This week- New York’s Complicated Redistricting Rules, New Judicial District Coming? Around The Nation, Supreme Court VRA Order, Upcoming Events
REDISTRICTING
New York’ Complicated Redistricting Rules
Following the national attention on the politically-driven re-redistricting taking place in Texas and the legally required remapping in Ohio, New York is often mentioned as one state where the Democrats can redraw the congresional map.
Here are a few state rules and facts to consider:
- According to the state constitution, a redistricting map shall remain in force until the effective date of the next enacted map based upon the subsequent federal decennial census unless modified pursuant to a court order. That means that the state cannot redraw a map until after the 2030 census data is reported unless a lawsuit is brought and the state or federal courts order a new map to remedy a legal violation of some sort.
- The State Court of Appeals rejected a congressional plan seen to favor Democrats over Republicans in the 2022 Harkenrider v. Hochul decision, making it difficult to draw another map seen to also favor one party over another. The state courts are on record against partisan gerrymandering.
- The constitution requires a 2/3 vote by the Assembly and Senate to approve a congressional map submitted to it by the Independent Redistricting Commission if one party controls both chambers. That makes it clear that the Democrats cannot pass a new map without Republican support or winning another district before a map vote is taken. The Democrats are short of a 2/3 majority in the state senate.
- The constitution does not address the vote needed in the legislature to pass a new map if a court orders one to be drawn and the court decision bypasses the commission process.
- Any redrawing of the current congressional map would likel require a new lawsuit challenging it alleging a violation of certain criteria. A lawsuit would have to be filed in New York City, Westchester, Albany, or Erie county state supreme court.
- the state constitution could be amended, but that would take the approval two separately elected state legislatures followed by a vote of the state’s electorate to approve it.
- Even if a new congressional map is enacted, the new map could be challenged in court all over again for federal or state law violations. That could take several more months of delay.
LEGISLATION
Guest Column: Judicial Reorganization Bill Likely to Head to Governor’s Desk
By Joseph Burns of Holtzman, Vogel, Baran, Torchinsky & Joseflak PPLC
This article first appeared in the National Law Journal. It is reprinted with permission by the author and represents his point of view.
Before adjourning for the year, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that could significantly reshape how many New Yorkers elect Justices of the New York State Supreme Court. The measure, if signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul, would create two new judicial districts and redraw the lines of three existing ones within the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
The proposal affects the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Judicial Districts, each of which currently includes one urban county (Onondaga, Monroe, and Erie, respectively) along with a broader ring of rural counties.
The bill would separate those urban centers into standalone districts while consolidating the rural counties into two newly configured districts. Specifically:
- Erie County would become its own district (the 8th district);
- Monroe County would become its own district (the 7th district);
- Onondaga County would become the new 14th Judicial District;
- The remaining rural counties from the original 5th, 7th, and 8th districts would be part of a newly configured 5th district and a brand-new 15th district.
This reorganization would bring the total number of judicial districts in the State of New York from 13 to 15.
The measure passed each house of the state legislature in June on near party-line votes, with Democratic lawmakers backing the bill and Republicans unified in opposition. The partisan divide reflects deep disagreement over the bill’s intent and likely effects.
Proponents argue the changes are needed to increase racial and ethnic diversity on the Supreme Court bench. They point to longstanding challenges in electing minority candidates from the current districts that combine urban and rural populations. By isolating Erie, Monroe, and Onondaga Counties—three urban areas with more racially diverse populations—supporters contend minority candidates will have a much better chance of being elected to the Supreme Court.
Opponents, however, argue that the measure is a thinly veiled power grab designed to strengthen Democratic control over key judicial elections. Rural counties in the current configuration provide a counterweight to the urban Democratic counties, allowing Supreme Court elections in these districts to be competitive. By radically changing the configuration of these judicial districts, critics contend, the legislature is creating districts that will likely never elect a Republican Supreme Court Justice. Opponents also point out that the Office of Court Administration has not requested or supported this reorganization, and that no compelling judicial-administrative need has ever been articulated.
In New York, Supreme Court Justices serve 14-year terms and are elected in partisan, judicial district-based elections. However, unlike most partisan offices in the state, candidates for the Supreme Court are not nominated in primary elections. Instead, they are selected at judicial nominating conventions, where each party’s judicial delegates select their party’s judicial nominees.
