This week: Brooklyn Democrats Change Rules Before New Leader is Elected; Democrats ask State Elections Board to Investigate Trump Event; Even Year Voting Law Challenged as Voting Rights Violation; State Board of Elections 2026 Update and Election Law Volumes Released; Free CLE on Voting Rights; Attorney General’s Preclearance Activity; The Octopus Grabs Hold of the Census Bureau; Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network)
ELECTIONS
Brooklyn Democrats Change Rules Before the Next Leadership Election
In the June 2026 primaries, reformers led by the New Kings Democrats and the “Brooklyn Can’t Wait” coalition secured 22 out of 42 District Leader seats. The groups lined up behind longtime district leader Julio Peña who they plan to vote in as the new chair of the Democratic County Committee this fall, replacing current Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, who is also a state Assembly member.
District leaders are volunteer elected positions, and two represent every Assembly district in Brooklyn. They make up the executive committee of the Kings County (Brooklyn) Democratic Party and are the only voting members who decide who the party picks as chairperson every two years.
However, in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, August 25, BIchotte Hermelyn pushed for a slate of changes to party rules including adding dozens of additional voting members to the executive committee. Supporters describe these changes as an opportunity to expand leadership and expand representation; however, critics argue the changes will allow the current party leadership to stack the committee with loyal allies, the effectively diluting the influence of the newly elected reform coalition and bypassing election results.
Among those opposing the rules change are Governor Kathy Hochul, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Attorney General Letitia James, state Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
The reform coalition filed suit before the August 25th vote, claiming the Executive Committee voting violates the party’s bylaws and New York State election law. A judge in Kings County Supreme Court denied a motion to halt the vote; ruling there had not been any harm yet.
However, the coalition refiled their lawsuit after the vote passed. In their petition, they argue that the August 25th Executive Committee special meeting improperly allowed the former state committee members to vote. Under New York Election Law § 2-106, state committee members’ terms end at the primary election for anyone who lost, declined to re-run, or stepped down, and thus lose their executive committee voting rights required under Article V, § 1.
The coalition also argues that the bylaws do not permit circumvention of the County Committee Rules-Amendment process. The special meeting purported to have approved amendments before the filing, review, notice, recommendation, and County Committee vote, in effect nullifying the procedural safeguards of the bylaws.
Further, the coalition argues that the amendments violate the election law because they take the voters entirely out of the equation.
The judge has filed an order to show cause to be held in Brooklyn Supreme Court on September 2nd.
Democrats Ask State Elections Board to Investigate Trump Event
Under the cover of an official White House function, President Trump took his 2026 mid-term campaign effort to Nassau County in mid-August to promote his endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman. The rally took place at the Nassau County David Mack Center for Training and Intelligence, which serves as the county’s police academy and a community college campus. During the event, President Trump, alongside U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, portrayed the gathering as an announcement about crime statistics. However, Blakeman has since indicated that Trump’s true purpose was political.
In an August 24, 2026, online interview, Blakeman described Trump as “a close friend. He’s a close ally. He came to see me last Friday. He came to my county. He’s endorsed me…[held] a rally in my county….last week, and he has nothing but amazing things to say. Said I would make an amazing governor. Said that I’m going to win, and we have a very close relationship.”
This event has raised questions about potential state election law violations and improper campaign contributions. On August 28, 2026, New York State Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs filed an official complaint with the State Board of Election’s Division of Election Law Enforcement (DELE) and the Public Campaign Finance Board (PCFB). The complaint alleges that Nassau County and federal government resources were improperly used to promote Blakeman and his campaign.
New York Election Law defines a contribution as anything of value given in connection with a candidate’s election. It also includes payments made by someone other than the candidate in connection with a candidate’s nomination or election when coordination has occurred (N.Y. Elec. Law § 14-100(9)). The complaint argues that “government property may never be used for political purposes,” and that providing a government-owned venue, event production, personnel, and related services to promote Blakeman without the campaign paying fair market value constitutes an in-kind contribution. Public reporting has indicated that an event of this kind cost Nassau County approximately $1 million, highlighting the enormous delta between the alleged value of the resources provided and the $9,000 contribution limit for statewide offices (N.Y. Elec. Law § 14-100(9)).
The legal concerns extend beyond campaign-finance limits. The New York Court of Appeals has held that public funds cannot be used to support a political party, political candidate, or partisan cause under the New York State Constitution (N.Y.S. Constitution, Art. VII § 8(1)). In Schultz v. State , the Court warned against government benefits being used to convey “favoritism, partisanship, [or] partiality.” 86 N.Y.2d 225 (1995). While government officials may act neutrally to inform the public about issues, the complaint argues that this event was instead coordinated to benefit Blakeman’s candidacy.
