Requires that no person acting as a political party chairperson, an elected public officer, an individual who is subject to the rules established by the commission on public integrity and any other person who is an officer of an organization, association or corporation that receives public funding shall be elected as a delegate to a constitutional convention.
S05029 is a proposed amendment to the New York Constitution that would change the rules for electing delegates to a future constitutional convention. Under current constitutional language, if voters approve a convention question, each senate district elects three delegates and the statewide electorate elects fifteen at-large delegates. This bill would add a set of disqualifications for who may serve as a delegate, barring political party chairpersons, elected public officers, gubernatorial appointees, people subject to public integrity lobbying rules, people required to file annual financial disclosure statements, and officers of organizations, associations, or corporations that receive public funding, with an exception for 501(c)(3) entities. It also states that these exclusions do not apply based on employment at a higher education institution or military service.
The resolution also preserves the existing structure for how a convention would operate if approved by voters: delegates would convene at the Capitol, receive compensation and travel reimbursement comparable to Assembly members, set their own rules, and submit any proposed constitutional changes back to the electorate. The amendment would be referred to the next regular legislative session after the next general election and published for three months before that election, as required for constitutional amendments.
The bill’s impact would be on Article 19, Section 2 of the New York Constitution, specifically the eligibility criteria for constitutional convention delegates. If adopted, it would narrow the pool of eligible candidates by excluding many current officeholders, party officials, and certain publicly funded organizational officers, thereby changing who could participate in any future constitutional convention election. It would not itself call a convention or change substantive policy, but it would alter the constitutional process for selecting delegates.
The general sentiment suggested by the bill text is reform-oriented and aimed at reducing conflicts of interest in the selection of convention delegates. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the available materials. The measure’s framing implies concern about independence and public trust in convention delegates.
The main point of contention is likely the breadth of the disqualifications. Supporters would likely view the exclusions as necessary to prevent insiders, lobbyists, and publicly connected officials from dominating a constitutional convention, while critics may argue the proposal is overly restrictive and could exclude experienced civic leaders, public servants, and representatives of organizations that receive public funding. The exception for higher education and military employment suggests an attempt to avoid sweeping in people whose public service is not tied to political influence, but the scope of the ban remains broad.
This bill would amend Article 19, Section 2 of the New York Constitution by adding eligibility restrictions for delegates to a constitutional convention. It would not change the process for calling a convention or the convention’s powers, but it would limit who may be elected as a delegate by excluding party chairs, elected officials, gubernatorial appointees, certain regulated or disclosure-bound individuals, and officers of publicly funded organizations, with specified exceptions. If approved by the Legislature and voters, it would affect future delegate elections and the composition of any constitutional convention.
The available materials suggest a generally reform-minded, anti-conflict-of-interest sentiment behind the bill. The proposal appears designed to increase public confidence in the constitutional convention process by keeping current political insiders and certain publicly connected figures off the ballot for delegate positions. No votes or committee debate are provided, so there is no documented legislative split in the record supplied.
The likely controversy centers on whether the bill’s delegate bans are too broad. Proponents would argue that excluding party officials, officeholders, lobbyists, and certain publicly funded organizational officers protects the independence of a constitutional convention. Opponents may contend that the measure unnecessarily limits participation, excludes qualified civic leaders, and could reduce diversity of experience among delegates. The carve-outs for higher education and military personnel indicate an effort to avoid overbreadth, but they may also invite questions about why those groups are treated differently.