This system was the subject of a constitutional challenge in New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the judicial convention system violated the First Amendment rights of voters and candidates. While both the district court and Second Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and found the nomination process to be unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the system may be an unwise system, it was not unconstitutional.
While the judicial reorganization bill does not alter this convention-based nomination process, it does shift the underlying political dynamics of these Supreme Court races. In the new districts based in Erie, Monroe, and Onondaga Counties, where Democratic voters significantly outnumber Republican voters, the real competition for the bench may shift from the general election to the Democrats’ judicial nominating conventions.
As of mid-July, the bill had not yet been delivered to Governor Hochul for her signature or veto. Its fate remains uncertain. Hochul herself hails from Erie County and will very likely come under pressure from both sides of the debate. Should she sign the bill, it would mark one of the most monumental reorganizations of New York’s judiciary in recent memory. Should she veto the bill, Hochul will likely earn praise from the proposal’s critics for stopping the politicization of the state’s judiciary.
The implications of this bill go far beyond the administration of the court system. Attorneys, court-watchers, and political junkies across the state will be watching closely to see how it all unfolds.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
526 Orange County- poll site locations- preliminary approval granted, also under review
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
AROUND THE NATION
LOUISIANA: Louisiana has filed a motion to stay or, in the alternative, postpone the evidentiary hearing date and modify the court’s scheduling order in Nairne v. Landry.
On July 17th, the parties to this litigation agreed on a scheduling order for remedial proceedings to implement new Louisiana House and Senate electoral maps which comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Under that scheduling order, an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for August 25th along with relevant deadlines for discovery in advance of this hearing.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently released an order in Louisiana v. Callais. This lawsuit challenged the state’s 2024 congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In this order, eight of the nine Justices decided to restore Callais to its calendar for re-argument next term. The order did not provide an explanation for this decision, stating only that any additional questions would be issued “in due course.”
Here, Louisiana argues in its motion that the question of whether the state congressional plan complies with the U.S. Constitution is “intertwined with the legitimacy of this Court’s Section 2 rulings… So, although the Supreme Court has not yet identified the question(s) on which it will focus re-argument in Callais, it is fair to assume that the re-argument will produce an important decision on the Voting Rights Act and Section 2 that will impact pending and future voting litigation.” The state requests a stay or postponement in this case because the Callais decision may directly impact the remedial proceedings or moot them altogether.
WISCONSIN: A lawsuit has been filed by voters against the Wisconsin Elections Commission to challenge Wisconsin’s congressional map. In their complaint, the voters allege that the current map packs a significant number of the state’s Democrats into only two congressional districts and “cracks” the other Democratic areas into “uncompetitive” Republican districts.
The voters argue that this map is unconstitutional because a partisan gerrymander violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantees of “equal protection, separation of powers, the promise to maintain a free government, and the right to free speech and association.” The lawsuit seeks a state court order that would require a redraw of the congressional map and bar the Wisconsin Elections Commission from conducting any future elections under the current map.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Ruling that Limits Voting Rights Act Enforcement
The U.S. Supreme Court has voted (6-3) to temporarily uphold the rights of individual voters to bring vote dilution and other enforcement challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
This ruling comes out of a 2022 North Dakota redistricting lawsuit—initiated by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe—which claimed the new North Dakota map diluted the voting power of Native Americans.
The lawsuit was filed under Section 2 of the VRA, which bars racially discriminatory voting laws and practices. A federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the divided 8th Circuit overturned the prior decision. The 8th Circuit—which encompasses Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—did not rule on the substance of the tribes’ arguments, but ruled that individuals did not have the right to bring challenges under Section 2. Instead, only the U.S. Justice Department can do so.
The U.S. Supreme Court has now intervened to enforce the protections of private individuals to sue under Section 2. The Court did not specify a reason for its decision. With the Callais lawsuit on the calendar for re-argument next term, a decision in this case may hinge on the conclusion in Callais. Both lawsuits involve the rights of parties under Section 2.
VACATION NOTICE
Unless there is major breaking news, this weekly update will not be published next week on August 4, 2025. We will be back on Monday, August 11.
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.