Relates to the form of submission and abstract for proposed amendments to the constitution
This bill amends the Election Law to change how proposed constitutional amendments are presented to voters. It allows the Legislature to determine the form of submission and the abstract for a proposed constitutional amendment either in the same concurrent resolution that submits the amendment or in a separate concurrent resolution adopted by both houses at least 120 days before the general election. The bill also directs the Legislature to use best efforts to make the submission and abstract comply with plain-language requirements and to aim for an eighth-grade reading level or lower, as measured by the Automated Readability Index or a comparable tool, while making clear that no specific score is mandatory.
The measure further provides that once the form of submission and abstract are set, the State Board of Elections must transmit them without amendment or alteration, except for assigning the ballot order number. It applies immediately to constitutional amendments that receive first passage during the 2025-2026 legislative session and to later amendments, but it excludes amendments that already achieved first passage during the 2023-2024 session.
The bill would amend section 4-108 of the Election Law and affect the process used to place constitutional amendments before voters. It shifts some procedural authority to the Legislature by expressly allowing it to set the ballot abstract and submission language in advance, while also imposing a plain-language and readability preference for those materials. The State Board of Elections would retain a ministerial role in transmitting the language and assigning ballot order, but would not be able to alter the approved text.
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears procedural and noncontroversial in nature, with an emphasis on clearer voter-facing language and standardized handling of constitutional amendment abstracts. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct evidence of opposition or support is available. The overall framing suggests a reform intended to improve readability and consistency rather than to change substantive policy outcomes.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between legislative control over ballot language and the role of the State Board of Elections. The bill gives the Legislature authority to fix the form of submission and abstract, which could raise concerns about political influence over how amendments are described to voters. Another possible issue is the use of a readability target without a mandatory score: supporters may view this as a practical plain-language standard, while critics could see it as too vague to ensure meaningful voter comprehension.