This week- Voting Rights Act Litigation in Mt. Pleasant and Newburgh Cases, Around the Nation, Upcoming Events
LITIGATION
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Newburgh
On July 7th, the Town of Newburgh and Newburgh filed a brief with the New York Court of Appeals. The brief argued that the vote-dilution provisions of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the New York Constitution.
Alternatively, the Town argued that the NYVRA’s vote-dilution provisions require the plaintiffs to prove “additional, implicit elements derived from the U.S. Supreme Court Equal Protection Caselaw.” Lastly, the Town asserts its ability to challenge these provisions as unconstitutional, but also argues that the Court may decide on the constitutional issues here even if it is determined that the Town cannot.
Westchester County: Serratto et al. v. Town of Mount Pleasant
On July 9th, the Town of Mount Pleasant filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department of a April 11th order that denied summary judgment to both the plaintiffs and defendants.
On July 10th, the plaintiffs (a group of Hispanic voters) filed a motion for leave to reargue and renew their motion for summary judgment, which also stemmed from the April 11th order. The motion included a memorandum (“memo”) in support.
The memo argues that the election law is “properly construed” to require that parties must show a “divergence in political preferences” between members of a protected class (i.e., Hispanic voters) and members of the majority group in Mount Pleasant. The New York State Legislature intended the NYVRA to expand voting rights relative to the VRA. Also, no state or federal court has “ever required vote dilution plaintiffs to show they are polarized from every other group of minority voters.”
Here, the memo argues that the Westchester County Supreme Court’s interpretation makes vote dilution more difficult to prove under the NYVRA than under the VRA or other state VRAs like California and Washington. Finally, the evidence submitted by both parties assumed that the proper comparison for demonstrating racial vote dilution was between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white voters.
ELECTIONS
Update: Last week’s publication of Jerry Goldfeder’s column was first published by the New York Law Journal and was republished with the author’s permission.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
There was no preclearance activity in the past week.
Numbers refer to submission numbers
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
AROUND THE NATION
US Justice Department Asserts Texas Must Redraw Districts
In a letter from U.S. Justice Department Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon and Deputy Assistantt Attorney General Michael Gates sent to Texas Governor Gregory Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, the federal officials urge the state to redraw three congressional districts they see as unconstitutional. No court has made this determination and a Texas congressional map challenge already pending before a federal court.
The letter serves as formal notice that Congressional Districts TX-09, TX-18, TX-29, and TX-33 are considered unconstitutional “coalition districts” due to race-based considerations.
The Department urges Texas to rectify these districts, citing Supreme Court cases like Allen v. Milligan and SFFA v. Harvard which emphasize that race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely and must be a temporary matter.
The letter asserts that if race is the predominant factor in redistricting, Texas must demonstrate a compelling state interest to survive strict scrutiny.
The state was given a July 7 deadline to respond. Governor Abbott has scheduled a special session of the state legislature to deal with this next week.
Question of Federal Voting Rights Protection Heading to U.S. Supreme Court
Two tribal nations, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe, are now planning to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision made by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—encompassing Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—that struck down one of the key methods of enforcing the Federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Traditionally, private individuals and groups have brought lawsuits under Section 2 to enforce voting protections against racial discrimination. However, in a 2-1 ruling, a 3-judge panel has found that Section 2 cannot be privately enforced because the VRA does not explicitly mention private individuals and groups. The panel concluded that only the Justice Department can bring lawsuits for this purpose.
This decision comes out of a North Dakota redistricting lawsuit initiated by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe. The tribal nations argued the redistricting lines drawn and approved by the North Dakota Legislature reduced the opportunity for Native American voters to elect the candidate of their choice. A lower court agreed, striking down the map for violating Section 2 of the VRA by diluting the voting power of Native Americans.
The tribal nations cited Section 1983 (a federal statute which gives individuals the right to sue local and state officials for violating civil rights) as a basis for bringing the lawsuit as private groups. The North Dakota Secretary of State appealed to the 8th Circuit and argued that, in spite of decades of precedent, Section 1983 does not allow private individuals and groups to do so. The 8th Circuit agreed.
Now, the tribal nations intend to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this “circuit split on a question of exceptional importance.” The plaintiffs believe there is a “fair prospect” that the Court will reverse the 8th Circuit’s decision.
UTAH: Utah’s Third District Court has now heard oral arguments in a 2022 anti-gerrymandering lawsuit. This suit alleges the state Legislature acted unconstitutionally when it repealed a 2018 ballot initiative after Utah voters had voted to pass it.
The initiative, which would have created an independent redistricting commission, was replaced with a law that turned the commission into an advisory body. The Legislature then ignored the independently drawn maps and adopted its own map. The lawsuit further alleges that the Legislature’s maps are an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in favor of Republicans.
The Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on July 11th, which emphasized that lawmakers do not have “unfettered power” to repeal or change all ballot initiatives. This ruling reversed a lower court’s previous decision that the Legislature did not overstep. Now, the matter has returned to the lower court to hear oral arguments.
According to Utah News Dispatch, “a key issue that will likely determine whether the plaintiffs will succeed” is “whether that provision of the Utah Constitution ‘grants’ the Legislature the sole authority over redistricting, or if it actually sets restraints or parameters the Legislature must adhere to when redistricting.” The judge made this clear in her line of questioning.
It is not clear when the court will issue its ruling, but it will occur “as quickly as possible.” If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, then new congressional maps would need to be drawn by November 2025 to prepare for the 2026 elections.
UPCOMING EVENTS
NYC Charter Revision Commission
The New York City Charter Revision Commission will hold a public meeting on Monday, July 21, 2025, at 1 p.m. The meeting will be held at the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Public Hearing Room, 253 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10007. Government-issued identification is required to enter the building.
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 Jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice and Alexis Marking.