This week: Proposed 2030 Census Changes Would Limit the Count & Impact New York Population Count; Legislation Before Governor Hochul Would Extend Voting Hours; Brooklyn Democrats’ Leadership Fight Continues in Court; Federal Court Challenge to Even Year Voting Slowly Advances; AG Letitia James Joins U.S. Supreme Court Brief Opposing Trump Mail Voting Restrictions; Attorney General’s Preclearance Activity; State Board of Elections Adopts New Fair Campaign Code; Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network)
CENSUS
Proposed Rule Change Would Limit Who Gets Counted and What Information Is Gathered In 2030 Census
by Mike Schneider
The speculation is over.
The Trump administration on Wednesday made public it’s long-expected proposed rule change that would restrict unauthorized immigrants and those in the U.S. without a green card from the 2030 census numbers used to redraw congressional districts and possibly ask about a person’s legal status on the census form. It would also eliminate questions about race and ethnicity from the census questionnaire.
The proposed changes were unveiled in a public notice that will be published Thursday.
The proposed revisions are dramatic breaks from how the once-a-decade census has been conducted and could drastically limit who is included and what information is gathered during the head count that determines political power and federal funding in the United States.
Some Republicans believe the restrictions can give their party a leg-up when redrawing political districts.
The Trump administration said in its notice that the goal of the changes is to “ensure fidelity to the Constitution” and promote efficiency.
But questions about race have been asked since the first census in 1790. And the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment says “the whole number of persons in each state” should be counted for the numbers used for apportionment. For decades, the Census Bureau has interpreted that to include all people living in the United States, regardless of legal status.
Use of administrative records
The rule in question involves the “residence criteria” that the Census Bureau sets out for who is counted during the census. For the 2020 census, it said that immigrants regardless of their legal status are counted at the place where they live and sleep most of them time.
The Trump administration will use its vast storage of administrative records from federal agencies, as well as its improved infrastructure for linking the administrative records of an individual together, for determining who should be counted, according to the notice.
“The Census Bureau therefore now has access to substantially more information than it did when it conducted the 2020 Census, and the Census Bureau expects to continue obtaining additional information moving forward,” the notice said.
The Census Bureau could also ask about a person’s legal status on the 2030 census form, the notice said.
Demographic data
The proposed rule change would prohibit the inclusion of questions about race and ethnicity or sexual orientation on the 2030 census form, though questions about sexual orientation haven’t previously been included.
The Trump administration said in the notice that collecting demographic information does nothing to advance the mandate of the decennial census, which is to enumerate a head count for apportionment, the process of divvying up congressional seats and Electoral College votes among the states. The census also helps determine the distribution of $2.8 trillion in annual federal spending.
The Trump administration claimed that collecting such data put respondents’ privacy at risk and eliminating it would improve response rates. But the Trump administration this summer banned privacy protections that the Census Bureau had adopted for the 2020 census, choosing instead an older method or withholding data.
Data advocates say there are real costs to not collecting race and ethnicity data, including understanding why some diseases affect certain communities.
“The growing threat to the availability and quality of race and ethnicity data has dire public health consequences,” data advocates Vi Lee and Melanie Klein wrote recently in a post. “It narrows our visibility into who is getting sick, who is dying, and whether the people who need help are getting it.”
No surprise
The Trump administration had been hinting for months, in two lawsuits in Missouri and Louisiana, that it would limit the inclusion of unauthorized immigrants in the head count used for apportionment.
During his first term, President Donald Trump unsuccessfully tried to keep people in the U.S. illegally from being counted in the apportionment process and ordered citizenship data to be collected through administrative records. Both efforts were blocked by the Biden administration. The first Trump administration also tried to add a citizenship questionnaire to the 2020 census questionnaire but was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
There will be a period of time for public comment, and the changes are guaranteed to spark court challenges. Of course, the changes could also be revoked once another presidential administration assumes power in January 2029, more than a year before the start of the 2030 census.
Mike Schneider is a former Associated Press reporter who now publishes “Count on Counting” on Substack.
Proposed Census Changes Threaten New York’s Immigrant Population
New York State has approximately 4.62 million foreign-born residents, representing about 23% of the state’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. New York City has approximately 3.1 million foreign-born residents, or roughly 37% of the city’s population.