Jacobs has asked DELE and PCFB to investigate the Blakeman campaign’s receipt of potentially unreported and excessive in-kind contributions in the form of Nassau County government resources; determine the fair-market value of those resources and whether they exceeded applicable contribution limits; assess civil penalties, including refunds and fines; compel compliance with Election Law Article 14; and refer any matter warranting criminal prosecution to the Attorney General or an appropriate district attorney under Election Law Article 3. Whether these allegations ultimately result in penalties remains to be determined. However, the controversy raises questions about the line between official government business and political campaigning—and whether public resources should ever be used to blur that line.
State Board of Elections Issues 2026 Election Law Volumes
The 2026 New York State Election Law Book is now available on the state board’s website along with the Board’s 2026 election law update. The Update is a guide for election officials on topics related to election administration. This Update is based upon reported as well as unreported cases the State Board is a party to or made aware of.
Download the documents here:https://elections.ny.gov/election-law
VOTING RIGHTS
Even Year Election Law: Ongoing Litigation
This legal dispute stems from a clash between two major election reforms with a history of challenges in both state and federal courts.
The New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) established state-level protections, prohibiting policies, standards, or practices that result in voter suppression or vote dilution “in a manner that results in a denial or abridgement of the right of members of a protected class to vote.” The Even-Year Election Law (EYEL) required most county and town elections outside of New York City to move from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years, aligning local races with federal contests.
Opponents of the EYEL, primarily Republican leaders, argued that the state law unconstitutionally infringed on local “home rule” powers by forcing town and counties to alter their charter-established election cycles. However, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the law ruling that the state legislature acted within its authority to standardize election schedules across the state to boost voter turnout.
After state constitutional claims were exhausted, a coalition comprised of individuals from Nassau County, Suffolk County, and Orange County, filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York (New York Republican State Committee v. State of New York), which is ongoing.
Rather than relying solely on federal claims, attorney, William A. Brewer, III sent a formal pre-litigation notice letters to the town clerk of the town of Oyster Bay in Nassau County on Thursday, August 27th informing the town that the EYEL violates the NYVRA and thus the town is obligated to cure this alleged violation.
Brewer claims that “by moving town contests onto the even-year state and federal general election ballot, the [EYEL] placed town offices well below the most salient races,” which in turn disenfranchises minority voters by taking attention away from down-ballot races, creating conflict with the non-dilution mandates of the NYVRA.
Brewer’s letter argues that “racially polarized voting persists in low-turnout, low-information local elections” and relies on a 2020 study that indicates “that in low information elections, voters use candidates’ race and ethnicity as cues in deciding whom to support and penalize candidates of color relative to white candidates.” No other proof, analysis or town-specific data is provided, leaving it to the Town to determine whether to undertake a racial voting analysis to prove Brewer’s allegations or not to hold even year elections required by a state law.
The town now has 50 days to respond to Brewer’s letter on actions it might take to address the allegations. Earlier Voting Rights Act challenges have been brought against the towns of Mount Pleasant, Newburgh, and Cheektowaga alleging that the town board elections violated the state VRA. Newburgh and Mount Pleasant settled with modifications made to how their town boards were elected. The Cheektowaga challenge is still pending in state supreme court.
This new challenge creates a unique situation where one state law (already upheld by the State Court of Appeals) would be violating another state law.
UPCOMING EVENTS
Free Voting Rights CLE Session- September 8th at 6:30 PM
The New York Democratic Lawyers Council (NYDLC) is offering a free CLE session to present a discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent Callais and Watson decisions, the current state of the Rule of Law as applied to voting rights and the Voting Rights Act, and on the future of voting rights. Panelists include: Abha Khanna – Partner, Elias Law Group – Arthur Mitchell – Director of Litigation and Policy, National Redistricting Foundation – Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky – Co-Executive Director, New York State Board of Elections – Jeff Wice – Distinguished Adjunct Professor & Senior Fellow, NY Law School – Alejandra Pollak – Voter Protection Director, New York State Democratic Committee This course is a two (2) hour program offering 2 NYS professional practice CLE Credits to attorneys who attend, and is appropriate for newly-admitted and experienced attorneys.
Register here: https://www.mobilize.us/nyvoterprotection/event/990487/
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1661 New York City Board of Elections (Bronx)- poll site locations- approved
1722 New York City Board of Elections (Brooklyn)- poll site locations- more information needed
1762 Monroe County Board of Elections- poll site locations- under review
1664 Onondaga County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
CENSUS
The Octopus Grabs Hold of The Census Bureau
by Mike Schneider
The tentacles the Trump administration are reaching into so many aspects of the operations of the typically independent and nonpartisan U.S. Census Bureau this year that it has been hard to track how these actions are connected to each other.
