This week: Onondaga County Term Limits Goes to Court; MEC Offers Census Bureau Redistricting Data Training; Controversial Election Proposals Facing Albany in 2027; Security Cameras at the Polls?; Onondaga County Term Limits Compromise?; Around The Nation
VOTING RIGHTS
The Future of State Voting Rights Acts
by Michael Pernick, Senior Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
The rapid growth of State Voting Rights Acts (“State VRAs”) has become one of the most significant developments in election law over the past decade. In every year since 2018, except for the pandemic year of 2020, at least one new state has enacted a State VRA to protect the right to vote. Recently, State VRAs have been passed in 11 states, including New Jersey and Delaware, which both passed State VRAs on June 30.
Following the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the American Association of Law Schools (“AALS”) Section on Election Law recently put out a call for papers requesting scholarship on, among other things, the blanket question of whether State Voting Rights Acts are now unconstitutional. As scholars engage with that question, it is important to recognize the breadth and diversity of modern State VRAs—a subject Adam Harper and I explore in our recent Minnesota Law Review article, State VRAs and the State of the VRA. As that scholarly conversation develops, it is necessary to be precise and nuanced when discussing the implications of Callais for State VRAs.
While every State VRA includes protections against racial vote dilution, the issue at the center of the Callais decision, modern State VRAs contain many other protections and are generally carefully tailored to the particularized needs of the state. For instance, many offer protections against voter suppression/vote denial, establish state-level preclearance programs, expand language-access requirements, establish statewide election databases, provide civil prohibitions on voter intimidation, deception, and obstruction, expand protections for voters with disabilities, and codify the Democracy Canon into state law, among other things. Any discussion of constitutional risk following Callais should acknowledge that modern State VRAs include a broad set of provisions, including many that have no bearing on redistricting or race.
The problem of overgeneralization is not merely theoretical. The trial court decision in the New York Voting Rights Act (“NYVRA”) case Clarke v. Newburgh—which was quickly reversed—suggested that the NYVRA as a whole was unconstitutional, even though the case only pertained to the vote dilution provisions.
Even as to vote dilution provisions, any constitutional questions are likely to vary considerably across states and statutory frameworks. State VRA vote dilution frameworks differ substantially from Section 2 of the federal VRA and vary widely across states, making generalized constitutional assessments particularly inapposite. Most State VRAs apply only at the local level and offer race-blind remedies (such as proportional ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, and limited voting) that can address violations without requiring race-conscious districting. Liability standards also vary considerably: Some require plaintiffs to identify specific benchmarks, akin to the Gingles I requirement; some permit claims to be established through a totality-of-circumstances inquiry; others offer intent-based dilution claims. Such doctrinal distinctions are important and must be considered in context.
As State VRAs continue to be advanced through legislatures across the country, clarity and precision about which provisions may face constitutional challenge become increasingly important. Nuanced commentary about particular provisions could help policymakers thoughtfully navigate this doctrinal landscape as they design protections. On the other hand, overbroad claims about constitutional risk may prompt certain policymakers to abandon the State VRA endeavor altogether.
The AALS call for papers reflects the importance and timeliness of scholarship about the post-Callais landscape. But as scholars continue to evaluate the constitutional implications of Callais for State VRAs, one point is clear: These statutes are too broad and too varied to be treated as a single constitutional category. State VRAs remain an important and viable safeguard to protecting the right to vote. Constitutional analysis will be most useful when focused on specific provisions under specific laws and the specific legal questions they present.
ELECTIONS
New York Republican State Committee v. State of New York
On October 30, 2025, the New York Republican State Committee filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the state of New York and Governor Kathy Hochul challenging the state’s Even Year Election Law (EYEL). The plaintiffs are comprised of individuals from Nassau County, Suffolk County, and Orange County.
On August 6, Judge Gary R. Brown granted defendants’ motion asking the court to hold a preliminary conference before formally filling a motion to dismiss. Judge Brown agreed to hold this hearing in person on October 7 at 10:30am where both parties will address defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.
Onondaga County Term Limits Goes to Court
In an effort to compromise with county legislative Democrats who believe that County Executive Ryan McMahon’s approval of a term limits ballot question was a final action (despite McMahon’s effort to clawback his approval), the county executive is offering to move forward with two competing term limit laws, one for three terms and another for four terms. According to a state precedent, if two competing ballot questions are placed before the voters, the one with the most votes would win. However, the ballot question sponsors would have to clearly indicate the purpose and sponsors of the measures.
