This week: Early Voting Law Challenge Proceeds in Federal Court; Plurality of Voters Say Redistricting Amendment is Bad for New York; Congressman Suozzi Hosts Veteran N.Y. Special Masters & Mapper in Meeting With Problem Solvers Caucus; Democrats’ Redistricting Power Grab Must Be Stopped — And The Job Will Likely Be Up To Voters; Callais Comes to County Government; Around the Nation
Happy Fourth of July! The Update Will not Publish Next Week. See you back on July 13th!
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 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 June 16, the plaintiffs requested a pre-motion conference in connection to their anticipated motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs seek to make two changes: 1) add the Town Supervisor for the Town of Eastchester (Westchester) and Town Clerk for the Town of Clarkstown (Rockland); and 2) add the four commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections as defendants in their official capacities exercising specific authority over NYSBOE guidance and directives implementing the EYEL statewide.
On June 17, the state filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. The state continued to maintain its arguments to dismiss on procedural grounds including standing and failure to state first amendment claims.
The state also argues that Eleventh Amendment immunity does apply to Governor Hochul because the plaintiffs acknowledge the NYSBOE and local boards of elections, not the Governor, are entities directly charged with the enforcement of the EYEL. Plaintiffs do allege that Governor Hochul signed the EYEL and that she is the “highest-ranking government official responsible for implementing the EYEL,” however the state argues this is not sufficient to meet the exception for Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Further, the state argues that the plaintiffs fail to allege that administrating elections in even-numbered years will require them to take any action that would violate any right.
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 were held on June 18th.
On June 26, plaintiffs filed a letter requesting leave to file a motion for preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the EYEL as applied to the plaintiffs who will be candidates. Plaintiffs are not seeking to invalidate the EYEL statewide, rather the focus is on more local candidates. The plaintiffs’ argument focuses on how the EYEL raises the cost of reaching a local voter, forecloses traditional channels of candidate voter association including town halls, local press, and neighborhood debates, and forces local races to be beneath nationalized contests.
REDISTRICTING
Plurality of N.Y. Voters Say Redistricting Amendment is Bad for New York
A recent Siena Research poll released on June 25 indicates that voters are not ready to support a proposed constitutional amendment to permit mid-decade redistricting and approve other reforms to the state constitution.
In a re lease from Siena, pollster Steven Greenberg said that “when it comes to the proposed Constitutional amendment to allow mid-decade and partisan redistricting, there is partisan agreement in opposition to the amendment, which received first passage by the Legislature earlier this month. A majority of Republicans and pluralities of Democrats and independents say the proposed amendment is bad for New York,” Greenberg said. “While these results will make Republican leaders happy, it shows that Democratic leaders have a lot of work to do between now and Election Day 2027 if they want to see this amendment approved by voters.”
The poll indicates that only 21% of the voters polled approved of the amendment while 44% were opposed. Among Democrats, only 26% voiced approval and 38% were opposed. 17% of Republicans supported the amendment and 54% were opposed. Independent voters came in at 14% approving with 47% opposing.
Congressman Suozzi Hosts Veteran N.Y. Special Masters & Mapper In Meeting With Problem Solvers Caucus
On June 25th, N.Y. Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-Nassau), co-chair of the Congressional Problem Solvers, along with Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), convened their bipartisan working group focused on reforming the process that has led to extreme partisan gerrymandering across the country. Ten members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have volunteered to serve on the Working Group focused on addressing partisan gerrymandering. The working group is evenly divided along partisan lines, with five Democrats and five Republicans.
A larger group met last week with redistricting experts Nate Persily of Stanford Law School, Jonathan Cervas of Carnegie Mellon and Paul Mithell, of the California-based Redistricting Partners. Cervas most recently served as special master to the New York State Supreme Court and drew the current New York State Senate map and the 2022 New York congressional map. Persily served as special master to the U.S. District Court in New York in 2012 and drew the congressional map used in New York from 2012 through 2020. Mitchell was retained by the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission to draw the commissions several map proposals in 2022 and 2024. He also provided mapping services to the New York City Districting Commission in 2023 and drew the current city council map.
In addition to Congressman Suozzi, other members of the working group participated, including New Yorkers Mike Lawler (R-Rockland) and Nick LaLota (R-Suffolk) in the Washington, D.C. meeting. No details of what was discussed at the meeting were made public.
Commentary: N.Y. Democrats’ Redistricting Power Grab Must Be Stopped — And The Job Will Likely Be Up To Voters
By Joseph T. Burns
Excerpts from an Albany Times Union column
“While the 2026 election is still almost six months away, the first shots of the 2028 elections have already been fired.
“Before leaving Albany for the year, the Democratic-dominated state Legislature approved an amendment that would gut the state constitution’s anti-gerrymandering safeguards. Should this naked power grab be adopted, it would undo the bipartisan, common-sense redistricting reforms approved bythe voters of New York over a decade ago.
“The amendment approved by the Legislature doesn’t even attempt to hide its goal of returning New York to the bad old days when backroom deals and partisan gerrymandering reigned.
