How Do You Change the NYC Charter?
There are more ways than you think, and many are not used (but could be!)
New York City’s charter is like its constitution—it outlines the fundamental shape and procedure of the city government.1 And, while it is the most important piece of law at the city level, few know how to amend it. As it turns out, there are many ways.
In the spirit of knowing your authorities and their attendant possibility, I’m going to tell you all the ways that the charter can be amended. This is especially relevant because we have two charter revision commissions spinning up in 2025 (one from the city council, one from the mayor), and New Yorkers just voted on several charter amendments this past November.
Any political entrepreneurs out there will note that some of these amendment methods are permissionless—you can do them without the assent of the legislature or executive.
Table of Contents
State special laws: state-initiated and city-initiated (home rule messages)
Dealing with multiple charter revision mechanisms at the same time
City-initiated charter revision commissions
A charter revision commission (CRC) is a group of appointed or elected individuals (commissioners) who make a list of suggested charter changes, up to and including wholesale charter replacement. Their suggestions are placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval by the voters of New York City. They are technically independent, regardless of who appointed them, and have full power to make whatever suggested amendments they want.2
CRCs must submit their recommendations to voters no later than the second general election after they are constituted. If they do not make recommendations by that time, they are dissolved.3
A CRC can be convened at the local level by the city council via local law, the voters directly via a local law, or mayoral appointment.
(1) City council via local law: the council can pass a local law establishing a CRC, its makeup, its duration, and more; this one just passed. Commissioners may be appointed, elected, or a mix of both, according to the law. Alternatively, the city council can submit this local law to the voters of the city, who can then approve or disapprove the creation of the CRC (MHR §36(2)).
(2) Voters via petition and local law referendum: someone would draft a local law convening a CRC like the council would above, and then they would gather enough signatures from city voters (“qualified electors”) to get that local law put on the ballot for approval or disapproval. Qualified electors are people who were registered to vote in the last general election; the petition must get either 15% of the number of city voters who cast a vote for governor in the previous gubernatorial election, or 45,000, whichever is less.
One big difference between the city council local law CRC and the voter-initiated local law CRC is that the voters can directly name the members of the commission if they want to, rather than just specifying how they will be appointed or elected: “It may name all or any of such members and may provide for the election or appointment of all or any of them” (MHR §36(3)).
(3) Mayoral appointment: the mayor can appoint a CRC of 9-15 members, and select from among them a chair, vice-chair, and secretary. The mayor also fills any vacancies on the CRC (MHR §36(4)).
City-initiated local laws amending the charter
(1) A local law can change the charter with a simple majority vote in the council. The city council has 51 members. If 26 of them vote to pass a bill amending the charter, then the charter is amended!4 This happens regularly throughout each year. However, if a local law changes anything set out in §38 of the city charter, then it must also go on the ballot for approval by the city’s voters.
(2) Voters can put a charter amendment via local law directly on the ballot, but it must go through the city council too.
Someone would draft the local law, and then they would gather enough signatures from city voters (“qualified electors”) to get that local law put on the ballot for approval or disapproval. Qualified electors are people who were registered to vote in the last general election; the petition must get either 10% of the number of city voters who cast a vote for governor in the previous gubernatorial election, or 30,000, whichever is less.5
If they get enough signatures, then it is placed before the city council. The council can pass it like any regular local law if they want. This means it either becomes effective immediately, or it goes on the ballot if it triggers §38 of the city charter.
However, if the council fails to pass the charter revision in unaltered form two months after receiving it, then it can be forced out the council and onto the ballot with a second round of signature gathering. In this case you have to get people who didn’t sign the original petition, and you need either 5% of the number of city voters who cast a vote for governor in the previous gubernatorial election, or 15,000, whichever is less (MHR §37(7)).
State-initiated general laws
A general law is a law that applies to everyone/thing, or everyone/thing within the same category. “Generality” is one of Lon Fuller’s “Eight Principals of Legality.” The idea is that you want everyone/thing treated equally under the law.
New York State can pass a general law that applies to all cities, and this could change, restrain, or supersede the New York City charter. Per Article IX §2, subsection b, paragraph 2 of the state constitution, the state legislature: “Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any local government only by general law…”
As far as the charter is concerned, this can happen in two ways.
