Click HERE to continue reading the full article on The American Spectator

ALBANY, N.Y. (TNND) — A New York State ballot measure aimed at protecting residents from discrimination may allow illegal immigrants to vote in statewide elections, a civil rights attorney is warning.

Proposition 1, dubbed the Equal Rights Amendment, will appear before New York voters next month. The measure seeks to expand what is considered protected classes under the New York State Constitution, ensuring any such class is granted “equal protection of the laws.”

If passed, Proposition 1 will add, among other things, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes as protected classes.

New Yorkers for Equal Rights, an organization backing Proposition 1, says the measure would cement reproductive rights in the state, guaranteeing they “cannot be rolled back by out-of-touch politicians in the future.” It also argues the measure “closes loopholes” so the “most vulnerable” New Yorkers cannot be discriminated against.

However, Westchester County-based attorney Bobbie Anne Cox claims the proposition is a “Trojan horse” for a slew of other changes, including giving immigrants living in New York illegally the right to vote in statewide elections. She specifically points to the additions of ethnicity and national origin as protected classes in her argument.

Click HERE to continue reading the full article on CBS 4 News.

By JIM ECKSTROM jeckstrom@oleantimesherald.com

ALLEGANY — A New York City attorney is appealing rulings allowing the state to arbitrarily invoke quarantine rules as well as place an amendment on the November ballot that is tied to the right to abortion, but she doesn’t believe lawsuits are “feasible” as a primary tool in upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Bobbie Anne Cox was a panelist during Monday evening’s Right Thinkers discussion, which focused on constitutional issues. She noted she has seen success at the trial court level before elected judges in lawsuits over the enforced quarantine issue and the so-called “equal rights” amendment, but those wins have been overturned at the appellate level in New York — where higher-court judges are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

Continue reading the full article HERE.

But it’s not over yet. The lawyer who sued, civil rights attorney Bobbie Anne Flower Cox, has vowed to appeal. Ms. Cox called the June 18 ruling in Marjorie Byrnes v. Andrea Stewart-Cousins “wholly unprecedented.”

The court argued that Ms. Cox was too late in bringing her case.

“The sole cause of action here is subject to the four-month statute of limitations and is time-barred,” the Fourth Department Appellate Division judges wrote in the opinion. “The remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination.”

Ms. Cox told The Epoch Times that the court was wrong, that the statute of limitations that the court cites doesn’t apply here.

“Never before has a court held that a lawsuit against the State Legislature, pertaining to the Legislature’s power under the Constitution, is subject to a legal procedure with a four-month statute of limitations,” Ms. Cox told The Epoch Times.

The judges ruled in the state’s favor by determining that a statutory code for government agencies, known as New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 78, applies to Ms. Cox’s claims.

The ERA was introduced and approved by both houses of the New York legislature in a single day—on July 1, 2022—after Gov. Kathy Hochul called a special session to protect abortion rights in the state in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs decision on June 24, 2022. According to the state constitution, the legislature was required to wait 20 days before voting on the amendment, until New York Attorney General Letitia James had issued an opinion as to whether or not it conflicts with other parts of the constitution. Ms. James issued her opinion on July 6, 2022.

“The June 18 decision would overturn long-standing case law and procedural practice,” Ms. Cox said. “It is, quite frankly, illogical. We note that the court said nothing about the merits of the case because it is beyond question that the Legislature violated the constitutional process for the approval of amendments.”

A suit was filed on behalf of Assemblymember Marjorie Byrnes (R-N.Y.) alleging the legislature did not follow proper procedure before voting on the resolution.

“I would expect a decision very soon from the appellate division and that this matter will wind up in the Court of Appeals,” attorney and former New York Republican congressman John Faso told The Epoch Times.

The litigation originated in the Livingston County Court when New York civil rights attorney Bobbie Anne Cox sued both chambers of the New York Legislature on behalf of Assemblymember Marjorie Byrnes (R-N.Y.) alleging they didn’t follow proper procedure before voting on the constitutional amendment in the first place.

Time Frame at Issue

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs decision. In reaction, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called a special session to protect abortion rights in the state. On July 1 the ERA was introduced and passed both houses of the New York legislature.

Ms. Cox complained in the underlying legal action that the state legislature was required to wait 20 days before voting on the amendment until New York Attorney General Letitia James had issued an opinion as to whether or not it conflicts with other parts of the constitution.

“If the AG doesn’t respond in those 20 days, then they lose the opportunity to give their opinion,” Ms. Cox told The Epoch Times. “After that, the legislature can vote, but you can’t ignore that provision. You can’t say the 20-day time frame doesn’t matter and that you can just vote whenever you want.”

Ms. James issued a written opinion in support of the amendment on July 6, 2022.

The state’s attorney, Dustin Brockner, argued before a panel of five judges in the New York Fourth Department Appellate Division in Rochester on June 17 that Cox’s lawsuit is barred by New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 78’s four-month statute of limitations and that a written opinion from the attorney general’s office is only advisory, not mandatory.

“No one in the legislature needs to consider it,” Mr. Brockner told the judicial panel. “In fact, nothing in the Constitution requires this opinion to even be distributed to any individual legislator.”

