New Yorkers will once again be asked to decide whether to amend our state constitution. In the last week of the 2026 session, a resolution was passed to give more power to elected officials. This proposal would change how congressional and possibly state district lines are drawn and increase the Legislature's authority in that process. This must pass the Assembly again in 2027, and then it will appear on the ballot in November of 2027. A related measure that passed would also allow the Legislature to determine the wording voters read on the ballot when deciding the constitutional amendment. ( A.11553 & A.11557)

It will be just over a year before you vote on this amendment, and before casting your vote, I urge you to ask one simple question: Is this truly the kind of change that belongs in our constitution? I intentionally offer you time to read about this with plenty of time to spare.

The New York State Constitution is not just another document. It is the foundation of our government. It establishes the structure of our state, protects our rights and creates the checks and balances that prevent any one branch of government from accumulating too much power.

That is why changing the constitution should never become routine. Unlike ordinary legislation, constitutional amendments are meant to be difficult. They require approval by two separately elected Legislatures before they can even be presented to the voters. Our founders understood that laws may change with the times, but constitutions should endure through generations. New Yorkers have demonstrated that they understand this responsibility.

Since I was elected to the Assembly in 2020, voters have considered six proposed constitutional amendments. They approved only two and rejected four. That record tells us something important: New Yorkers do not amend their constitution easily. They evaluate each proposal carefully and expect compelling reasons before altering our state's highest bedrock law. This recent proposal deserves that same careful scrutiny.

It is also important to remember that New Yorkers already voted on this same topic in 2014. After years of criticism that legislators were effectively choosing their own voters by drawing district lines favorable to incumbents and political parties, the people of New York approved a constitutional amendment creating an Independent Redistricting Commission. That decision was not made by Albany politicians. It was made by New York voters themselves.

The purpose then was straightforward: To place greater distance between elected officials and the drawing of the very districts in which they seek election. Now those same elected officials want to change that constitutional amendment.

But before reversing a constitutional decision made by the people, we should ask whether the current system has truly been given enough time to mature. The commission has completed only one redistricting cycle since voters approved it. That is a very short period upon which to judge a constitutional reform intended to last for generations. The answer to a difficult process is not always another constitutional amendment. Sometimes the answer is improving the process itself, being patient and respecting the will of the people.

The proposal before voters next year would shift greater authority back to the Legislature in circumstances where the commission cannot agree on district maps. Supporters argue this restores accountability to elected officials. I respectfully disagree.

When a constitutional amendment increases the authority of the very institution whose members benefit from the outcome, citizens should proceed with caution. This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democrat issue. Political majorities change. The constitution remains.

Every constitutional amendment should be judged by one question: Would I support this same change if the opposite political party controlled the Legislature? If the answer is no, that proves the proposal serves today's politics more than tomorrow's constitution.

I am also concerned about a related proposal that would allow the Legislature to determine the wording of the ballot question and summary presented to voters for constitutional amendments. Most citizens will never read the full legal text. They will rely on the language printed on the ballot. Those words should inspire confidence that they are neutral, accurate and written solely to inform—not persuade.

Regardless of which party holds the majority, I believe the same institution proposing a constitutional amendment should not also control how that amendment is described to the voters who must approve or reject it. Our constitution belongs to the people—not to the Legislature, not to the governor and not to whichever political party happens to hold power today. It exists to protect future generations as much as the present one.

Constitutions are designed to provide stability. They should not be rewritten simply because a process proved frustrating or because one side is dissatisfied with a recent outcome. I am not convinced that this amendment strengthens our constitution or increases public confidence in our elections.

I encourage every New Yorker to read the legislation for yourself. Don't rely on campaign slogans, political advertisements or social media. Read both sides. Consider not just today's debate, but the long-term effect on the balance of power in our state government.

If, after doing so, you conclude—as I have—that these changes move too much authority back to the Legislature and reverse a decision the people themselves made only a decade ago, then I respectfully urge you to vote No. Our state constitution is deliberately difficult to change because it is meant to protect the people from the passions and politics of the moment.

Assemblyman Angelino represents the 121st  Assembly District, which includes parts of Broome County, Delaware County, Madison County, Chenango County and Otsego County. Follow Assemblyman Angelino on Facebook  here.