This week- State VRA Litigation- Amicus Briefs Filed in Newburgh Case; U.S. Sues N.Y.S. Board of Elections, Spotlight: N.Y. Civic Engagement Table; NY Election Calendar October Dates; VRA Prelearance Activity; Census- A Look at the State’s 18-34 Population; Around the Nation: Louisiana, Texas, Missouri
LITIGATION
Orange County: Clarke et. al v. Town of Newburgh
In this ongoing state voting rights action, plaintiffs allege that the Town of Newburgh’s at large method of election for Town Board members dilutes the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters in violation of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA). The Town of Newburgh appealed the issue of the NYVRA’s constitutionality to the New York Court of Appeals, claiming that the NYVRA is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection guarantees of the U.S. and New York Constitutions.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Southern California, and the ACLU of Northern California filed an amicus brief on August 25 supporting the constitutionality of the NYVRA because it simply bans discrimination in voting.
First, the ACLU and its affiliates argue that the NYVRA is constitutional because New York exercised its authority under the state constitution and federalism principles to protect the right to vote. Second, the ACLU and its affiliates argue that the NYVRA is constitutional because it is similar to the federal Voting Rights Act, other state voting rights acts, and other federal and New York state anti-discrimination laws that have also been upheld as constitutional. Third, the ACLU and its affiliates argue that the NYVRA’s authorization of coalition claims does not raise constitutional concerns because these claims present an opportunity for members of different racial groups to collectively remedy voting discrimination that they collectively face and that there is no basis for the Court to prevent the Legislature from exercising its discretionary power.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) also filed an amicus brief on August 26 supporting the plaintiffs. First, the NAACP LDF argues that the NYVRA is race-neutral because it does not classify or treat individuals differently based on race, but instead only considers race when necessary to address existing racial harms. Second, the NAACP LDF argues that the legal test under Section 2 of the VRA is a judicial interpretation of a federal statute, not a constitutional requirement, thus the NYVRA is not bound by it. Third, the NAACP LDF argues that invalidating the NYVRA could set a harmful precedent, when state VRAs serve as crucial safeguards for voting rights and reflect the principles of federalism.
Other amicus briefs will be covered next week. The Court of Appeals will hear this case on October 14.
U.S. v. New York State Board of Elections
Following a request from the U.S. Justice Department for requesting information on New York’s compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the State Board of Elections’ counsels responded on August 29 by letter indicating that New York is fully compliant with HAVA.
Through their counsel, the Democratic Board of Elections (BOE) commissioners would not approve the release of voter files that contain Social Security numbers and Motor Vehicles identification numbers. They maintain that under New York law, no portion of the social security number or DMV number is available for public disclosure.
Through counsel, the Republican BOE commissioners believe that the U.S. Justice Department has the right to request a redacted public statewide voter registration list pursuant to the state’s FOIA laws. They believe that the Justice Department “has inherent authority to review an individual state’s voter registration list as the federal agency tasked with enforcement of both HAVA and the NVRA. Both programs touch upon numerous critical components of the voter registration process, with HAVA, in particular, creating mandatory minimum standards for individual states relating to statewide voter registration lists.”
As a result of the NYS BOE responses to the U.S. Justice Department, on September 25th, the DOJ filed a complaint against New York’s Board of Elections arguing that they have the authority to request data under the Civil Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to ensure state compliance with HAVA and other federal laws regarding voter list maintenance.
According to the lawsuits, the DOJ argues that the NVRA and HAVA were designed by Congress to ensure that states have proper and effective registration and voter list maintenance programs. Further, the DOJ argues the Civil Rights Act demands the production, inspection, and analysis of the statewide voter registration lists.
The DOJ has filed similar lawsuits against states.
ELECTIONS
Elections Spotlight- N.Y. Civic Engagement Table (NYCET)
Many organizations across New York engage in voter registration, get-out-the-vote, election reform, and civic engagement action around elections. We will be highlighting the work of these groups in the New York Election Law Update.
The New York Civic Engagement Table (NYCET) is a statewide organization committed to supporting the organizing efforts of over 70 partner organizations in order to bring our state closer to realizing a vibrant, multiracial democracy. Over the past 15 years, NYCET and its partners have engaged 2.3 million people by integrating civic engagement into year-round issue campaigns and direct service work. Their current network spans from Long Island to Buffalo and includes social justice and service-based organizations of various sizes and focus areas. As the backbone of the grassroots network and organizing infrastructure, NYCET supports partners in building movements that center communities of color, immigrants, and poor and working people.