Their singular mission, though, is to revise who will be counted in the censuses and surveys that provide the United States with a self-portrait. If successful, these efforts will come at the expense of racial and ethnic minorities, noncitizens and unauthorized immigrants being represented in the figures that tells us who we are as a nation.
The Census Bureau may survive these assaults in the long run, but it’s getting smeared by the octopus’ ink spray.
The tentacles already have choked off, for now, the release of the most comprehensive survey of American life after the Trump administration’s Commerce Department surprised the statistical world, and the Census Bureau, this summer with an order restricting the types of privacy methods statistical agencies can use. The new order could limit the amount of data available for redistricting at the smallest geographies, and that could mean less data on the racial makeup of small communities.
The previously used method was too hard for people who aren’t statistical experts to grasp, according to George Cook, a Commerce Department official who is performing the duties of acting Census Bureau director in the second Trump administration without a Senate confirmation.
Per reporting from Wired and Talking Points Memo, a draft rule by the Trump administration also would prohibit the collection of race and ethnicity data in the 2030 census, even though those types of questions have been asked since the first census in 1790. This data can be used to make claims of racial voter dilution under the Voting Rights Act, and their elimination would make it impossible to pursue such claims.
Within the last week, the Census Bureau’s previous director condemned a decision by the bureau to release a report purporting to show that 24,000 noncitizens voted in the 2020 election. President Donald Trump falsely touted it last week as evidence that he had won the 2020 presidential election against Joe Biden. In a telling sign of its credibility, no Census Bureau researcher attached their name to the report. Rob Santor,who served as the Census Bureau’s chief for most of the Biden administration, said the report “besmirches” the bureau’s reputation. John Abowd, a former chief scientist at the bureau, called the report “nonsense” in a post and said its results were “at best irresponsible but more likely pure partisan manipulation of the Census Bureau’s reputation for reliable statistical products.”
NPR reported that the report’s analysis was conducted by a team affiliated with the America First Policy, which was co-founded by Stephen Miller, the current White House deputy chief of staff. If the think tank’s name sounds familiar, it’s because its legal arm has been leading courtroom fights in Florida, Louisiana and Missouri to keep unauthorized immigrants or noncitizens from being counted in the 2030 census and to throw out the results of the 2020 census. Those efforts also are tied to the Trump administration’s decision to use a questionnaire with a citizenship question for the 2026 census test currently being conducted in Alabama and South Carolina instead of a traditional census questionnaire that omits it.
The reason for all of this? A now-deceased Republican redistricting expert had argued that Republicans and non-Hispanic whites get an advantage if only U.S. citizens who are age 18 and older were counted when redrawing congressional and state legislative districts, instead of the total population. The Census Bureau’s own research has shown that adding a citizenship question to a census questionnaire produced lower self-response rates in households with noncitizens and immigrants from Latin America.
The overwhelming majority of Census Bureau demographers, statisticians and researchers who are still doing tremendous work inside the agency are upset by the political interference. But the octopus’ actions could alter how outsiders view the statistical agency as a source of the highest quality, nonpartisan data.
An octopus has mini brains in all eight of its tentacles, making it seem like they are operating independently, but they are connected to a central brain. That’s a good metaphor for how the Trump administration’s tentacles are reaching into the Census Bureau.
This octopus knows what it’s doing.
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
August 24: Former President Barack Obama will headline an Aug. 31 fundraiser in Martha’s Vineyard for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee as Democrats prepare an aggressive 2028 redistricting push. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 25: The 11th Circuit just vacated the ruling that struck down Georgia’s 2021 House, Senate, and congressional maps. The case goes back to the district court.
The Supreme Court’s Callais decision rewrote the standard for Voting Rights Act Section 2 claims after the trial judge had already ruled, so the case now returns for a fresh look under the new framework.
The appeals court did not declare Georgia’s 2021 maps legal, and the 2023 remedial maps still govern current elections for now. The Section 2 case returns to the district court under a tougher standard. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 26: A Maryland judge ordered that the congressional redistricting amendment be excluded from the November ballot, but stayed the injunction pending an appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 27: The MD Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Maryland Redistricting Amendment case(s) on Thursday, Sept. 3. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
August 28: A second Maryland judge has sided with Republicans seeking to keep the Redistricting Amendment off the ballot.
The order has been stayed pending appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court. — @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, Cecilia Neff & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.