This week- U.S. Supreme Court Stays Action on New Congressional Map; Mount Pleasant VRA Case Headed for Settlement; 21 State Attorneys General Oppose Census Changes; VRA Preclearance; State Census Funding Effort; Census Bureau Operational Test Questioned; Around the Nation: Virginia
LITIGATION
Congressional Redistricting
Williams et. al v. New York State Board of Elections et. al
In a late January decision, Justice Jeffrey Pearlman in the New York County State Supreme Court deemed the 2024 Congressional Map unconstitutional under Article III, Section 4(c)(1) of the New York Constitution, enjoined respondents from using the map in future elections, and ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to complete a new Congressional map.
On February 12, counsel for the intervenor-respondents, Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis and others filed an emergency application for stay with the United States Supreme Court. The intervenor-respondents ultimately requested emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court by February 23, so that petitioning can begin on February 24 under the map approved by the legislature in 2024.
After a week of petitioning for the Spring Primary with the future of the Staten Island-based 11 congressional district still pending, the U.S. Supreme Court released an early evening order on March 2 “staying the state court decision that ordered the redrawing of the district based on a state constitutional vote dilution violation. While the Court’s decision was based on a 6-3 vote, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion that argued that the state court order was ‘unadorned racial discrimination, an inherently “‘odious’” activity that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause except in the “most extraordinary case.” Alito found no compelling state interest, which is required for race-based government action.
Justice Alito went on to say that “there is an unacceptably strong possibility that the applicants’ appeal in the state court system will not conclude until it is too late for us to review the ultimate decision,” arguing that the stay reduces uncertainty rather than adding confusion ahead of the election. Further Alito asserts that New York law cannot override federal constitutional protections, invoking the Supremacy Clause to justify the stay.
Alito’s concurrence was not joined by the other five justices in the majority (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett). Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
Justice Sotomayer stressed the principles of federalism and equity which would against a broad stay based on a state-law constitutional claim without a final order from the state court.
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote ““Rules for thee, but not for me.” Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not interfere with state-court litigation. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an election.” Justice Sotomayor pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court should not interfere with a pending state court case until it has been decided by the state’s highest court.
This decision is an emergency state order, not a full merits opinion, so the Justices are addressing whether and how the Supreme Court should intervene, not what standards for substantive voting rights issues. However, this Order will likely be known for the Supreme Court bypassing a final action of a state’s highest court and staying an order in a still-pending lower court case.
The lawsuit remains pending before Justice Pearlman who has not issued any directives since his January 21 order. An appeal to his decision remains pending before the Appellate Division, First Department. While the Appellate Division lifted a temporary stay against further state action and directed the state’s redistricting commission to draw a new plan (since stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court), the Appellate Division could also rule on the merits of the appeal. The plaintiffs can also decide whether to continue the case. In the meantime, the case is still active.
NY STATE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Westchester County: Serratto v. Town of North Pleasant
SETTLEMENT TO BE VOTED ON
Mount Pleasant Town Board to Vote On Voting Rights Act Case Settlement
The Mount Pleasant Town Board (Westchester) will vote tomorrow on a proposed settlement to a lawsuit alleging that its current at-large election system violates the New York Voting Rights Act. The town was challenged by local voters for diluting the votes of Hispanic voters were who were not able to elect preferred candidates to the town board.
Excerpts from a town board statement:
“The Town Board is opposed to amending our electoral system because we believe it is fair,” said Supervisor Carl Fulgenzi. “However, this settlement is a compromise to address the complaints raised in the Lawsuit while sparing the Town additional legal expenses.”
Following more than two years of litigation, the proposed settlement with the plaintiffs would end the lawsuit and modify how Town Board members are elected. The Town’s at-large voting system would be replaced with a district system beginning in the fall of 2027.
The proposed settlement would increase the Town Board membership to six (6) Town Board members plus the Supervisor (who would still be elected at-large) effective for the 2027 elections. The election of the Town Clerk, Highway Superintendent, Receiver of Taxes and court judges is unaffected by the settlement.