The Democrats have not agreed to McMahon’s offer. County Elections Commissioner Dustin Czarny, a Democrat, was quoted in Syracuse.com saying that “This supposed path forward will only kick the legal ball to next year and we could potentially confuse voters and still be in court,” Czarny said on Wednesday. “None of this is affecting my decision about whether to go to court to enforce the resolution already given to me by the legislature.”
Czarny’s complaint filed a request for an Order to Show Cause asking the New York State Supreme Court to rule on whether the proposed term-limits resolution for the County Executive and Comptroller should be placed on the upcoming Czarny’s complaint is focused on seeking clarity on the Board of Elections’ role, rather than the merits of term limits. The Onondaga County Legislature’s clerk sent the county Board of Elections a local law that would place term limits for the county’s executive and clerk of the legislature clerk of the Onondaga County Legislature on the ballot in November despite a veto signed by current County Executive Ryan McMahon.
While Democratic elections commission Dustin Czarny was prepared for executing the law, Republican Commissioner Kevin Ryan disagreed. While the county executive meant to add a veto message to the legislative law, he did not get to submit it until after the original approved law was sent to the elections board.
On August 5, Czarny filed a request for an Order to Show Cause asking the New York State Supreme Court to rule on whether the proposed term-limits resolution for the County Executive and Comptroller should be placed on the upcoming November ballot.
The filing is focused on seeking clarity on the Board of Elections’ role, rather than the merits of term limits.
Czarny contends that the Board of Elections’ duties are strictly administrative, thus evaluating the underlying legal validity of the resolution rests with the courts, not election commissioners. Further, Czarny asserts that an individual election commissioner to block a resolution based on legal validity sets out a concerning precedent for Boards of Elections across the state. Czarny also acknowledged that court intervention is the only remaining mechanism to resolve the administrative dispute before election deadlines pass.
CENSUS & POPULATION
Learn About the Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program
The DuBois Bunche Center at Medgar Evers College, in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau, invites you to join an upcoming virtual webinar:
– Thursday, August 20, 2026
– 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM (ET) Via ZOOM
– Guest Speaker: James Whitehorne, U.S. Census Bureau
This session will introduce the U.S. Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program and its role in supporting fair representation through the 2030 Census. Participants will learn about the program’s mission, key initiatives, and collaboration with states to meet redistricting needs.
Topics include:
Block Boundary Suggestion Project
Voting District Project
Phased delivery of 2030 Census redistricting data
This webinar is ideal for community leaders, educators, students, researchers, public officials, and anyone interested in the intersection of Census data, voting rights, and redistricting.
Registration is free. Please register by using this registration link:
https://forms.gle/hJHV32cV46b682ka7
LEGISLATION
Controversial Election Proposals Likely to be Considered by Albany Legislators in 2027
By: Joseph T. Burns
While New York’s 2027 state legislative session is still more than four months away, it already appears that some contentious election-related proposals may come before the members of the State Senate and Assembly elected in this November’s elections. These proposals will not only come in the form of bills but also as amendments to the New York State Constitution and will likely touch on everything from altering the state’s redistricting process to more mundane election administration matters.
One constitutional amendment likely to get a close look from legislators is the proposal to raise the mandatory retirement age for most state judges. Currently, the state constitution requires most state court judges, including Supreme Court justices and Family Court judges, to retire on December 31 in the year in which the judge turns 70 years old (Supreme Court justices may receive extensions and continue their service). Under the proposed amendment, the mandatory retirement age would be raised to 76.
While this amendment was not voted on by either house of the state legislature in 2026, there may be renewed interest in it given the outcome of a recent state court challenge to the mandatory retirement age for judges. In that case, state court judges challenged this age limit and argued that it was repealed by implication when the voters adopted the Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution in 2024. The New York State Court of Appeals rejected this argument and preserved the current mandatory retirement age of 70.
Another amendment to the state constitution that is likely to be considered by the state legislature in 2027 is the proposal to radically alter the state’s redistricting process. This amendment received first passage in each house of the state legislature near the end of the 2026 session and came after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an effort by New York Democrats to redraw the boundaries of the only Republican-held Congressional seat in the City of New York.
