This week: Early Voting Law Challenge Proceeds in Federal Court; N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board Actions; Court Expels Twenty Working Families Party Members from Party; Voters Should Mail Completed Ballots Early Following USPS Postmark Changes; Nassau GOP Removes Doctored Photo of N.Y.C. Mayor Mamdani with Local Democratic Candidate; Voting Rights Act Preclearance; Around the Nation
LITIGATION
Early Voting Law Challenge: 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 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.
Enacted in December 2023, the EYEL moves many local elections to even-numbered years to coincide with state and federal contests. This lawsuit follows a New York Court of Appeals ruling in October 2025, which upheld the law, allowing the election schedule to shift to proceed.
Plaintiffs contend that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), by undermining local control and diluting the influence of certain voters. They contend that Section 2 of the VRA and the court’s scrutiny of whether consolidated ballots actually create discriminatory “voter drop-off” for minority voters presents a unique legal issue.
The plaintiffs argue that the EYEL imposes significant burdens on political speech by reducing the visibility of local messages and increasing the cost of spreading those messages. Plaintiffs also assert that information and content from national elections will have residual effects on the voters’ decision-making in local races.
According to the plaintiffs, consolidating local elections into even-year cycles expands the electorate to include a larger share of voters who are less informed about local issues and more inclined to vote along partisan and racial lines. In one of their causes of action, plaintiffs further allege that the interaction of EYEL and the continuing effects of discrimination on Black New Yorkers will result in diminished opportunities for these voters to participate meaningfully in the political process and to election representatives of their choice.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to block the law and let local governments opt out.As of May 13, Judge Gary R. Brown issued an expedited scheduling order acknowledging the urgency of resolving the matter before the 2026 election cycle.
On June 10, the state filed its motion to dismiss. The state argues to dismiss on procedural grounds, including standing and failure to state a claim. Further, the state argues that the plaintiffs fail to state a plausible voting rights claim.
The state argues that the plaintiffs fail to state a vote-denial claim. The state identifies Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee’s factors to consider (1) the size of the burden imposed by the voting rule; (2) the degree to which the voting rule departs from standard voting practice across the United States; (3) the size of any disparities in the rule’s impact on members of different racial groups; (4) the opportunities provided by a State’s entire voting system; and (5) the strength of the state interests served by the voting rule.
In their analysis of these factors, the state argues that the plaintiff’s allegations fail to show how the existence of racially polarized voting is relevant to the court’s analysis. Also, the EYEL reflects New York’s compelling interest in increasing voter turnout and reducing voter confusion.
Further, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, “updated” the traditional Gingles framework, thus heightening the burden on plaintiffs to satisfy the Gingles preconditions to state a vote-dilution claim. Thus, the state argues that the plaintiffs fail to allege any of the traditional or updated Gingles preconditions.
If the federal court agrees with the state’s arguments, the local boards and town positions will share the electoral stage with federal campaigns. However, if the plaintiffs succeed, then local government will likely be granted the right to “opt-out” and maintain odd-year elections.
Oral arguments on the State’s motion to dismiss will be held on June 18.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
N.Y. C. Campaign Finance Board Votes on Enforcement Matters & Public Funds
On Thursday, June 11, the N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board (CFB) voted to ratify a payment to a candidate in the 2026 election for City Council District 3 and determined two campaigns from 2021 must repay public funds. The Board also determined three campaigns, two from 2021 and one from 2023, committed violations and assessed penalties; please refer to the tables below for details.
A video recording of the meeting is available on the live stream section of CFB’s YouTube channel.
2026 Primary City Council District 3 Election Payment
Candidate Carl Wilson $114,357
ELECTIONS
Nassau GOP Removes Doctored Photo of N.Y.C. Mayor Mamdani with Local Democratic Candidate
In Nassau County’s Town of Hempstead, GOP Supervisor John Ferretti’s campaign committee removed a photograph depicting Democratic challenger Joe Scianablo with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani where both were depicted holding their hands to their chests. The photo was phony.
The photo violates a 2024 state law that “materially deceptive media” be labeled as not being authentic. The Democratic candidate ask that the photo be removed from a Facebook posting. In an article covering the incident in Newsday, veteran New York political consultant Hank Sheinkopf was quoted as saying that “anytime the Republicans can attach Mamdani to the Democrats in suburban settings, the Republicans will benefit from it.”
State Supreme Court Expels Twenty Working Families Party Members from Party
By Joseph T. Burns
On June 8, 2026, a State Supreme Court Justice in Rockland County, New York, ordered the removal, or disenrollment, of twenty Working Families Party enrolled voters from the party. This came after complaints were made to the State Committee of the Working Families Party that the voters were not in sympathy with the party’s principles.
After receiving a complaint, the state committee appointed a subcommittee to hear enrollment challenges in the counties of the Hudson Valley, including Rockland County, the county of residence of the voters who were challenged. The complaint cited a number of items alleged to demonstrate that the voters were not in sympathy with the party, including social media posts of the voters and campaign contributions to candidates opposing Working Families candidates made by the voters.
After providing notice to the voters whose enrollment was challenged, a disenrollment hearing was held by the party body charged with that duty on May 26, 2026. None of the challenged party members appeared in person or through legal counsel.
A proceeding was then commenced in Supreme Court by the committee’s chair and the party member that made the original complaints against the voters. A return date of June 5, 2026, was set by the Court. The challenged Working Families Party members did not submit an Answer and failed to appear in person or through their legal counsel.