The Migration Policy Institute estimates that approximately 836,000 unauthorized immigrants lived in New York State in 2023, while the Census Bureau does not directly produce estimates of the undocumented population. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security estimated approximately 1.57 million lawful permanent residents (green card holders) in New York State in 2024.
These figures are important to keep in mind as proposed changes to the 2030 Census could alter how certain immigrant populations are counted for congressional apportionment, potentially reducing New York’s population count and affecting political representation and federal funding.
“The proposed rule change is designed to deprive historically marginalized communities and immigrant-rich states – like New York – of their rightful share of political power and funding,” said Murad Awawdeh, the president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, according to a statement.
LEGISLATION
Legislation to Extend Voting Hours Caused by Disruptions Before Governor Hochul
“As reported by Spectrum News ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, voting rights groups are pressuring Governor Hochul to sign a voter protection measure S4602B into law that will require local election officials to restore the lost time for voting at impacted poll sites, if a major disruption stops voting for more than one hour.
Since 2022 there have been at least five significant election disruptions this policy would have addressed:
1) A bomb threat at East Harlem’s Jackie Robinson Complex assigned early voting site during Election 2022 that lasted more than two hours;
2) A reported technology glitch that led all eight of Orange County’s early voting sites to fail to open on time on the first morning of the early voting period during the 2023 General Election, with some sites offline for 1.5 hours;
3) An emergency lockdown at Oneida County’s MVCC college campus polling place due to a person with a gun on Election Day 2023;
4) In Ithaca on Election Day 2024, an elderly driver accidentally crashed into a polling place causing at least an 87 minute disruption to voting as the site as relocated;
5) A polling place fire in the town of Champion in Jefferson County during the 2022 primary election. In each case, no restoration of the time lost for voting was provided administratively to the impacted voters by local bipartisan election officials, no litigation seeking or securing an equitable time-extender was filed, and no official incident report or after-action assessment was produced to document what occurred, restore or maintain public confidence, dispel misinformation, or avoid repetition.
Apart from protecting communities from bearing the burden of a disruption to voting caused by a technology glitch, a targeted suppression effort, or a local emergency (intentional or otherwise), the measure modernizes the election law, providing resiliency and improving coordination between state and local election officials, law enforcement, first responders, and campaigns, in the event of a significant disruption to voting during competitive contests.
Moreover, the bill addresses a glaring gap in the law, insofar as the most prevalent types of voting disruptions may not trigger the sole 1970s-era disaster statute EL§3-108, which, because of how it is structured and triggered, may be unavailable or largely unworkable during modern elections with three ways to vote.
If enacted, this voter protection measure would both reduce perverse incentive for foul play (intentional disruptions) and mitigate the harm caused by significant but inadvertent disruptions that can jeopardize fair elections, without the need for expensive, time-consuming, and often-elusive emergency litigation.
LITIGATION
Brooklyn Democratic Leadership Fight Continues in State Court
Brooklyn Democratic Party: Julio Pena III et al v. Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn et al
Following last week’s report on the legal challenge to Kings County Democratic leader Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn’s move to change party rules by adding dozens of additional voting members to the executive committee after party reformers gained a majority to elect longtime district leader Julio Peña as the new chair this fall, the party committee respondents filed their memo of law in support of their order to show cause for failure to join necessary parties on September 7, arguing the following:
1) Striking down the challenged rules would revoke voting rights of those specific officers and invalidate the votes cast by party members who voted “yes.” Because CPLR § 1001, requires anyone whose rights or official votes would be inequitably affected by a court judgment to be named as a party in the lawsuit, both the officers and the voting members are necessary parties. However, petitioners failed to name the specific officers and voting members, as required by New York Law.
2) In special proceedings, under Election Law § 16-102(2), challenges to a party meeting have a ten-day statute of limitations, which has now expired; thus, petitioners are legally barred from amending their petition to add missing individuals.
The respondents contend that by omitting the specific party officers whose voting rights are at stake, those members can no longer be joined, giving the court has no choice under New York precedent but to dismiss the proceeding with prejudice.
The petitioners filed their memo of law in opposition to respondents’ order to show cause for failure to join necessary parties on September 8, arguing:
1) All people and/or entities necessary to resolve the challenged action are already before the court including the Kings County Democratic County Committee, its Executive Committee, the chair who convened and presided over the meeting, and the former State Committee members whose authority to vote at the meeting is disputed.