A core part of NYCET’s mission is working in coalition to ensure that democratic structures—such as elections, the census, and redistricting—are truly representative of all New Yorkers. This includes:
- Serving as a proud member of the Let NY Vote Coalition and the BIPOC Democracy Table
- Participating in a statewide working group of census advocates dedicated to ensuring a complete count in 2030
- Partnering with Common Cause NY and coalition members to draft a constitutional amendment to establish a citizen-led redistricting commission
More information on NYCET can be found on our website, www.nycet.org, or in this document. Interested in joining NYCET? Fill out this form http://bit.ly/4pMxq5a so they can get in touch with you.
FYI – THE ELECTION CALENDAR
With New York City Mayor Eric Adams no longer running for mayor, his name will still appear on the November ballot along with James Walden, another candidate no longer running. After the formal withdrawl deadline, a candidate can only be removed from the ballot only for very limited situations, including death and nomination to a judicial position. The state election calendar contains numerous dates for deadlines and the start of election processes.
There are several deadlines set in the election law for October, including:
October 20: last day for voters to submit changes of address
October 25: new voter registration deadline; last day for Boards of Elections to receive applications by mail or online for ballots; and last day for Boards of Elections to receive applications for military ballots if not previously registered
October 25 to November 2: early voting takes place
October 28: last day for Boards of Elections to receive applications for military ballots if already registered
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
Coming Soon- A Review of New York Preclearance After One Year
861 Erie County BOE- poll site location- under review
The change requested is to move the St. Stanislaus Polish Saturday School early voting location, located at 128 Wilson St., Buffalo, NY 14212 to the Broadway Market, located at 999 Broadway St., Buffalo, NY 14212.
802 Erie County BOE- poll site location- under review
The changes requested are to change the location of three of Erie County’s primary and general election poll sites. Two of the poll site changes have come about because of closures of the worship sites due to financial reasons. Because of the closures, the sites can no longer be used as polling locations. One of the poll site changes is because the poll site no longer wants to be used.
841 New York City BOE- poll site location- granted
NYC BOE requested pre-clearance approval to relocate two election districts currently located at PS 23 back to their long-standing Election Day poll site at the Richmond Town Library.
821 Suffolk County BOE- poll site location- granted
Permanently change a polling location at request of facility used for public safety to nearby library.
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
AROUND THE NATION
In Depth/ Louisiana Redistricting Before the Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act
Louisiana is at the center of an ongoing national debate over representation and the reach of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). At issue in State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais, et al. and Press Robinson, et al. v. Phillip Callais, et alis whether Section 2 of the VRA requires the creation of additional majority-minority districts, or whether such an interpretation extends the statute beyond constitutional limits.
From Robinson v. Ardoin to the Supreme Court
After the 2020 Census, Louisiana enacted a congressional plan with five majority-white, Republican-leaning districts and one majority-Black Democratic-leaning district. Black residents make up roughly one-third of the state, yet only one district provided them the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.
Civil-rights plaintiffs challenged the map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022), a three-judge district court found a likely violation and ordered the creation of a second majority-Black district. The legislature subsequently redrew the map to create a 4–2 split, which altered partisan balance by reducing one Republican-held seat. Louisiana appealed, arguing that the order compelled a racial gerrymander inconsistent with constitutional requirements.
DOJ’s Changed Position
The U.S. Department of Justice has historically played a leading role in enforcing Section 2. In September 2025, however, DOJ filed an amicus brief urging the Court to reconsider the scope of the statute.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that requiring Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district was unconstitutional, characterizing it as “electoral race-based affirmative action.” He wrote that “Section 2 does not supply a compelling interest to draw such districts because the statute would be unconstitutional if it required such race-based districting.” DOJ further urged the Court to apply reasoning similar to that in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
Louisiana’s Supplemental Brief
Louisiana’s supplemental filing also acknowledged that race was the predominant factor in drawing the second majority-Black district.
Louisiana maintains that Section 2 cannot serve as a compelling interest under this standard. The state argues that Congress enacted Section 2 under the Fifteenth Amendment, which addresses intentional racial discrimination in voting. In Louisiana’s view, interpreting Section 2 to require race-predominant maps extends the statute beyond that scope and approaches proportional representation, which Congress explicitly disclaimed in 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).
Reconsidering The Gingles Test?
Louisiana and DOJ both contend that the framework in Thornburg v. Gingleshas been applied in ways that require states to adopt maps where race predominates. They propose three changes:
1. Superiority Requirement: Plaintiffs’ illustrative maps should demonstrate superiority over the state’s plan under neutral redistricting principles, not merely show that a majority-minority district is possible.
2. Distinguishing Race and Party: Courts should account for partisan alignment when analyzing racially polarized voting, since in Louisiana Black voters tend to support Democrats and white voters tend to support Republicans.
3. Current Conditions: Courts should focus on present-day evidence of discrimination rather than historical conditions. Echoing Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. 647 (2021), they argue that disparate impact alone should not be sufficient.
