NYC Council will not override Mamdani’s first veto

Editor’s note: This story was originally published Tuesday May 19 at 10 p.m. before it was clear whether the council would override Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s veto. It was updated Wednesday May 20 at 8:55 a.m. after the speaker’s office confirmed the council would not override.

Rather than attempt to override Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s first veto, the New York City Council will reintroduce a new version of the controversial bill that would require the police department to create and publicize plans for security perimeters around educational facilities during protests. 

Taking feedback from council members into account, the new version of Intro 175-B will more explicitly only apply to schools in a departure from the current, more broad language about educational facilities. The legislation will be introduced and heard in the coming weeks, according to the City Council speaker’s office. The plan to pass the new measure was first confirmed by the New York Post. 

The original bill passed the council with 30 votes, four shy of a two-thirds majority needed to override the mayor’s veto. Efforts from Speaker Julie Menin’s office to persuade people to flip their no votes and override – or stick with their yes votes on the bill – carried well into Tuesday, according to multiple council members. One City Council source claimed Tuesday night that the speaker had enough votes to override, but might not do so given her narrow margin.

Multiple members, including one Democratic council member who previously voted against the bill, said they were hoping for a new version. 

Overriding Mamdani’s veto would have set a precedent of council solidarity and independence for the years to come.  It would also be a major showing of strength for Menin, who has positioned herself as a foil to the democratic socialist mayor.  But the legislation has also underscored internal divisions within the council, spurring the majority of the progressive caucus to vote against it. A new version would likely be less divisive internally.

Menin sponsored a near identical version of the legislation that pertained to houses of worship, which easily passed with a veto-proof majority last month. Both bills have spurred criticism that they infringe on the rights of protesters, though the bulk of concerns have been directed at the educational facilities version due to its overly broad language. Opponents of the bill in question say that it’s aimed at suffocating pro-Palestinian protests similar to the ones that took over college campuses in recent years. Supporters frame it as an important safety measure particularly in light of rising antisemitism incidents and argued that it would increase transparency and foster dialogue between protesters and educational facility leaders.  

“Some of these advocacy organizations are making what I think are very bad faith statements, statements that are not rooted in the text of the bill, but rooted in whatever experiences they have,” said Council Member Eric Dinowitz, the bill‘s sponsor. “It simply requires transparency and accountability and community engagement.”

The legislation wouldn’t do much. While an initial version would have required the police commissioner to submit a plan to create protest barriers of “up to 100 feet” around the entrances and exits of educational facilities within 15 days of passing, the version that actually passed the council was so watered down as to be almost meaningless. The current version requires the commissioner to submit to the mayor a plan within three months on “whether and when to use a security perimeter” and leaves it up to the commissioner to decide the extent of the barrier.  

As Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said at a recent civic engagement group’s breakfast, "The laws recently passed by the City Council do not change the NYPD’s authority or ability to establish frozen zones, buffer zones, or security perimeters around sensitive locations. Whatever one’s views on those laws, the fundamental responsibility of the NYPD remains unchanged."

At an unrelated press conference Tuesday, Mamdani reiterated concerns he’s previously shared about the legislation.

“When organized labor and community organizations across the city raised concerns around the constitutionality of this legislation as well as the impact it would have on so much of what is at the core part of how organizing takes place especially given its incredibly broad definition of educational institutions … it’s important to hear those concerns,” Mamdani said. “That’s why I did veto the legislation." 

Asked whether he was having individual conversations with council members to gauge whether they were still opposed, the mayor said he has “made his feelings very clear.”