Judge declines to order New York to include ‘abortion’ in description of ballot measure

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.

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…