The compromise proposes a three-district system for the Town:
- One district would represent the entire Village of Pleasantville.
- A second district would encompass the majority of the Village of Sleepy Hollow.
- The third district would encompass the unincorporated areas of the Town and have four Town Board members who are elected at-large within the third district.
If approved, the Town will provide more information about these changes to all residents in advance of the 2027 elections.
Recently, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a constitutional challenge to the NYVRA by the Town of Newburgh. Following that decision, and in advance of trial, the Town of Newburgh settled claims that its election system violated the NYVRA and agreed to change its electoral process.”
Mount Pleasant’s expected settlement follows another recent settlement over a similar case challenging Orange County’s Newburgh Town Board. Another challenge in Erie County’s Town of Cheektowaga is still pending. All three lawsuits have been in the state courts for nearly three years. Case records inform that all three townships were informed that they had high levels of racially polarized voting that warranted remedies before court actions were undertaken. Jeffrey M. Wice and Dr.Lisa Handley informed each town of their findings at the outset and all three towns chose to fight the allegations instead (after considerable court costs). All three challenges could have avoided litigation if the early advice had been followed.
A challenge to the Nassau County Legislature was also settled in 2025 and led to the creation of additional minority opportunity districts.
CENSUS
21 Attorney Generals Urge Commerce Department to Reverse Changes to 2030 Census Test
Twenty-one Democratic state attorneys general have submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce urging the Census Bureau to reconsider several planned changes to the 2026 Census Test, a key operational field test intended to help prepare for the 2030 Census. The attorneys general warn that the proposed modifications, which include altering the questionnaire used in the test, reducing the number of test locations, and using United States Postal Service employees as enumerators, could undermine the effectiveness of the test and weaken the Bureau’s ability to accurately prepare for the next decennial census. Their letter outlines several legal and practical concerns with the proposal.
I. The Notice is procedurally deficient.
The letters argue that the Census Bureau improperly issued the changes through a notice under the Paperwork Reduction Act rather than a formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The state officials contend the changes, including using USPS workers and reducing test sites, constitute substantive policy decisions that require a full notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Bypassing APA procedures, they argue, denies states and the public meaningful participation and may render the changes unlawful.
II. Use of the ACS questionnaire (which includes a citizenship question) is not appropriate.
The letter criticizes the plan to use the American Community Survey questionnaire instead of the traditional decennial census form. The ACS questionnaire is significantly longer and asks different types of questions, which the attorney generals say would undermine the purpose of the 2026 operational test because it would not accurately simulate the conditions of the actual census. They also warn that the ACS includes a citizenship question, which past Census Bureau research shows can reduce participation, particularly among immigrant, Hispanic, and Asian communities.
III. The use of United States Postal Service staff as enumerators raises significant practical concerns that the Notice does not address.
The attorney generals argue that the proposal to use USPS employees as census enumerators lacks evidence that it would increase efficiency or reduce costs. They also raise legal concerns about confidentiality, noting that census workers are bound by strict privacy rules under Title 13, while postal employees operate under different disclosure laws that may allow information sharing with other agencies. The letter warns that these conflicting legal regimes could compromise census data privacy and public trust.
IV. The reduction of test sites from six to just two is also likely to hinder the efficacy of the 2026 Test.
The letter objects to cutting the planned field test sites from six to two locations, Spartanburg, South Carolina and Huntsville, Alabama. They argue this reduction significantly narrows the scope of testing and fails to capture diverse populations and geographic conditions, particularly communities that are historically undercounted. Without testing in areas with larger immigrant or Hispanic populations, they warn the test may produce misleading results and leave the Census Bureau unprepared for the 2030 Census.