(1) The first is by bending generality with the “million+ rule,” and passing a state law that affects NYC’s charter. Cities in New York State are legally divided into classes based on population. One of those classes is “cities having a population of one million or more”—which is just New York City. So you can write a “general law” that applies to all cities in this class, even though everyone knows that only means New York City. You see this a functionally unlimited amount of times throughout state statute, which imposes requirements, limits, and expansions of local charter power (this is just one example I chose randomly).
(2) The state gave itself the power to set up a charter revision commission for any city in 1972, and it used that power to set up a state charter revision commission for NYC. Per Chapter 634 of the Laws of 1972: “The governor, with the concurrence of the speaker of the assembly, the assembly minority leader, the temporary president of the senate and the senate minority leader, may create a charter commission for any city…” Of course, this law was passed with the same kind of wink at generality I mentioned above. You can read more about the state charter revision commission, called the “1975 commission” after the year voters voted on its recommendations, here.
State special laws
A special law is a law that only applies narrowly and exceptionally. It is not general.
New York State can pass a special law that only affects New York City and directly amends its charter. This can be done in two ways:
(1) A home rule message, where NYC requests that the state pass a special law. Let’s say NYC doesn’t have the power to do something as a city, but the state does. The city council and mayor can send a “home rule message” to the state legislature requesting that they pass that law for them, and only for them. It would not affect other cities. This can be done by 2/3 of the city council acting alone, or by the mayor and a simple majority of the city council. This process is laid out in Article IX, Section 2, subsection b, paragraph 2, subparagraph a of the New York State Constitution, which says that the legislature can pass a “…special law only…on request of two-thirds of the total membership of its legislative body or on request of its chief executive officer concurred in by a majority of such membership…”6
(2) Constitutional emergency override. The governor and two-thirds of the legislature can pass a special law for New York City (and only New York City, per the constitution) if the governor certifies that there is an emergency need to do so. Per Article IX, Section 2, subsection b, paragraph 2, subparagraph b, this can be done “…in the case of the city of New York, on certificate of necessity from the governor reciting facts which in the judgment of the governor constitute an emergency requiring enactment of such law and, in such latter case, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature.”
A historical note: the relationship between New York City and New York State has changed immensely throughout the years, and that includes how the state can alter the city charter; in fact, NYC’s first charter was an act passed by the state legislature:
Cities didn’t get local lawmaking power as we know it until after some state constitutional amendments adopted in 1923; prior to that local laws were special laws passed by the state legislature, and people were constantly headed to Albany for local issues (emphasis added):
One result of this was that the charter of a city ceased to be a document, but became a conglomeration of all the laws which legislative homeopathy from time to time concocted for its particular benefit. New York's city charter, “a thing of shreds and patches,” was perhaps the masterpiece of this intricacy. In itself it was a document of no mean proportion, filling some three hundred printed pages, but it alone did not disclose the metes and bounds of the city's jurisdictions. In 1921 the New York City Charter Commission made a brief digest of special laws of the legislature relating to New York City, which in fine print filled thirteen hundred printed pages…
Not merely were the sources of city government in hopeless chaos, but the legislature itself wasted much of its costly time passing laws permitting Saratoga Springs to license dogs, permitting bodies to be removed from cemeteries in Utica, allowing persons owning abutting property to make connections with water mains in Watervliet, authorizing clerk hire by the chamberlain of Oswego, or requiring snow removal by the property- owners in Poughkeepsie, or abating the smoke nuisance in Albany.
Preemption at the state and federal levels
The state and federal governments can pass laws or issue court opinions that change the city charter. They don’t automatically change the text (that still has to be done through standard channels), but they can invalidate or change the interpretation of it. Here are two examples:
In 1989, in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down NYC’s central governing body as unconstitutional.
In 2022, the New York city council passed a charter amendment via local law that would allow non-citizen, permanent residents to vote in city elections. This law did not go into effect, because it was immediately challenged in state court. The third lowest court in the state struck it down, the appeals court agreed, and now both sides are filing briefs before New York State’s highest court.