The amendment would enable the state legislature to undertake a mid-decade redistricting of the state’s Congressional seats when another state conducts a mid-decade redistricting. Maybe more significantly, the amendment would undo the state constitution’s prohibition on partisan gerrymandering.
Should the state legislature elected in 2026 provide second passage of this amendment in 2027, it could go before the voters of New York at the 2027 General Election. Should the voters approve it at the 2027 General Election, New Yorkers could see redrawn Congressional seats for the 2028 election.
The legislature may also take up a number of proposals that only passed a single house of the state legislature in 2026 or previous years.
One such bill would impose minimum qualification requirements on commissioners of local boards of elections. This bill mandates that the New York State Board of Elections establish minimum qualifications for local BOE commissioners and requires that these qualifications be met by commissioners appointed or reappointed after the adoption of these standards. While this bill passed the Senate in 2025 and 2026, it did not come before the Assembly for a vote in either of these years.
Another bill that passed only the Senate in 2025 and 2026 is one that would make the terms of all local commissioners of elections four years. Currently, local BOE commissioners serve terms of either two or four years. This proposal, which has long been a priority of the state’s Election Commissioners Association, would standardize this by making the terms of all commissioners four years. Like the election commissioner minimum qualifications bill, there is a good chance that the state legislature takes a close look at this proposal in 2027.
Changes to the state’s ballot access process can often be controversial. One major change that, in 2025, appeared to be poised for passage may find itself back from the legislative wilderness in 2027. That bill, a proposal to eliminate the ability of judicial candidates to run in the primary of a party of which they are not enrolled, may find itself the object of renewed interest when the legislature returns in 2027.
Currently, the Election Law mandates that candidates not enrolled in a political party receive an authorization – or Wilson-Pakula – from that party in order to enter that party’s primary. Exempted from this requirement, however, are candidates nominated by a newly recognized party, candidates nominated by a party caucus, and candidates for judicial offices. This bill eliminates that exemption for judicial candidates.
While the bill passed the Assembly in 2025, it did not come before the full Senate for a vote that year, and in 2026, neither house of the state legislature voted on the bill. Interest in this change to the ballot access process for judicial candidate may have waned in 2026, but it is quite possible that in 2027 the newly elected state legislature finds this proposal appealing.
Baseball legend and American cultural icon Yogi Berra once said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” And while it is far from certain that all or any of these bills and amendments will be considered by the Senate and Assembly in 2027, there is a high likelihood that New Yorkers see some heated debates over these proposals when the state legislature convenes for next year’s session.
Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the Holtzman Vogel law firm’s New York office. Eitan Genger is a Summer Law Intern at the firm.
https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
August 4: Missouri Secretary of State Hoskins has deemed the Missouri Redistricting Referendum as insufficient due to it being unconstitutional. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 4: The Maryland Redistricting Amendment has passed both the MD House and MD Senate.
It will now go before voters during the November 2026 general election. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 4: People Not Politicians Missouri has filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in Cole County Circuit Court.
The filing asks the court to reverse Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ rejection of their redistricting referendum, declare the referendum sufficient, and bar the state from further implementing or using the congressional districts in HB 1. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 5: The Mississippi Legislative Committee on Reapportionment will hold 8 hearings to discuss how to redraw the state’s electoral maps.
The public hearings will be held at 6 pm on their respective days and are scheduled from August through September 2026 . — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 6: A federal three-judge panel has ruled for Florida, finding race did not predominate in drawing state House Districts 115, 118, and 119.
The challenge to the prior Congressional District 26 is held in abeyance pending state-court litigation over Florida’s new map. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 7: Governor Matt Meyer has signed the Delaware John Lewis Voting Rights Act.. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 7: Maryland Republicans have filed a lawsuit challenging the Democrats’ congressional redistricting ballot question.
The suit argues Democrats missed a July deadline to put the question on the November ballot and that the question fails the state’s plain-language requirement. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
INSTITUTE RESOURCES
The New York Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute has archived many resources for the public to view on our Digital Commons Page.
Our Redistricting Resources page contains resources on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. You can access the page here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/
Archived Updates can be accessed here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/
Please share this weekly update with your colleagues. To be added to the mailing list, please contact [email protected]
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund, the Mellon Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice, Esha Shah & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.