This week:
What’s Next For New York’s Mid-Decade Redistricting- And Beyond?; State Public Finance Campaign Board to Hear Blakeman Funding Appeal; Procedural Pitfalls in Election Litigation; Why the 2030 LUCA Program Matters to Redistricting; Attorney General’s Preclearance Activity; Employment Opportunities; Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network)
REDISTRICTING & LITIGATION
What’s Next For New York’s Mid-Decade Redistricting- And Beyond?
With two weeks remaining in the current 2026 state legislative session, action on one or more state constitutional redistricting amendments is expected. Any amendment approved by the legislature this year must be approved again next year and, if successful, go to approval by the voters in 2027.
New York Law School’s Jeff Wice offers several ideas that the legislature could consider:
Mid-Decade Redistricting
State constitutional criteria bans partisan favoritism and maps that dilute minority voting strength (based on a “totality of the circumstances” test). While the recent U.S. Supreme Court Callais decision does not directly impact the state’s redistricting process, it could make it harder to defend congressional districts drawn based on race.
Any map seen to favor political parties or candidates can be challenged in court. Voters in California and Virginia approved constitutional amendments waiving state constitutional criteria restrictions for their one-time mid-decade redistricting efforts. Pending state legislation to permit mid-decade redistricting (A.9014/S.8467) would retain the current state criteria for a one-time mid-decade redistricting. An amendment changing the redistricting commission process for 2030 and later decades can delete congressional redistricting and leave the entire congressional mapping to the legislature.
Structural Reforms to the Commission Process
Tie Breaking Chair: A New York State law school dean could be considered as an 11th commission member to serve as chair and to prevent future deadlocks. The chair could be selected by the Speaker of the Assembly and President Pro Tempore of the State Senate. Law school deans could be relied on as objective and non-partisan. The chair would serve for a four-year term (to begin in the first year of each decade ending in 0). New chairs would serve the last six years of each decade for three-year terms (providing for turn over). The four-year term at the beginning of the decade would provide for continuity during the preliminary, map drawing, and post-map litigation phases of each decade.
Commission and Legislative Voting Approval: The constitution’s rules for approving maps by the commission and the Legislature should be changed to permit simple state legislative majority approval (as is required to pass regular legislation) and the elimination of complicated voting rules controlled by the political party with a majority in the Assembly and Senate.
Voting by the commission should be restructured. The arcane rules establishing the approval process for new maps set out in the 2014 amendment should be scrapped in favor of majority voting by commission members.
Ranking Criteria: New York’s constitution currently sets out the redistricting criteria in an unranked order, providing no guidance as to which principles should be prioritized over others. Navigating redistricting criteria is difficult in any scenario as the principles are often in conflict with one another. Without any guidance as to prioritization, it can prove impossible to comply with each criterion simultaneously.
To remedy this, criteria should be ranked in priority order, similar to requirements placed on the state’s local government redistricting process in contained in the Municipal Home Rule Law. Prioritized criteria help guide decisions as higher ranked criteria are given greater weight and precedence over lower ranked criteria. Population equality, minority voting rights, adherence to defined “communities of interest,” a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering should be the top-ranked criteria. This kind of prioritization has worked particularly well for New York City Councilmanic redistricting for over 30 years.
Capping Size of the State Senate: A permanent cap on the number of state senators should be set, preferably at 63 districts. Without a cap, future commissions and legislatures could manipulate the number of Senate districts for partisan purposes, as had been done in several decades up to the 2012 redistricting.
End Congressional Prison Gerrymandering: An amendment should also make permanent an end to so-called “prison gerrymandering” so that incarcerated individuals can be counted for both congressional and state legislative districts from their homes of record before incarceration. The current state statute providing for state legislative prisoner reallocation only left out reallocation for congressional districts because of legal uncertainties existing in 2010 when the statute was enacted. Federal courts have since permitted reallocation for congressional redistricting in other states.
Clarify Final Legislative Approval: An amendment should make clear that the state legislature has final authority to enact a map and delineate what action, if any, the Commission should retain after submission of a second-round map proposal.
Obsolete Provisions: Obsolete provisions left in the state constitution from 1938 and earlier should be removed. The 2014 amendment left in place outdated and irrelevant language that only serves to confuse people. For example, confusing and hard to understand block-on-border restraints on State Senate districts are no longer relevant and should be eliminated.
To the extent possible, a new amendment should be written in clear language to make the redistricting sections understandable to the public.
