.
|
• Ballot Question 5, New York City Land Use Charter Amendment: Uniform Land Use Review Procedure Requirements a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
- require the Department of City Planning (DCP) to provide a summary of Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) projects to the Borough President, Board and Community Board affected by the project 30 days prior to when the project application is certified for review by the public and
- increase the amount of time allowed for review of the ULURP projects by the affected Community Boards from 60 days to either 75 days or 90 days, depending on timing.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against amending the city charter concerning certain elements of reporting and review timing with regard to ULURP projects.
|
• Ballot Question 3, New York City Ethics and Government Charter Amendment a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
- increase the amount of time after leaving service before elected city officials and senior appointed officials can appear before the city agencies in which they served from one year to two years;
- replace two of five members of the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) appointed by the mayor with a member appointed by the comptroller and a member appointed by the public advocate;
- prohibit members of the COIB from involvement with city office campaigns and restrict contributions from COIB members to campaigns to between $250 and $400 depending on the office;
- add to the city charter a requirement that the Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE) to report directly to the mayor and to require a mayoral office for the M/WBE; and
- require city council confirmation of the city's corporation counsel appointed by the mayor.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against amending the city charter concerning the Conflicts of Interest Board and the Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE), thereby
- leaving the block of time required before certain city officials can appear before their former agencies at one year;
- leaving all five existing mayoral appointments to the COIB;
- leaving COIB members without additional restrictions on campaign involvement and contribution limits;
- leaving no requirements concerning reporting by the director of the M/WBE to the mayor or concerning supporting roles for the M/WBE in the charter; and
- continuing to authorize the mayor to appoint the corporation counsel without city council confirmation.
|
Other races on the ballot
The city of New York, New York, held general elections for city civil court, the District 45 city council seat, and the public advocate on November 5, 2019.
Click here to learn more about the city's elections in November 2019.
Click here to learn more about the city's public advocate election in November 2019.
See also