2) Individual voters and officers are not necessary merely because their votes contributed to a collective act and requiring every “yes” voters to be sued would create an impossible standard.
3) The rule granting expanded voting rights does not take effect until October 7, 2026, thus current offices hold no present voting rights, and future officeholders are hypothetical and do not exist yet.
Ultimately, the petitioners assert that all necessary parties are already in the lawsuit, thus respondent’s arguments are simply a delay tactic.
The order to show cause was held in Brooklyn Supreme Court on September 8th. No ruling was made on Tuesday. However a decision is expected within the next several days, after which the case is expected to head to the appeals court. The issue needs to be settled before October 7th.
Even Year Voting Law Challenge Continues in Federal District Court
New York Republican State Committee v. State of New York
The New York Republican State Committee’s lawsuit in the federal Eastern District of New York against the state and Governor Kathy Hochul challenging the state’s Even Year Election Law (EYEL) remains ongoing.
On August 6, Judge Gary R. Brown granted the state defendants’ motion asking the court to hold a preliminary conference before formally filling a motion to dismiss. Judge Brown agreed to hold this hearing in person on October 7th where both parties will address defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.
On September 9th, the plaintiffs filed a pre-motion letter in response to the letter submitted by Defendants Henry Berger and Essma Bagnuola, two Democratic State Election Board commissioners. The plaintiffs argue that Berger and Bagnuola do not have the legal capacity to speak for the State Board of Elections because they cannot speak for the four-member Board, which did not authorize a defense of the EYEL.
Further, plaintiffs assert that candidates have standing to challenge rules dictating their own election timing without the need to prove financial loss or risk of losing. Plaintiffs also argue that election timing impacts free speech and political association, and argue the system is not evenhanded because it exempts New York City.
Ultimately, plaintiffs request Judge Brown to deny Defendants Berger and Bagnuola leave to file their proposed motion to dismiss.
Attorney General Letitia James Joins States’ Amicus Brief Against Trump Mail Voting Restrictions Proposal
On September 9th, New York Attorney General Letitia James responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of President Trump’s emergency application seeking to enforce an order blocking rules that would change mail-in voting procedures. James joined an amicus brief filed by 23 other state attorneys general and the District of Columbia in United States Postal Service vs. California in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The USPS rule requires state election offices to supply names and addresses of registered voters to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). It also requires for mail-in ballots to have specific bar codes on envelopes. Without those codes, the USPS will not deliver the ballots to voters. The Trump administration is seeking to alter these rules by requiring people to be registered in USPS’s new, not-yet-functional online portal. This portal gives a voter-specific Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) that is printed on outgoing and return ballot envelopes and those barcodes are supposed to be tied to each voter and uploaded to that same portal. The undertaking this would require state and local governments to do all before the upcoming midterm election is herculean.
The Attorney General, joined by a group of other states in an amicus brief, wrote in part: “Among other things, officials would have to obtain USPS approval of new ballot-envelope designs on an unprecedented timetable; purchase new envelopes to replace those already ordered (if they can find vendors who can fulfill last-minute orders, which is doubtful); develop and upgrade technological systems to generate IMbs; upload voter-specific information to the portal; ensure that ballots have the proper IMb for each recipient; and train state and local officials on how to undertake these tasks”.
The applicants against Trump’s emergency filing state “USPS also apparently plans to use a “batch” scanning protocol—called a “zero-percent failure policy,” id. at 19—whereby thousands or tens of thousands of ballots will be processed simultaneously, and “if even one bar code on one single ballot . . . fails to properly scan,” “the entire batch is rejected and sent back to the state”. Nothing in federal law authorizes USPS to refuse to deliver ballots. Congress has extensively enumerated the types of material that USPS can lawfully refuse to deliver, and ballots are not one of them. Congress has also implemented measures to facilitate delivery and return of all mail ballots. It has never tried to make it harder to vote by mail. And where Congress has not authorized federal control over the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, U.S. Const., art. I, § 4, cl. 1, it is off limits to executive-branch bureaucrats. In our constitutional system, that task is left to the States.”
Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause NY, replies to this application by highlighting that “there has been a lot of legal maneuvering, but what I think what people should understand is that the current situation is that there’s no impediment to voting by mail”. While the legality of this issue is playing out, voting rights groups are encouraging people to have a plan when it comes to the upcoming midterm elections.
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1722 New York City Board of Elections (Brooklyn)- poll site locations- additional information received- under review
1702 Orange County Board of Elections poll site locations- under review
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
ELECTIONS
New York State Board of Elections Updates Fair Campaign Code
By: Joseph T. Burns
At a September 2, 2026, commissioners’ meeting, the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) adopted an amendment to update the state’s Fair Campaign Code regulations. While many of the changes to the regulations were minor or technical, others will significantly alter the process by which complaints under the Fair Campaign Code are heard.
First, the time for a respondent of a complaint under the Fair Campaign Code to provide an answer to the NYSBOE is lengthened. Respondents had been given seven days to respond to a complaint; that is now lengthened to ten business days. Maybe more importantly, respondents to a complaint regarding the release of poll information for a poll occurring thirty days before an election will now be given five days from the date the complaint was accepted to provide a response. Previously, these respondents were only given three days to provide an answer to the NYSBOE.
The new regulations also establish a detailed process for conducting Fair Campaign Code complaint hearings. Hearings, under the new regulations, are held in person at the NYSBOE’s offices in Albany, but a party may request to have the hearing conducted by teleconference or videoconference.
Both parties, pursuant to these regulations, will have the opportunity to present witnesses, documents, or other evidence at the hearing. The regulations also allow the hearing officer to question both parties as well as request written materials or oral presentations from nonparties. Witness that testify will testify under oath.
Hearing officers are given great latitude in the conduct of the hearing under this amendment to the regulations. For instance, the hearing officer is allowed, at his discretion, to accept copies of evidence when the original is not available. Hearing officers are also given wide discretion over how and when cross examination is conducted.
The new regulations require that Fair Campaign Code hearings be recorded. That recording becomes part of the hearing’s record, which will also include the complaint and response, correspondence between the NYSBOE and the parties, evidence from the hearing, and the results of any investigation into the complaint conducted by NYSBOE staff.
The Fair Campaign Code is established in Article 3 of the Election Law and is designed to establish “ethical standards of conduct” for those involved in campaigns, including political parties and committees.
The most noteworthy portion of the Fair Campaign Code is likely its provision prohibiting the use of a poll to “promote the success or defeat of a candidate” without disclosing the poll through a filing with the NYSBOE. Those candidates, political parties, and committees that do use poll results to promote the success or defeat of a candidate have 48 hours from that disclosure to file the poll results with the NYSBOE.
The processes for making a Fair Campaign Code complaint and responding to a Fair Campaign Code complaint can be complicated. Something as simple as missing a deadline by a day or failing to provide timely notice to the opposing party can seriously harm a party’s case. Those making or responding to a Fair Campaign Code complaint should consult an attorney experienced in these matters.
Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the Holtzman Vogel law firm’s New York office. https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
September 8: Members of the public can now view the rewritten ballot language for Maryland Question 3 (Redistricting Amendment). — @RedistrictNet [from X]
September 10: The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay of the federal district court order reinstating Missouri’s 2025 GOP-drawn map.
The stay holds while the case moves through the Eighth Circuit and any Supreme Court review. Missouri will use its 2022 congressional map in November. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
September 10: The Missouri Supreme Court finds Secretary of State Denny Hoskins was in contempt of its order, but since he has corrected his contemptuous conduct, he has purged himself of contempt. A written order is expected later today. — @RedistrictNet RT [from X]
September 11: The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus barring Galveston County from using a new redistricting map in November after voters used the old map in the March primary.
It held that a primary and its general election are one election, so the county must keep the same map throughout 2026. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
September 12: Voters from St. Louis and St. Louis County have filed a class action lawsuit against Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins over his handling of the referendum petition campaign.
The suit does not seek a specific remedy on that issue. Instead, it asks for at least $80 million in damages for the class. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
September 12: Judge Joshua Hawkes of the Second Judicial Circuit Court has rejected plaintiffs motion to assemble a jury to hear the Florida congressional redistricting case. — @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, Jarret Berg, Esha Shah, Cecilia Neff & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.