Defending democracy and NY's Proposition 1

I will vote today: To defend democracy

The editorial on defending our democracy with a free election was thoughtful “Our voting system is secure,” Opinion, Nov. 3]. So, I ask, “What if they gave a democracy, and no one showed up?”

I was not there when our Constitution was crafted by men who cared about their fellow citizens. Nor could I attend when the liberating words of President Abraham Lincoln drifted across the crowd at Gettysburg.

When I read history books revealing that democracy prevailed at a horrible cost in prior wars, I could only relate from afar. However, claims that our votes will not count have been brought into our homes and laid bare the challenges confronting our country.

In our own individual way, we must make known our desire to protect and defend our democracy, obtained under the most difficult of circumstances. And so, today, on Election Day, I will show up.

— William A. Sandback, Riverhead

Like many Americans, I have a strong opinion on the presidential election. In the article “Where they stand on key issues” [News, Nov. 3], Newsday listed nine issues and compared the candidates’ positions. One critical issue was overlooked — the ballooning budget deficit and national debt were not mentioned. They threaten to undermine everything.

Both candidates are promising this, that and the other but rarely address how they will pay for it all. As one example, former President Donald Trump promised to eliminate taxes on tips, and Vice President Kamala Harris, not to be outdone, soon followed. Neither candidate is being held to account on how they will pay for this tax break or all their other promises.

It’s easy to give away the candy store when candidates are not held accountable and required to explain the sources of funding for the tax decreases or spending increases. Sadly, we are already borrowing recklessly from future generations, and this blatant disregard for the country’s future financial stability is being overlooked.

If news organizations don’t hold the candidates accountable and bring this issue to the forefront, eventually the financial markets will. Make no mistake about it, the longer we wait to address the deficit, the more dangerous the situation becomes.

— Ray Xerri, Oceanside

Prop 1 could have unintended results

I commend the editorial board’s thoughtful endorsement of a “no” vote on Proposition 1, which upholds the principle that constitutional integrity demands a rigorous and deliberate amendment process “Vote ‘no’ on Proposition One,” Opinion, Oct 24].

As the board rightly notes, the vague language in Prop 1 creates a reckless pathway for unintended consequences that could affect New Yorkers far beyond its stated intentions.

Although state Democrats, including Gov. Kathy Hochul, argue that this amendment is vital for reproductive rights, New York’s existing laws already provide robust protections in this area. There is no realistic prospect of rolling back abortion access in New York, and besides, Prop 1 doesn’t even mention abortion.

Instead, this measure threatens Long Islanders by preventing their elected officials from enacting the will of the majority into law. Prop 1 might give a legal right for biological males to compete in girls sports, overturning the will of voters in places like Nassau County.

It risks granting taxpayer-funded benefits to those entering the country illegally and invites a flood of litigation as the state constitution is used to redefine and stretch legal precedents.

Long Islanders deserve better governance. A “no” vote protects the state constitution from becoming a source of uncertainty with this proposal.

— Paul J. Dreyer, Kings Park

Several readers expressed astonishment at opposition to Proposition 1 [“Reasons to vote ‘yes’ on Prop 1,” Letters, Oct. 30]. I offer this simple explanation: Many of us recognize it as a Trojan horse.

Though euphemistically entitled the Equal Rights Amendment, it might more accurately be named the Parent Replacement Act. Preventing “discrimination” based on “age” would remove the crucial protection of parental guidance in many decisions with life-altering consequences.

Do we really believe children and adolescents have the maturity to consent to permanent, gender-changing surgery? To purchase alcohol, marijuana, or even weapons? Or to order abortion pills online to self-abort, alone, unsupervised and afraid? Are we willing to leave our adolescents vulnerable to sexual predators who claim our minor children “consented” to their abuse?

Are these rights mentioned in the deceptively brief “summary” of the proposal? Of course not.

We only realize what we have enacted when a law is interpreted by the courts — and in this day of activist judges, we can predict the direction that might go.

So, before you vote to disgorge the woke soldiers from the belly of the beast, ready to attack the family, the basic building block of society, think seriously about what you are choosing.

— Mary Ellen Walsh, Levittown