The statute of limitations began on July 1, 2022, when Proposition 1 was voted on, yet the complaint was filed some 14 months later. The measure, which needed passage by two consecutive legislatures to be placed on the ballot, was approved again by both houses on Jan. 24, 2023.

Elected officials named in the lawsuit include Democrat Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Republican Senate Minority Leader Robert Ortt, Democrat Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, Republican Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay, and the New York State Board of Elections.

“I’ve never heard of an Article 78 against the state legislature so I don’t think that ultimately is a real issue,” Mr. Faso said.

Article 78 is a procedural challenge to a governmental action or inaction.

Among the questions asked by the judicial panel, led by Judge John Curran, was whether the enactment was procedural or substantive and what the relief would have been under Article 78. Mr. Curran was appointed to the judiciary by former Republican Gov. George Pataki.

An action filed under Article 78 would have invalidated the legislature’s determination to adopt the resolution, according to Mr. Brockner.

“They’re not challenging the constitutionality of legislation,” he added. “They’re challenging a concurrent resolution. So, this is different from all the cases they cite for that additional reason.”

Ms. Cox accused the state of muddying the waters by confusing a bill with an amendment.

“They are making nonsensical arguments because they know what the legislature did was wrong,” Ms. Cox told The Epoch Times. “They didn’t follow the Constitution.”

Neither the attorney general’s office nor Mr. Brockner replied to requests for comment.

Click HERE to read the article on the Epoch Times.

Republicans, parents’ rights advocates claim victory in New York equal rights amendment case

The controversial Equal Rights Amendment, which was on the ballot for the November elections in New York, has been tossed by a judge on procedural grounds.

The ruling is a victory for Republicans and opponents of the bill who say it was written too broadly and could trample parents’ rights when it comes to decisions like children receiving gender-affirming procedures.

The ERA was a rapid response by New York Democrats to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022. The amendment passed both houses of the New York legislature in a special session just one week after the Dobbs decision was rendered.

The amendment, which advocates say is meant to enshrine women’s right to abortion in the Empire State, was passed so quickly that a judge in Livingston County determined the legislation was fatally flawed due to a procedural mistake.

Click HERE to continue reading the full article.

By Juliette Fairley

The New York Attorney General’s office filed a notice yesterday appealing Justice Daniel Doyle’s decision that the state’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), also known as Proposition 1, violates Article 19 of the state Constitution.

A panel of five Rochester judges will hear the case in the Fourth Department’s Appellate Division.

“What’s at stake in this lawsuit is the rule of law and the will of the people,” New York civil rights attorney Bobbie Anne Cox told The Epoch Times. “It’s truly disappointing when the people have to take the time, energy, and expense to bring a lawsuit to force their elected officials to follow the Constitution.”

Ms. Byrnes did not respond to requests for comment.

“What they [the Legislature] did here is they referred this to the Attorney General, and then they voted the very same day,” Ms. Cox told The Epoch Times in a phone interview. “The Attorney General has 20 days to issue that opinion but they didn’t wait at all.”

The New York Legislature voted on Proposition 1 on July 1, 2022, and New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a written opinion in support of the amendment on July 6, 2022.

If Ms. James, a Democrat, wins on appeal, the initiative adding 11 new discrimination categories to the state Constitution will appear on November’s general election ballot.

“It’s really not political because although my lead plaintiff, Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes, is Republican, my other plaintiffs are Democrats and I’m a registered Democrat,” Ms. Cox added.

Elected officials named in the lawsuit include Democrat Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Republican Senate Minority Leader Robert Ortt, Democrat Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, Republican Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay, and the New York State Board of Elections.

Ms. James is undeterred in her support of Proposition 1 as a way to codify abortion access rights.

“The Equal Rights Amendment was advanced to protect New Yorkers’ fundamental rights, including reproductive freedom and access to abortion care,” she said in a statement. “New Yorkers deserve to be protected by their Constitution, especially as our basic freedoms and rights are under attack.”

However, socially conservative groups, such as the Coalition to Protect Kids New York, is vowing to fight the amendment because it grants protected status statewide for, not only abortion access, but also based on age and gender identity.

“If medical providers can’t discriminate based on age and gender identity, they could be required to facilitate minor requests for everything from gender reassignment surgeries to dental work, you name it,” Coalition to Protect Kids New York executive director Greg Garvey told The Epoch Times.

Currently, only discrimination based on race, color, creed, or religion is prohibited.

Other categories that would be protected from discrimination, if voters approve Proposition 1, are ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

“One of the other big takeaways of Prop 1 is that schools could be banned from disclosing to parents that their children are trying to gender transition,” Mr. Garvey added.

William Jacobson, founder of Legal Insurrection Foundation (LIF) and clinical law professor at Cornell Law School, sees Subsection B of the proposed amendment as a diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) concept that would impact anti-discrimination laws if approved.

LIF is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) in Rhode Island.

“If somebody said ‘Jews occupy too large a percentage of a profession or apartment building,’ that’s currently illegal, but if you said, ‘There’s been discrimination in favor of Jews and I am now dismantling that discrimination,’ that would be a valid argument under this new Constitution,” Mr. Jacobson told The Epoch Times.

The New York State Board of Elections declined to comment.

Click HERE to read the article on the Epoch Times.