Dueling charter revisions
Given all the different ways to change the charter, it’s possible that several could be on the ballot or otherwise active for voters at the same time. How is that handled? It depends.
There are two general rules:
If a CRC puts a charter revision question on the ballot, it will be on the ballot. Questions that get on the ballot in other ways are usually knocked off if a CRC has a question pending at the same time.
There can be conflicting charter revisions on the ballot. The one with more votes wins.
Let’s walk through these rules in more detail:
“Dueling commissions”: Conflicting CRC questions on the ballot at the same time: You can have multiple charter revision commissions operating at the same time—we currently have that situation.7 One was created by the city council, the other by the mayor. They’ll each be able to put questions on the ballot for voters. But what happens if those questions conflict with each other? “…if there [is] a conflict between the provisions of two or more proposals approved by the electors at the same election, the proposal receiving the largest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict” (MHR §36(5)(d)).
More than one CRC is being proposed on the ballot at the same time: a local law to establish a CRC can be placed on the ballot by the city council or voters via petition. If there is more than one of these, the one with the most votes happens, and the others don’t.8
More than one charter revision via local law referendum is on the ballot at the same time: if conflicting local laws to revise the charter are on the ballot, and they pass, the one with more votes in the affirmative wins.9
A mayoral CRC question “bumps” any proposed charter revision via local law on the ballot. If the city council or voters put a charter revision directly on the ballot via local law, that question will not be considered if a mayoral CRC has also placed questions on the ballot. This happened recently in the November 2024 election, and state lawmakers have introduced bills to allow both of these to be on the ballot at the same time (MHR §36(5)(e)).10
CRC questions generally “bump” non-CRC charter ballot questions, including ones that would establish another CRC. Even though mayoral CRC bumping gets attention, state law says that if a CRC (other than mayoral) has put questions on the ballot, then “…no such other question or questions shall be submitted except by another charter commission…if such other question or questions involve or relate directly or indirectly to the adoption of a new city charter, the amendment of a city charter, charter revision, the establishment of a commission to draft a new or revised city charter, or the functions, powers or duties of any elective officer of the city…” (MHR §36(5)(e)). This functionally blocks most charter revisions via local law. Theoretically the city council could bump its own local law charter revisions on the ballot with questions from its own CRC.
Exception to the “bumping” rule, where local law charter revisions can remain on the ballot with CRC charter revision questions: if voters placed a charter revision via local law directly on the ballot per MHR §37, and it gets bumped by a CRC question, it must be on the next general election ballot, even if there’s another CRC question that year.11
Bibliography: sources and relevant law
Law
Section 36 of the Municipal Home Rule (MHR) law in the Consolidated Laws of the State of New York: “Provisions for adoption of new or revised city charter proposed by a charter commission”
Section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule (MHR) law in the Consolidated Laws of the State of New York: “Provisions for adoption of city charter amendments or new city charters initiated by petition”
New York City Charter, Chapter 2: Council, Section 38: Local laws; referendum. Many of the requirements found here originate in Section 23 of the Municipal Home Rule (MHR).
New York State Constitution: As revised, including amendments effective January 1, 2025. I refer to sections of Article IX §2 in this piece, which is entitled “Powers and duties of legislature; home rule powers of local governments; statute of local governments”
Technical papers
Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. and Eric Lane, “The policy and politics of Charter making: the story of New York City's 1989 Charter,” 42 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 723 (1998).
McGoldrick, Joseph, “Home Rule in New York State,” The American Political Science Review 19, no. 4 (1925), pp. 693–706.
New York State, Department of State (Local Government): “Revising City Charters in New York State,” published 1998, reprinted 2024.
Press coverage (then and now)
McDonough, Annie, “Eric Adams and NYC Council power struggle reaches Albany: State legislation would prevent Charter Revision Commission proposals from knocking other proposals off the ballot, including those from City Council legislation,” City & State (Oct 24, 2024).
The New York Times, “Equal Rights Amendments Lose in New York and Jersey Voting; 6 City Charter Changes Backed,” November 5, 1975.