“Under this amendment, the state constitution’s explicit ban on partisan gerrymandering would be repealed in its entirety; the prohibition on incumbent-favored redistricting would also be axed. All of the bipartisan voting requirements for legislative approval of redistricting plans would be eliminated, too.
“This amendment’s path to its first passage in the state Legislature is just as problematic as the amendment’s substance: It was introduced on June 1, with only days to go before the end of the session. It bypassed the traditional committee hearing process, and the public had only days to offer their opinions on the amendment. State legislators who are charged with voting on this proposal barely had time to fully understand its legal implications. On June 3, only two days after it was first introduced, the amendment passed both houses.
“Should this amendment be adopted, it will undo the historic bipartisan work done more than a decade ago to end partisan gerrymandering in New York. Back then, the Democratic leaders of the Assembly and Republican leaders of the Senate came to an agreement with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo on a common-sense effort to reform Albany and eliminate gerrymandering of state legislative and congressional districts once and for all. When it was sent to the voters of New York in 2014, the anti-gerrymandering amendment passed overwhelmingly.
“If the effort to stop the amendment in the Legislature fails, voters will still get to have their say in the 2027 general election. While it may seem like a long shot, New Yorkers once before blocked Albany’s bid to undo the 2014 redistricting reforms. In a 2021 referendum, voters defeated an attempt by Democrats to water down the state constitution’s anti-gerrymandering provisions.
New Yorkers of all political stripes spoke clearly in 2021: They would not overturn the hard-won anti-gerrymandering reforms enshrined in the state constitution. Given the political class’ recent efforts, it appears likely that voters will be called on again to defend the state constitution.”
Joseph T. Burns, a partner in the law firm of Holtzman Vogel, is a Republican election attorney. This column was reproduced with the author’s permission. https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns
VOTING RIGHTS
Callais Comes to County Government: Federal Judge Applies New VRA Standard to Mississippi Local Map
A federal judge in Mississippi ruled on June 24 that DeSoto County’s 2022 electoral map does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, dismissing a challenge brought by the DeSoto County NAACP, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, and two Black voters who alleged the map dilutes Black voting power across 25 local offices, including the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, Election Commission, justice court judges, and constables. The U.S. District Court, applying the Supreme Court’s April 29 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, found the plaintiffs failed all three preconditions of the Gingles test – the threshold legal standard for proving vote dilution – and wrote: “Plaintiffs cannot prove their claims for vote dilution pursuant to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and judgment must be awarded to Defendants.” The ruling followed a two-week bench trial held in February in the federal courthouse in Oxford, in which the court examined over 300 exhibits and heard testimony from 36 witnesses, all before the Callais decision changed the governing legal standard on April 29.
DeSoto County, located just south of Memphis in northwest Mississippi, is one of the state’s fastest-growing counties, with a population of approximately 191,000. The county’s Black population has grown from 12% in the 2000 census to more than 36% today, yet none of the 25 county offices determined by the map is currently held by a Black person. The plaintiffs in this case (Harris v. Desoto County), represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU of Mississippi, the Harvard Election Law Clinic, and voting rights attorney Amir Badat, argued the map splits Black population centers across districts, denying Black voters any opportunity to elect preferred candidates. The ACLU of Mississippi called the decision “deeply disappointing,” stating that the Callais opinion “pretends to adhere to the text of the Voting Rights Act” while “directing federal courts to close their eyes and ignore the clear results of discriminatory maps.”
The ruling is among the first to apply the Callais standard to local government redistricting, a category of litigation that accounts for nearly half of all Section 2 cases brought since the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act and that most directly affects the offices voters interact with in their daily lives. Democracy Docket noted the ruling “shows how Callais is beginning to reshape redistricting litigation beyond congressional maps and into local offices that often have the most direct effect on voters’ daily lives, including county boards and local courts.” The Harvard Election Law Clinic’s analysis on the Election Law Blog went further, arguing that Judge Davidson’s opinion demonstrates that the Callais decision effectively overruled the Supreme Court’s own 2023 holding in Allen v. Milligan, despite Justice Alito’s explicit claim in Callais that it did not, because the court treated “core retention” of existing district lines as a legitimate defense against a Section 2 claim, a position the court in Milligan had explicitly rejected. Additional local redistricting cases applying Callais are already in the pipeline; defendants in a separate challenge to East Baton Rouge Parish’s metro council map in Louisiana have argued that Callais supports dismissal of their case.
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
No preclearance activity was posted last week by the Attorney General’s office.
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
June 23: Colorado has launched its 2030 Census Strategic Action Plan, aiming to improve census accuracy, protect federal funding, and strengthen political representation. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 24: Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has asked the courts to shield him from disclosing how his office is reviewing a disputed batch of signatures on a referendum petition challenging the state’s new congressional map. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 24: We are planning on coming back for a redistricting special session, says Governor Wes Moore. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 24: A trial court has ruled that the 2022 DeSoto County, Mississippi, redistricting plan does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
June 27: Democratic and Republican-backed ballot initiatives to alter Colorado’s redistricting process remain on hold as the Colorado Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the measures can proceed.
Groups behind the initiatives have until Aug. 3, 2026, to submit enough valid signatures to qualify the measures for the November ballot. — @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 & Michelle Davis of Redistricting Online & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.