Doctrinal Crosscurrents
This case comes to the Court against a backdrop of mixed signals. In the 2022 Allen v. Milligan decision, the Court upheld Section 2’s application by ordering Alabama to create a second majority-Black district. Yet the Court has also narrowed other race-based remedies: Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the VRA’s preclearance formula; Rucho v. Common Causeheld partisan-gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable in federal courts; and Students for Fair Admissions (2023) ended affirmative action in higher education.
Louisiana and DOJ contend that Section 2, as applied by the lower court, resembles those programs and exceeds what the Constitution permits. They argue that while extraordinary measures may once have been justified, current conditions do not support the same level of race-based intervention.
Possible Outcomes
If the Court agrees with Louisiana, states would not be required to draw additional majority-minority districts where race predominates, so long as there is no evidence of intentional discrimination. Plaintiffs would then face more difficulty in establishing Section 2 claims, particularly where partisan explanations are available.
If the Court instead reaffirms Milligan and maintains current interpretations of Section 2, Louisiana may be required to keep two majority-Black districts, and Section 2 would continue to provide a vehicle for challenging maps on vote-dilution grounds.
Louisiana’s redistricting litigation extends beyond its six congressional seats. The case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, including whether it requires the creation of additional majority-minority districts under present conditions or whether constitutional constraints limit its application.
Texas Defends 2025 Congressional Map Amid Allegations of Vote Dilution
Texas’ 2025 mid-decade redistricting is the subject of federal litigation in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott. The case challenges House Bill 4, a congressional map enacted during a special legislative session, which plaintiffs argue unlawfully dilutes Black and Latino voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.
In the State Defendants’ Response to Gonzales Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (filed September 23, 2025), Texas advances several arguments in defense of House Bill 4. The filing contends that the legislature did not act with racially discriminatory intent, emphasizing instead that the map was drawn for partisan purposes following political pressure to secure additional Republican-leaning districts. Specifically, the brief points to President Donald Trump, who called on Texas lawmakers to “find five additional congressional seats” and applied political pressure to achieve that outcome. The state frames this as evidence of partisan motivation, not racial discrimination.
The response further argues that the 2025 plan is more compact than the 2021 version and adds three majority-minority districts, which Texas says undermines claims of racial vote dilution. Notably, it also addresses a July 2025 DOJ letter that cited Petteway v. Galveston County, 111 F.4th 596 (5th Cir. 2024), to suggest coalition districts were impermissible. Texas argues DOJ misread Petteway, which held only that states are not required to create coalition districts, not that existing ones must be dismantled. Finally, the filing maintains that even if the DOJ’s reasoning was mistaken and cited by Governor Abbott, that legislative acts based on mistake “or that cite a Washington official’s mistake as political cover for lawful political redistricting,” remain valid.
Media reporting has also emphasized this shift. As Democracy Docket’s Jen Rice noted in “Texas Officially Walks Back Justification for Redistricting, Throws DOJ Under Bus” (Sept. 23, 2025), the state acknowledged that DOJ’s concerns were a “mistake” and suggested Governor Abbott used the letter as justification when calling the special session. Rice highlighted how plaintiffs and voting-rights advocates interpret Abbott’s reliance on the DOJ letter as evidence of racial intent, while state lawyers now describe the move as a partisan strategy.
An injunction hearing is scheduled to begin October 1, 2025. The court will determine whether the map reflects lawful political strategy or unlawful racial discrimination.
Missouri: Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe (R) signed the state’s new congressional map into law Sunday, looking to provide the GOP with a 7-1 Republican advantage in the state’s House delegation. The state’s attorney general also rejected a petition to challenge the new map in the November election, opening the door to new legal challenges against this action.
CENSUS
A Look At New York’s Population (Ages 18-34)
According to a recent September 24th Albany Times Union article by Julie Zhu, “New York keeps most young adults as upstate faces headwinds” Census Bureau data shows that New York has largely retained its 18-to-34 population between 2019 and 2024, though subtle regional shifts highlight both strengths and vulnerabilities.
Binghamton was the only metro to increase its young adult share, rising one point to 25 percent, aided by Binghamton University’s growth. Ithaca remained highest at 40 percent, while Albany held steady at 28 percent. By contrast, Watertown–Fort Drum dropped three points to 26 percent, reflecting military turnover, and larger metros like New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester each slipped about one point, settling in the 22–23 percent range.
Experts attribute stability to strong higher education networks, a resilient job market, rebounding immigration, and cultural vibrancy. Yet persistent challenges loom: falling birth rates, out-migration, and rising housing costs threaten long-term growth, especially upstate. Programs such as the Excelsior Scholarship, which ties tuition benefits to post-graduation residency, have helped, but affordability remains decisive.
The report concludes that while New York has weathered recent demographic turbulence, its future competitiveness depends on expanding educational access, bolstering infrastructure, and ensuring young adults see opportunity, and affordability, within the state.
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, Esha Shah, and Daniel Bonaventura.