ROCHESTER, N.Y. (WROC) — The New York State Sheriffs' Association came out against the Equal Rights Amendment, commonly known as Proposition 1, Friday, claiming its passage would be "disastrous" for the criminal justice system. Proposition 1, which is on the ballot statewide Tuesday, would amend the state constitution to protect against discrimination based on "ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, as well as reproductive healthcare and autonomy." New York State Sheriffs’ Association President Craig DuMond issued a statement Friday, saying any "absolute" ban on discrimination by age, sex, or gender identity could make it legally difficult for prisons to separate inmates based on those qualities, throwing the criminal justice system into "chaos." "It is not clear that under Proposition 1 we will even be able to maintain separate men’s and women’s sections," DuMond said. Many of the protections included in Proposition 1 are already offered in state laws, but codifying them into the constitution would make them more difficult for future lawmakers to change or remove. Existing New York State correction law requires correctional facilities to specify "whether the facility is to be used for the confinement of males or for the confinement of females" and "the age range of the persons who may be confined in the facility." "Most states have an equal rights amendment in their constitutions, particularly regarding gender," Kimberly Wolf Price, chair of New York State Bar Association’s Women in Law Section, wrote in March. "Twenty-nine state constitutions contain provisions that guarantee equal rights either in their original constitutional text or added as an amendment." DuMond's letter makes no mention of "chaos" among the organizational structures of the correctional facilities in any of those 29 states. "We know we will face lawsuits from men saying they would prefer to be housed in the women’s section and claiming that dividing them by sex is 'sex discrimination," DuMond writes. "Many jails and prisons are already facing lawsuits from biological males who claim a right to be housed with women inmates because they 'express' their gender as, or wish to 'identify' as, female." DuMond says, though gender identity poses a problem for prisons even before the vote on Proposition 1, the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would leave jails with "no defense." Advocates for Proposition 1 say opponents have used the Equal Rights Amendment's gender protections as a smokescreen to distract from its purpose as both an anti-discrimination tool and as a lens through which lawmakers can interpret future challenges to women's rights to bodily autonomy and abortion access in New York State. The New York City Bar Association issued a guide to voters Wednesday, saying Proposition 1 has no impact on parental rights, "parental consent, or parents’ ability to be involved in decision-making about healthcare or medical procedures for their minor children, including gender-affirming care," all of which is covered by separate laws. It also found Proposition 1 to be consistent with Title IX, meaning it would not change anything about student participation on sports teams. Both issues have been key for opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, who gathered in Rochester last week to say an explicit constitutional ban on gender discrimination would “rip away safe spaces" for girls in New York State. Read Proposition 1: Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to section 11 of article 1 of the constitution, in relation to equal protection Section 1. Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That section 11 of article 1 of the constitution be amended to read as follows: § 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law. b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.    §  2. Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That the foregoing amendment be submitted to the people for approval at the general election to be held in the year 2024 in accordance with the provisions of the election law. Explanation – Matter in underscored is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. Read the full statement from the New York State Sheriffs’ Association: Adoption of “Proposition 1”, the Constitutional amendment on the ballot in New York next week, would be a huge setback for the criminal justice system in New York, according to Sheriff Craig DuMond, speaking as president of the New York State Sheriffs’ Association. He cited two provisions in the proposed amendment that would be especially problematic for law enforcement and correctional facilities: an absolute ban on discrimination by age and an absolute ban on discrimination by sex, including “gender identity” and “gender expression”. “New York already has strong statutory protection against discrimination based on age or sex”, said the Sheriff, “ but it is not absolute. Our laws recognize some exceptions based upon well thought-out, long-accepted, commonsense reasons for differentiating between men and women, or the young and old, in our criminal laws and in our jails. This poorly thought out, poorly worded Constitutional amendment would throw out all those commonsense exceptions and throw our criminal justice system into chaos…and into years of costly litigation for our local governments, trying to navigate disastrous new Constitutionally mandated restrictions on current commonsense policies”. Among the commonsense “age discrimination” allowed by our current laws is the practice of recognizing that a youthful indiscretion should not harm or haunt the youth forever, hence we have special laws for youthful offenders. Our criminal laws also treat “infants”, “juvenile offenders”, “adolescent offenders”, “juvenile delinquents”, and “adult offenders” differently based upon their age. The legal seriousness of many sex crimes is dependent upon the relative age of the offender versus that of the victim, for instance, the “age of consent” with respect to statutory rape. And some activity is deemed legal or illegal, dependent upon the person’s age, for instance the sale of alcohol or marijuana. Many driving privileges are dependent upon the driver’s age: driving permits, unaccompanied night driving, probationary license, full license. The necessity of a “work permit” is determined by the age of the worker. There are hundreds of such examples of commonsense age discrimination currently allowed under our Constitution and laws. “If Proposition 1 passes, they go out the window, and we will have a less fair, less humane, less rational criminal justice system”, warned Sheriff DuMond. The Sheriff also pointed out problems Proposition 1 would cause for the safe operation of the jails and prisons in New York. Under current law, inmates are housed in different areas based upon their age. That is done to protect the vulnerable young from bad influence and possible physical danger from older inmates, and sometimes to protect elderly inmates from physically stronger youths. It is difficult o see how this rational classification system could continue under a Constitutional ban on “age discrimination”, according to the Sheriff. The Sheriffs’ Association president also pointed out the problems that would be caused for the jails by Proposition 1’s prohibition against sex discrimination, including “gender identity” and “gender expression”. Current law requires the separation of inmates according to their sex. It is not clear that under Proposition 1 we will even be able to maintain separate men’s and women’s sections, and in any event, we know we will face lawsuits from men saying they would prefer to be housed in the women’s section and claiming that dividing them by sex is “sex discrimination”. And many jails and prisons are already facing lawsuits from biological males who claim a right to be housed with women inmates because they “express” their gender as, or wish to “identify” as, female. If Proposition 1 is adopted, the jails may have no defense to their claims. We don’t think that makes common sense”, said Sheriff DuMond. “Defeat of Proposition 1 would be in the best interest of New Yorkers”, concluded Sheriff DuMond.