State charter revision commission notes, which are interesting
New York State, Charter Revision Commission for New York City (1973). Revising the New York City Charter: introductory report. You can find subsequent commission analyses here:
State Charter Revision Commission for New York City: The capital projects process : an analysis of capital construction issues under the New York City Charter (State Charter Revision Commission for New York City, 1974).
State Charter Revision Commission for New York City: Central budget issues under the New York City Charter (State Charter Revision Commission for New York City], 1974).
State Charter Revision Commission for New York City: Charter reform of New York City's planning function (State Charter Revision Commission for New York City, 1973).
State Charter Revision Commission for New York City: The impact of coterminal service districts on the delivery of municipal services (State Charter Revision Commission for New York City, 1973), also by McKinsey and Company.
State Charter Revision Commission for New York City: Proposed amendments to the charter for the City of New York (The Commission, 1975).
State Charter Revision Commission for New York City: Recommendations, criminal justice (The Commission, 1975).
But, worth noting, it is not a literal constitution; those only exist at the state and federal level.
In practice, of course, they have soft power and social connections with the people who appointed them, among other things.
MHR §36(5)(b): “Such new charter or amendments shall be completed and filed in the office of the city clerk in time for submission to the electors not later than the second general election after the charter commission is created and organized.”
MHR §36(6)(e): “The terms of office of the members of the commission shall expire on the day of the election at which the proposed new charter or charter amendments prepared by the commission are submitted to the qualified electors of the city, or on the day of the second general election following the organization of the commission if no such questions have been submitted by that time.”
The mayor could veto the bill, but usually the council has a veto-proof majority on almost everything is passes.
MHR §37(2): “Qualified electors of a city, in number equal to at least ten per centum of the total number of valid votes cast for governor in such city at the last gubernatorial election, or to thirty thousand, whichever is less, may file in the office of the city clerk a petition for the submission to the electors of the city of such a proposed local law to be set forth in full in the petition. Qualified electors shall be deemed for this purpose to be voters of the city who were registered and qualified to vote in such city at the last general election preceding the filing of the petition.”
Home rule messages are technically sent in the form of “State Legislation Resolutions,” or SLRs in the city council. Here is an example from 2024. You can see that it specifically references complementary legislation that’s already been introduced into the state legislature that could only be moved forward with the SLR in hand.
We also had “dueling commissions” in 1998, although both the mayor and the council withdrew their CRC proposals: “One extreme example was the proposed creation in early 1998, by the City Council, of a commission to weaken mayoral powers, including those over the budget, and a responding proposal by the mayor to create his own Charter revision commission to ensure that such weakening did not occur and to push in the opposite direction.” From “The policy and politics of Charter making: the story of New York City's 1989 Charter,” p.731.
MHR §36(3), regarding CRCs via local law petition: “…if at the same election more than one local law for establishing a charter commission receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon, only the one receiving the largest number of affirmative votes shall be deemed adopted and the members of the charter commission named in such local law or elected or appointed as prescribed therein, shall be the charter commission of such city.”
MHR §36(2), regarding a CRC via city council local law: “…if at the same election more than one proposal for establishing a charter commission receives such approval only the proposal receiving the largest number of affirmative votes shall be deemed adopted.”
MHR §37(13): “If any such proposed local law receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon, it shall become operative as prescribed therein, except that in case of conflict between provisions of two or more local laws adopted at the same election the local law receiving the largest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict.”
MHR §36(5)(e): “At any election at which any question or questions shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the city by a charter commission pursuant to this section or within sixty days thereafter, no other question or questions shall be submitted to or voted upon by such electors pursuant to any local law, ordinance, resolution or petition if such commission was created pursuant to subdivision four of this section…”
Section 4 begins: “A charter commission to draft a new or revised city charter may
also be created by the mayor of any city.”
MHR §36(5)(g): “If a proposed local law submitted pursuant to section thirty-seven of this chapter would under the provisions of such section be submitted at a general election at which a question or questions submitted by a charter commission are to be voted on, such local law shall not be submitted at such election but shall be submitted at the general election in the year following regardless of other questions which may be voted on at the latter election and notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of this title.”