Campaign Finance: Blakeman v. New York State Public Campaign Finance Board
A hearing will be held before the Appellate Division, Third Department, on an appeal by the State Campaign Finance Board regarding GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman’s effort to obtain state matching funds. The Albany County state supreme court held that Blakeman was entitled to matching funds and the Board is appealing that decision. All relevant appeal papers have been filed with the court and the hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 27th at 1:00 PM.
ELECTION LAW
Procedural Pitfalls in Election Litigation: What Can Be Learned from Recent NYS Appellate Division Decisions
By: Joseph T. Burns
In a little more than a month, New Yorkers will go to the polls to vote in the 2026 primary election. Ballot access litigation over the 2026 primary election candidates has nearly concluded. Election-related litigation in New York has a well-deserved reputation for being notoriously complex. Recent decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department, reaffirm the idea that election-related litigation is full of procedural pitfalls that inexperienced lawyers must learn to navigate.
For instance, proceedings to validate or invalidate a candidate’s designating petition must be served on Respondents in a manner directed by the Court as set forth in an Order to Show Cause. Strict compliance with the method of service dictated by the Order to Show Cause is required.
The Second Department reaffirmed this requirement last week in Matter of Grillo v. Speranza and Matter of Nichols v. New York City Board of Elections. In Matter of Grillo, the Order to Show Cause directed that the Respondent-candidate be served by affixing a copy of the Order to Show Cause and supporting papers to the inner or outer door of his residence and by mailing a copy of these documents to his residence via the U.S. Postal Service. The Petitioner, however, sent these documents to the Respondent-candidate via FedEx. The Second Department determined, however, that this seemingly insignificant deviation from the service requirements of the Order to Show Cause was, in fact, a jurisdictional defect and upheld the lower Court’s decision to dismiss the proceeding.
In Matter of Nichols, the Second Department addressed a similar issue. The Order to Show Cause in that case directed that the Board of Elections be served by leaving a copy of the Order to Show Cause and supporting papers at the Board’s office. The Board, however, was served via overnight mail. The trial court dismissed the proceeding due to the Petitioner’s failure to strictly comply with the service requirements set forth in the Order to Show Cause. As with the decision in Matter of Grillo, the lower Court decision was unanimously affirmed by the Second Department.
Failing to serve Respondents in the manner directed by the Order to Show Cause isn’t the only procedural defect addressed by the Second Department last week. The Court also tackled the issue of timely service in election-related litigation.
In Matter of Lemma v. Michos, the Second Department reaffirmed the Election Law’s strict requirement that service on all necessary parties must be completed within the statute of limitations set forth in the Election Law. The statute requires that in proceedings to invalidate a designating petition, service must be completed within fourteen days after the last day to file a designating petition. In Matter of Lemma, the Order to Show Cause and its supporting papers were sent to the Respondent-candidate via UPS on the last day to commence a proceeding to invalidate. They were received the next day by the candidate. As it has repeatedly done in similar cases, the Second Department determined that this was untimely service, reversed the decision of the trial court, and dismissed the proceeding.
In Election Law cases, what appears to be an insignificant procedural defect is often something much larger and consequential. Failing to strictly follow service requirements or missing a deadline by a day can mean an otherwise solid case will never be heard on the merits. And because of the Election Law’s short and unforgiving statute of limitations, there is usually no time for a Petitioner to file a new proceeding.
Engaging in election-related litigation in New York State is not for hobbyists or the inexperienced. Many candidates, objectors and party chairs have seen their cases dismissed due to easily avoidable procedural missteps. Those who anticipate being involved in election-related litigation would be wise to retain experienced counsel early to ensure that these issues are avoided.
Joseph T. Burns is a partner in Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak’s Buffalo office.
https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns
CENSUS
Why the 2030 Census LUCA Program Matters to Redistricting
Most redistricting discussions focus on the maps, who draws them, what criteria they must meet, and how they will hold up in court. But every redistricting map built from 2030 Census data will ultimately rest on a foundation that GIS and redistricting staff rarely talk about: the Census Bureau’s residential address list. The Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) operation is the first to occur in every decennial census cycle, and it gives state, tribal, and local governments their only opportunity to directly help ensure an accurate enumeration by reviewing and submitting updates or corrections to the confidential address list before the census starts. State and local governments use census data to redraw district boundaries for congressional, state legislative, and local bodies, meaning that if the address list undercounts a neighborhood, those residents will be effectively invisible when population totals are tabulated into census blocks, and those census blocks are the building blocks from which every district map is assembled.
