CPNYS Positions on 2013 Ballot Positions

By Shaun Marie, on Sep 17, 2013

On November 5, voters across the state will be asked to pass or defeat six constitutional amendments appearing on this year’s ballot.  Read  the NY Post Editorial opposing Casino Gambling expansion in New York here.    New York Families Research Council has more reasons to vote NO.  And E. J. McMahon writes in The Torch, much ado about ...not much.  (Click on the Read More button below.)

Most of the summaries are straight forward, however the most controversial proposal, asking voters to approve or disapprove casino gambling (Proposal #1),  is written to suggest that approval will lower your taxes and provide more money to your schools.   It is permitted to present a one-sided view; however, it certainly is deceptive since the language in the Bill passed by the Legislature does not include the benefits the proposal suggests the voters will receive if approved.

The New York State Conservative Party recommends a NO vote on Proposal #1.   
For Proposal #2, we recommend a YES vote; Proposal #3 a NO vote, Proposal #4 a YES vote, Proposal #5 a YES vote and Proposal #6 (raising the retirement age of Judges) a NO vote.

Our positions are stated in the following 4-page synopsis of the 6-ballot proposals for 2013.

Print out the short form (6 Proposals 110513) to bring with you on Election Day.

I did an ROI (return on investment) analysis on the proposed Judicial Retirement Age amendment (I am a certified accountant). Using OCA's (Office of Court Administration) own numbers, approximately 110 judges leave the bench each year of which only 45 actually retire (which means the other judges leave earlier in their careers to pursue other interests). Last year, only 30 judges actually retired. But the backers of this amendment do not provide information as to how many of those judges retire because they reached the mandatory retirement age and how many retired because of health issues or because they wanted to enjoy their golden years. Even generously assuming that as much as half of the retirees would stay if the mandatory age was increased, that's only 15 judges, or approximately 1% of the bench. And that's assuming these judges would actually stay for the full additional ten years - the backers do not estimate how many judges would only stay for a portion of this time. So NYS is spending a fortune to add an amendment that will only benefit a handful of judges for an unknown amount of time. The full analysis, including the current "double-dipping" by judges of salary and pension, is in my report on Kindle at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00G3B3IAO/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

C. M. Wilson, CMA

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options