Attorney Bobbie Ann Cox, who filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in New York, is determined to appeal the recent decision.
New Yorkers are set to vote on the ERA in November after a Rochester appellate court overturned a previous ruling that initially blocked Proposition 1 from appearing on the ballot due to procedural issues. The ERA, also known as Proposition 1, aims to enshrine abortion access rights and introduce 11 new discrimination categories into the state constitution.
Despite the court’s decision against her, civil rights attorney Bobbie Anne Flower Cox is resolute in her plan to appeal. She believes that the court’s application of a four-month statute of limitations to her case, based on the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 78, is unprecedented and incorrect.
The ERA was swiftly introduced and approved by the New York legislature in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade. However, Cox argues that the legislature violated the state constitution’s amendment approval process, and the court’s ruling disregarded this fundamental issue.
Cox initiated the lawsuit on behalf of Assemblymember Marjorie Byrnes against key elected officials, including Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. Despite initial success in reversing the legislature’s decision to include the ERA on the ballot, the Attorney General’s office appealed the ruling, leading to the current legal battle.
The decision to uphold the ERA’s placement on the ballot has significant implications for the state’s governance, according to legal experts. Cox remains optimistic that the Court of Appeals will overturn the ruling and uphold the trial court’s decision.
The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the ERA will proceed to a vote in November. Cox is confident in the Court of Appeals’ decision and remains committed to fighting for her client’s case. Requests for comment from the Attorney General’s office and other involved parties were not answered. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