The connection between address accuracy and redistricting equity is well-documented in the 2020 cycle. In the Castle Hill neighborhood of New York City, the discovery of nearly 250 previously unlisted housing units, mostly basement apartments and subdivided homes, accounted for more than 10 percent of the area’s total housing stock. In Co-op City, an additional review uncovered more than 300 apartment units not listed in the Census Bureau’s file, many of which were known but geocoded incorrectly. In Issaquah, Washington, a city leveraged a locally developed GIS-based address dataset, originally built for city planning, emergency services, and utility management, to identify and submit nearly 600 additional housing units in the Issaquah Highlands neighborhood that were missing from the Census Bureau’s list. In each of these cases, local GIS staff were the ones who identified the discrepancies because they had local data that the Census Bureau did not. The 2030 LUCA program is designed specifically to capture that local knowledge, and GIS professionals at the county and municipal level are the people best positioned to deliver it.
LUCA Timeline
For GIS and redistricting staff, LUCA preparation that begins now directly serves the redistricting mission in 2031. Although LUCA officially begins in 2027, participating requires groundwork data review, internal planning, and partnership building that local governments can and should start today, including assessing local GIS and data capacity, identifying areas with new development, and understanding which neighborhoods might need corrections. The Census Bureau has made the 2030 LUCA program entirely digital, with web-based tools that eliminate the need to download software, a new address-matching service that allows staff to compare local address files against the Census Bureau’s list, and an extended review window from four to six months. Governments can access Census Address Count Listing Files now, before LUCA officially opens, to begin reviewing how their jurisdiction’s address counts have changed since 2020. For GIS staff who will be doing the heavy lifting on redistricting in 2031, this is one of the highest-value investments they can make in the data quality of the maps they will be asked to defend.
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1423 Niagara County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted
1301 Westchester County Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted; more information requested
1321 Albany County Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted
1341 Orange County Board of Elections- poll site locations- additional information requested from county
1342 Albany County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office- Voting Rights Analyst
Civil Rights Bureau, Voting Rights Section
Reference No. CRB_NYC_VRA_6446
Application Deadline is June 12, 2026
https://bit.ly/3PEPGAu
The Office of the New York State Attorney General (OAG) is seeking a candidate with experience or interest in voting rights for a Voting Rights Analyst (VRA) position in the Voting Rights Section (VRS) of the CivilRights Bureau. The VRS is a recently established section within OAG. The VRS is charged with, among other things, enforcing the newly-enacted New York Voting Rights Act, one of the strongest state voting rights laws in the country, including implementing its state “preclearance” program
Director of Voting Rights Litigation- LatinoJustice PRLDEF
https://bit.ly/4e5A4ze
LatinoJustice PRLDEF (LJP) seeks an experienced and dynamic litigator and manager to play a key leadership role in developing and directing LJP’s voting rights litigation during a period when the ability of Latinos to fully participate in our democracy is under attack. The Director of Voting Rights Litigation directs and coordinates LJP’s voting rights litigation docket, identifies and develops new litigation matters based on organizational priorities and ensures effective execution. The Director directly participates in litigation as well, maintaining an active docket and serving as lead counsel in selected cases.
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
May 19: A new lawsuit asks a Cole County judge to force Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to decide whether a referendum challenging Missouri’s new congressional map qualifies for the November ballot before voters cast ballots in the Aug. 4 primary. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
May 19: At least seven blue states could redistrict by 2028, says Hakeem Jeffries, speaking at the Center for American Progress. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
May 19: All three federal challenges to Tennessee’s new congressional map have been consolidated before the same judge. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
May 21: The NC Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit challenging North Carolina legislative and congressional maps, ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions under Harper v. Hall. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
May 22: On Thursday, the Louisiana House & Governmental Affairs Committee adopted an amended version of the congressional map in SB 121.
The updated redistricting bill is expected to be heard on the House floor next week. View the map in DRA here: — @RedistrictNet [from X]
May 22: Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson, who had previously blocked redistricting efforts, says he would consider a special session this summer to address legal roadblocks to redrawing the state’s congressional map. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
May 23: The South Carolina legislature will not be able to pass the proposed congressional map until after early voting begins, leaving in limbo whether the new redistricting plan will be used for the 2026 midterms. — @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, Michelle Davis of Redistricting Online & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.