The attorney generals urge the Census Bureau to reverse the proposed changes and conduct the 2026 test using the traditional decennial census questionnaire, maintain the originally planned six test sites, and ensure that all enumerators are subject to the strict confidentiality protections required by federal census law.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1075- Rockland County Board of Elections- consolidate and relocate poll sites- under review
1041- New York City Board of Elections- early voting- granted
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
NY CENSUS ADVOCACY
The New York State Census Partnership is seeking support for state funding for census organizing in the pending FY 2026 state budget. From the Partnership:
“New York is projected to lose at least two congressional districts and electoral college votes after 2030 — something we can help avoid with dedicated and targeted strategic investments in census preparation.
It’s never too early to prepare for the census. But it can absolutely become too late to catch up. New York learned that lesson in 2020 when we lost a congressional seat by just 89 people.
Preparations for the 2030 Census are already underway.
Governor Hochul’s proposed budget includes funding to support a full and complete count, including the creation of a census support office and resources to assist local governments with the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program — the only opportunity local governments have to review and correct the address list for the upcoming census.
We strongly support:
- A $15 million funding allocation
- Authorization for a State Census Assistance Office within the Department of State
- Creation of a New York Counts Commission composed of seasoned census experts to guide and implement state and local efforts
The majority of census funding must support local governments, nonprofit and community-based organizations, academic specialists, and trusted local partners who know how to organize and execute effective census efforts on the ground — especially for LUCA field operations in 2027. LUCA is the first major operation of the 2030 Census cycle and the foundation of an accurate population count. The Census Bureau can only count people living at addresses included in its Master Address File. If a housing unit is missing, the people who live there are at risk of being completely omitted — affecting political representation, federal funding, and planning decisions for the next decade.
A successful community-based LUCA effort costs between $30,000 and $60,000 per community. Supporting trusted local organizations to help identify garages, basements, attics, accessory dwelling units, and other overlooked housing can make the difference between losing and preserving representation.
Too many counties and municipalities were not adequately prepared for LUCA in 2020. We cannot let that happen again. There are no second chances in the census. New York lost:
- 5 congressional districts after 1980
- 3 after 1990
- 2 after 2000
- 2 after 2010
- 1 after 2020
We cannot afford to go backward.”
The New York State Census Partnership is a multi-stakeholder collaboration that brings together advocacy, civic, academic, and philanthropic leaders to advance an accurate census count and equitable redistricting across New York State. The Partnership is led by a coalition including the New York Civic Engagement Table, the New York Immigration Coalition, the New York Law School Census & Redistricting Institute, Engage New York, The New York Community Trust, and additional statewide partners.
Leadership Conference Raises Concerns Over 2026 Census Operational Test
The 2026 Census Operational Test is a large-scale simulation of census operations conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The purpose is evaluate procedures, systems, and workflows under realistic conditions.
This year, the Census Bureau has proposed significant modifications to the originally proposed 2026 Census test. These changes include:
· Reducing the number of test sites, which may limit the ability to adequately test rural and group quarters
· Adopting a different testing methodology (“ACS testing method”) which is four times longer and includes a citizenship question
· Using U.S. Postal Service workers as census enumerators instead of traditional census field staff.
The elimination of test sites in Colorado, North Carolina, and Arizona will make the test census runs less useful. Fewer minority communities will be tested and evaluated.
The use of postal workers presents a unique challenge due to cost implications, quality of data collection, and privacy and confidentiality concerns. Postal workers are required to report certain activity to law enforcement. Census workers are required to maintain complete confidentiality.
There is no proposed litigation at this time, however, a public comment period is open until March 5. Advocacy efforts include sign-on letters and engagement with congressional members during the comment period.
Groups are submitting comment letters that offer the opportunity to sign on including the Population Association of America, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Census Quality Reinforcement Task Force.
For more information or to sign on to a national comment letter by March 4 at 5:30 PM, go to: https://bit.ly/46xvsxL
AROUND THE NATION
VIRGINIA: The Virginia State Supreme Court has ruled that voters can vote whether to approve a new congressional redistricting referendum that would pave the way for a new map. Final action by the state is still subject to ongoing litigation, but an April vote on permitting the mid-decade redistricting process can proceed.
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 and Daniel Bonaventura.