The Court determined that all the procedural requirements for a disenrollment had been met by the party and the Petitioners. Based upon the evidence presented, the determination of the Working Families party committee, and the voters’ failure to appear, the Court found that the disenrollment had been “just” and ordered the Rockland County Board of Elections to disenroll the Working Families Party voters that had been challenged.
This disenrollment will have the immediate impact of preventing any of the challenged voters from voting in any Working Families Party primaries held on June 23, 2026. As they are no longer enrolled party members, the voters would also be ineligible to seek to be elected to party positions (for instance, member of the county committee or judicial delegate). Additionally, they would not be permitted to seek most Working Families designations and/or nominations for public office without an authorization, or Wilson-Pakula, from the appropriate Working Families Party committee.
This disenrollment was only possible because of a controversial 2025 amendment to the Election Law. Prior to this amendment becoming law, only a county party chair or a subcommittee of the county committee appointed by the county chair could hear a challenge to a voter’s enrollment. This made it impossible for a party without an organized county committee and county chair from hearing challenges to a voter’s enrollment.
The 2025 amendment to the Election Law allowed disenrollments to be heard by a body or individual designated by a party’s state committee when the party does not have an organized county committee in a county. Because the Working Families Party is the only recognized party in New York State with no organized county committees, the new law was seen by many political observers as a political favor to the WFP leadership.
While the process for disenrolling voters, due to the 2025 amendment to the Election Law, has arguably become easier, it has the potential to continue to be lengthy and expensive. Because the challenged voters failed to appear at the hearing or in Court, this matter was resolved quickly and in the party committee’s favor. But future disenrollments where voters aggressively oppose their expulsion from a party are likely to be time-consuming and costly for the party committee seeking the disenrollments.
Party leaders undertaking a disenrollment should be mindful of the procedural pitfalls in the disenrollment process as well as the time constraints on initiating a disenrollment proceeding imposed by the Election Law. Before undertaking a disenrollment, party leaders should get an honest assessment of their chances for success by a competent and experienced attorney.
Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the New York Office of Holtzman Vogel.
https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns
Early Voting Gets Underway
Early voting for the June 23 primary started on Saturday, June 13 and goes through Sunday, June 21.
Primary election day is on June 23. All registered voters who belong to a party can vote.
To find your early voting location, go to: https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/
From the New York State Board of Elections: Voters Should Mail Completed Ballots Early Following USPS Postmark Changes
“New York State election officials are encouraging voters to return early mail and absentee ballots for the June 2026 Primary Election as soon as possible following recent changes to U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark procedures that may affect how mail is dated and processed.
Under updated USPS guidance this year, a postmark reflects the date a mail piece is processed at a postal facility rather than the date it was deposited in the mail. As a result, mail placed in a mailbox on a particular day may not receive a postmark until a later date. To ensure ballots are counted, voters are strongly encouraged to mail their ballots well before the deadline or return ballots directly to a poll site or their county board of elections.
“While these postal changes do not alter New York’s election laws, they underscore the importance of voters making a plan to return their ballot,” stated Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky, Co-Executive Director of the State Board of Elections. “The most effective step voters can take is to return their ballot early. Doing so helps ensure their vote reaches election officials in a timely manner and eliminates uncertainty related to mail processing.”
“The Board is committed to ensuring voters understand how these changes may affect the handling of mailed ballots,” added Raymond J. Riley III, Co-Executive Director of the State Board of Elections. “We encourage every voter who plans to vote by mail to review the deadlines, understand their options, and return their ballot as soon as possible. Every eligible voter should cast their ballot with confidence in the process and peace of mind.”
New York State election law permits ballots to be postmarked up through election day. Voters who choose to mail a ballot close to this deadline may request a manual or hand-stamped postmark at a USPS retail counter. These are available at no charge upon request. Properly postmarked ballots must be received by the voter’s county board of elections within seven days of election day. Voters in New York are encouraged to contact the State Board of Elections or their local county boards of elections directly for information about the upcoming election and voting options. If you have any questions regarding this press release, please contact Kathleen McGrath or Jennifer Wilson at the State Board of Elections at (518) 474-1953 or by email at [email protected].
IMPORTANT DATES TO REMEMBER: The 2026 Primary Election is June 23, 2026.
For new voters, the deadline to register to vote before this election is June 13, 2026.
For voters wishing to receive a ballot by mail, the deadline to make this request is June 13, 2026.
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1361 Orange County Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted
1301 Westchester County Board of Elections- poll site locations- additional information requested, under review
1481 New York City Board of Elections (Kings)- poll site locations- granted
1581 Monroe County Board of Elections0 poll site locations- preliminarily granted
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
June 9: The Tennessee Democratic Party has voluntarily dismissed its federal lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s new congressional map. Two other cases remain active. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 9: The NAACP has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Tennessee’s new congressional map before a three-judge federal court panel. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 10: The Florida Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block the state’s new 2026 congressional map, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to intervene while the case remains pending before the First District Court of Appeal. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 10: A Cole County Circuit judge has postponed a hearing in the Missouri Congressional Redistricting Referendum Certification Delay Challenge.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2026 at 9:00 AM. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 11: The WI Supreme Court agrees to hear appeals in both Wisconsin congressional redistricting cases. — @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.