This week- 11th Congressional District Remapping on Hold; U.S. v. NUS Board of Elections Voter Roll Litigation Explainer; Census Test Sites Cutback; February 3rd Redistricting Webinar; State VRA Preclearance Status; February 14 Party Enrollment Change Deadline; Around the Nation- California & Maryland
LITIGATION
Congressional Redistricting
Williams et. al v. New York State Board of Elections et. al
In his January 21st decision, New York County State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Pearlman deemed the 2024 congressional map unconstitutional under Article III, Section 4(c)(1) of the New York Constitution, enjoining respondents from using the map in future elections, and ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to complete a new Congressional map by February 6. The decision has been “stayed” (or put on hold) pending further decisions from the Appellate Division or the State Court of Appeals.
On January 26, counsel for the intervenor-respondents, representing Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis and individual voters, filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals challenging the decision and order from the New York Supreme Court. Intervenor-respondents and respondents filed similar Emergency Motions for Interim Stay and Stay Pending Appeal in the Appellate Division, First Department.
On February 4, counsel for the state respondents, representing Governor Kathy Hochul, Senate Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie, and Attorney General Letitia James, filed a memorandum of law in response to the motion for a stay.
First, state respondents argue that any stay entered by the court should allow the IRC to engage in preparatory steps to comply with the order on appeal because the relief requested already presents challenges with regard to the upcoming 2026 election calendar. The IRC has refrained from taking any action on a new map.
Second, state respondents argue that the Supreme Court correctly ruled that the New York Voting Rights Act is irrelevant here, the state Constitution provides greater protections against vote dilution than the federal Voting Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause does not bar relief here.
Third, state respondents argue that although they take no position on the motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, it is doubtful that the Appellate Division has the authority to grant leave to appeal because the Decision and Order is likely not a “final judgment.” Justice Pearlman has retained jurisdiction over the case pending action by the IRC.
Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky, Co-Executive Director of the New York State Board of Elections, filed an affidavit in opposition to the instant motions for a stay because New York has a long history of new district lines not being known until immediately before or quite close to the beginning of petitioning and can still conduct an orderly ballot access process. Further, Stavisky argues that a stay in this matter would ensure delay in the process. Also, Stavisky argues that it is not reasonable to expect that if the IRC does not produce initial new lines that the court will do nothing, In fact, Stavisky cites precedent that courts can adopt a backstop plan should preferred legislative avenues fail to render Constitutionally-sound district lines, thus no stay should be issued.
On February 6, counsel for appellant-respondents, Peter S. Kosinski, Anthony J. Casale, and Raymond J. Riley, III, filed a reply in further support of the motion for a stay and leave to appeal, and in opposition to cross-motion to vacate automatic stay.
First, appellant-respondents argue they are likely to prevail on the merits because the state Supreme Court violated due process in adopting an entirely new standard, petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case of vote dilution, and the Supreme Court’s order violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Second, they also argue that there is no basis to vacate the automatic stay because petitioners waited nineteen months after the 2024 congressional map was enacted before filing this proceeding and there is a presumption to maintain the status quo by keeping the automatic stay in place and allowing elections to proceed. Thus, appellant-respondents argue that the Appellate Division should grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
With petitioning set to get underway for the June 23rd congressional primary set to start on February 24th, more action is anticipated in the coming week.
Case Review – United States v. Board of Elections of the State of New York
United States v. Board of Elections of the State of New York remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and has not produced any merits ruling or interim relief altering New York’s voter registration data practices. The case is a federal enforcement action brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) challenging New York’s refusal to provide unredacted statewide voter registration records in response to federal requests. No. 1:25‑cv‑01338 (N.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 25, 2025)
Background and Statutory Framework
The DOJ filed suit in September 2025 against the New York State Board of Elections, its commissioners and executive directors, and the State of New York. The complaint alleges that New York failed to comply with federal election administration statutes by declining to produce a complete, unredacted statewide voter registration list upon request by the Attorney General.
The federal government’s claims rest primarily on three statutes: the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Together, these statutes require states to maintain accurate and current voter registration lists for federal elections and authorize the Attorney General to inspect and obtain records relating to election administration. According to the DOJ, New York’s refusal to provide unredacted voter data, including voters’ dates of birth and residential addresses, unlawfully obstructs federal oversight and enforcement responsibilities.
New York has responded that it has satisfied federal obligations by providing the publicly available version of its voter registration list. The State argues that federal law does not require disclosure of sensitive personal information and that state statutes restricting dissemination of voter data reflect legitimate privacy and security concerns.
Procedural Posture
The case was filed in the Northern District of New York in September 2025 and remains in the early stages of federal litigation. The court has conducted an initial case management conference and entered a scheduling order governing disclosures and preliminary deadlines. To date, no dispositive motions have been resolved, and the court has not conducted evidentiary hearings on the merits.
Notably, the district court has not issued a preliminary injunction or other interim order compelling New York to produce the requested unredacted voter registration data. As a result, the State’s existing voter data disclosure practices remain in effect while the litigation proceeds. The absence of interim relief suggests that the court is allowing the dispute to move forward through ordinary motion practice rather than treating it as one requiring expedited judicial intervention.
Discovery and briefing are expected to focus on threshold legal issues, including statutory interpretation and federal preemption, rather than factual disputes over list maintenance practices.
Intervention by Third Parties
Several civic and civil rights organizations have sought to intervene as defendants, including the NAACP, the NAACP New York State Conference, and the League of Women Voters of New York State.[1] These groups argue that compelled disclosure of unredacted voter registration data would expose voters to privacy risks and could chill voter registration and participation, particularly among historically marginalized communities.
While the intervention motions do not directly address the merits of the DOJ’s statutory claims, their participation introduces additional constitutional and policy considerations related to voter privacy and associational rights. As of early 2026, the court has not issued substantive rulings resolving these concerns, but the intervenors’ arguments are likely to influence how the court frames the balance between federal enforcement authority and voter protection interests.
Substantive Legal Issues Going Forward
The central legal question in the case is whether federal election statutes require states to provide the DOJ with unredacted voter registration data notwithstanding state laws limiting disclosure of sensitive voter information. The DOJ contends that federal law preempts contrary state restrictions and that full access is necessary for meaningful enforcement of voting rights protections. New York, by contrast, advances a narrower interpretation of federal disclosure requirements and emphasizes the absence of explicit statutory language mandating disclosure of personal voter data.
Because there is limited controlling precedent directly addressing the scope of federal access to statewide voter registration databases under NVRA, HAVA, and the Civil Rights Act, the case is likely to turn on questions of statutory interpretation and federalism resolved through motion practice rather than trial.
CENSUS
Census Bureau Cuts Back on Test Census Sites
The U.S. Census Bureau announced that it cutting back on the size and scope of the trial test run census sites it uses in advance of the decennial census itself. According to a report in Science Magazine,” experts worry the changes—notably fewer test sites, less outreach, and an English-only online questionnaire—will make it harder to test proposed improvements and could lead to a significant undercount of the country’s population in 2030.”
“The cutbacks mean “you’re no longer focusing on how to do a better job of counting the folks who were historically undercounted, to get a more accurate census,” says statistician Robert Santos, who led the Census Bureau under former President Joe Biden. “Instead, you’re simply testing for efficiency and some new technology,” says Santos, who resigned 3 weeks after President Donald Trump took office.”
In a LinkedIn post, Santos wrote “Having worked with the amazing scientists, leaders, and staff at the Census Bureau, I know that this redesign was not adopted by choice. It was most likely from the evaporation of the needed funding.”
The two test sites are Spartanburg, SC and Huntsville, AL.
The Science article can be read here: https://bit.ly/3OvdxBu
ELECTIONS
Deadline to Change Party Affiliation on. Saturday, February 14
The deadline to update voter party affiliation is on Saturday, February 14. To change a voter’s party affiliation, go to
https://elections.ny.gov/voter-registration-process#register-online
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1001 Mount Vernon City School District (Westchester)- poll site locations- under review
Two polling locations have permanently closed at the end of the 2024-25 school year. Honor Academy (Formerly Holmes School) and Parker Schools. Therefore, voters from Honor Academy will vote at Lincoln Elementary School and Parker School voters will now vote at Rebecca Turner Academy.1012 NYC Board of Elections- early voting hours- under review
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING
Tuesday, February 3rd from 6:00 to 8:00 PM
Mid-Decade Redistricting and New York Reforms – New York Law School sponsored a webinar on redistricting reform, including presentations on mid-decade redistricting and what’s could be expected to happen in New York during the 2026 state legislative sesion. Speakers include New York Law School’s Jeff WIce, Brennan Center Vice President Kareem Crayton and Jonathan Cervas of Carnegie Mellion University (special master for the court in the 2022 congressional and state senate remapping).
You can view the program here: https://bit.ly/4alYVfg
AROUND THE NATION
CALIFORNIA: The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for California to implement a new congressional map for the upcoming midterm elections, denying an emergency request from state Republicans to block its use. Enacted through the voter-approved Proposition 50, which passed by a two-to-one margin in November, the plan is projected to help Democrats secure five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although the California GOP and the Trump administration argued the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, a lower federal court previously ruled that the evidence of racial motivation was “exceptionally weak” compared to the “overwhelming” evidence of partisan intent.
This ruling follows a parallel decision in December regarding a Texas redistricting plan that similarly favored Republicans, leading Justice Samuel Alito to characterize the motivation for both states’ maps as “partisan advantage pure and simple.” The California map is a central component of a larger national trend of mid-decade redistricting, with ongoing legal and legislative battles over congressional lines currently playing out in states such as Florida, Maryland, New York, Utah, and Virginia.
MARYLAND: The Maryland House of Delegates approved a new congressional map last week but it remains unclear whether a new map will make it through the State Senate where the Senate President has raised concerns that any new map may fail if challenged in the state courts.
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, Alexandria Sanatore, and Michelle Davis (redistrictingonline.org).