This week: U.S. Rep. Velasquez Becomes Kings County Democratic Chair; Local Government Ethics- Problems & Solutions; Attorney General’s Preclearance Activity; Census: Proposed Rule to Change Decennial Census Comment Period Extended to November 2; Even the Census Bureau Says Proposed Changes Would Degrade Data; Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network)
LITIGATION
Velasquez Becomes Kings County Democratic Chair
Brooklyn Democratic Party: Julio Pena III et al v. Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn et al
The Kings County Democratic Party has a new chair. As of October 2nd, U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez has sole power over the party and its attorneys.
A planned September 23rd organizational meeting ended after the final vote passed to ratify controversial August 25th rule amendments that sought to add more members to the county executive committee in an attempt to preserve former Chair Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn’s power.
On September 29th , the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department upheld the lower court’s decision and tossed out the controversial rule changes.
On the same day, attorneys on behalf of plaintiff Julio Pena III filed against Nydia Velásquez (in her new capacity as chair), the County Party’s county committee, executive committee, and the New York State Democratic Committee challenging the September 23rd organizational meeting. Bichotte Hermelyn’s faction failed to put a candidate for chair on the ballot. As a result, Vice Chair Velázquez was elevated to chair of the county committee.
On October 2nd , a Kings County Supreme Court judge ruled that Bichotte Hermelyn’s term as chair of the Executive Committee ended and that Velázquez is currently the sole legal officer with party-wide executive authority. Through her power, Velázquez fired the party’s long-time law firm, Abrams Fensterman. With Velázquez in temporary command, reformer Julio Pena III has gathered majority support to take over as party chair once Veláquez calls the executive organizational meeting.
Bichotte Hermelyn’s faction is expected to file emergency appeals with the N.Y. State Court of Appeals. Unless an appellate court issues a temporary stay, Velázquez holds the power to call an executive organizational meeting until further action.
ETHICS
Local Ethics Oversight in New York: Problems and Solutions
By: Joseph T. Burns
The ethics and conflict of interest policies of local governments in New York State are under renewed scrutiny after a report criticized many of the state’s local governments for having nonfunctioning ethics boards.
State law requires most local governments – including counties, cities, school district, villages, and towns – to adopt a code of ethics. Local governments not required to adopt a code of ethics may also have the ability to adopt one. Among other provisions, these codes are required to address matters such as the disclosure of certain investments by officers and employees; the interest in legislation under consideration by the local government of officers and employees; and the future employment of the local government’s officers and employees.
State law also allows local governments to establish a board of ethics. When established, these ethics boards are required to provide advisory opinions when advisory opinions are sought by the officers or employees of the local government.
An annual financial disclosure framework for local government employees and officers is established under state law. Under most circumstances, local ethics boards are primarily the entities responsible for receiving these filings.
The report examining the functionality of local ethics boards reviewed a number of New York State’s largest counties, cities and towns. It found that only half of the ethics boards reviewed met annually, prepared an annual report, and/or conducted a periodic review of the local government’s code of ethics. The report determined that the vast majority of the local ethics boards that were reviewed failed to comply with certain requirements of the General Municipal Law. It also found that most local ethics boards were not ensuring that all officer and employee financial disclosures were filed and complete.
A lack of transparency by local ethics boards was also raised by the report. It found that many local ethics boards lacked a web site; some that had a web site lacked a board meeting schedule. The report also found instances where ethics board web sites failed to list vacancies while others provided too little information to even determine if vacancies exist.
The report outlines a number of suggestions for improving local ethics boards. Among the suggestions made by the report are amending the General Municipal Law to mandate all local governments have an ethics board or be overseen by one from a higher level of government; establish minimum statewide standards for local ethics board membership, including board member appointment procedures and terms of office; and require uniform, statewide transparency standards for local ethics boards.
While most of the report’s suggested changes would require action by the state legislature, local governments interested in improving the operations of their ethics boards can take many proactive steps right now.
Local governments can start by confirming that its ethics board actually exists as constituted and that seats are filled by someone properly appointed under the appropriate provisions of state and/or local law. A body not properly constituted is not in a good position to police others’ conduct when an issue arises.
Ethics boards can also adopt a regular meeting schedule to which the board adheres. Boards should ensure that these meetings are conducted in compliance with the appropriate provisions of the state’s Open Meetings Law.
Another simple change that a local government can make is to ensure that its ethics board has a regularly updated web site. The board’s web site should also provide easy access to meaningful information such as the local government’s ethics code and minutes of past ethics board meetings.
A variety of state laws (for instance, the General Municipal Law, Open Meetings Law, and Freedom of Information Law) in addition to local laws are likely to have an impact on any of these ethics board changes. Before any significant reforms to local ethics boards are undertaken, local governments should seek guidance from experienced counsel.
State law currently delegates much authority over local ethics boards to county, town, city, village, and other local governments. Until this is changed by the state legislature, local officials who want to avoid criticism for lax ethical oversight should consider conducting a thorough review of their own ethics boards and codes.
Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the Holtzman Vogel law firm’s New York office. https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1863 Orange County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted
1883 New York City Board of Election (Kings)- poll site locations- preliminary granted
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
CENSUS
Comment Period Extended
Census Bureau Extends Comment Period on Census 2030 Questionnaire Overhaul to November 2
The U.S. Census Bureau’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the 2030 Decennial Census (Docket No. 260903-0005) is open for public comment through October 13, 2026.
To date, 21,797 comments have been posted to the federal governmen’t tracking website at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USBC-2026-0628
Key Aspects of the Proposed Rule
Residence Rules: Changes the definition of “usual residence” to count only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, while excluding non-citizens and temporary status holders. It also consolidates residence categories and mandates tax and federal agency data matching.
Demographics: Removes race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation questions from short-form/enumeration questionnaires.
The Leadership Conference’s Position: Census advocates strongly oppose the changes, joined coalition efforts, and requested an extension to the public comment period, arguing that every person living in the country must be accurately counted.
How to Comment on the Proposed Rule
Online Submission: Submit formal comments directly via the Federal Register Regulations Portal under Docket No. 260903-0005 (or RIN 0607-AA75 / Regulations.gov ID USBC-2026-0628).
Coalitions and advocacy groups have published toolkits and comment guides to help structure feedback:
Review resources and comme90p;//nt templates via “Hands Off Our Census” at www.handsoffourcens.us
OnLine comments can be uploaded here: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/USBC-2026-0628-0001
By Mail: Written comments can also be mailed to the U.S. Census Bureau at:
U.S. Census Bureau
4600 Silver Hill Road (Designation: ADDEMO/FRN)
Washington, DC 20746
Even The Census Bureau Says Proposed Changes To The 2030 Census Will Degrade Data
by Mike Schneider
It’s not just outside data advocates who are warning that proposed changes to the 2030 census by the Trump administration will degrade the nation’s data.
Just ask the U.S. Census Bureau, the agency charged with implementing them if they are given final approval.
A preliminary analysis prepared by the Census Bureau last month said that the accuracy of the nation’s largest survey on American life, the American Community Survey, will decline if the proposed changes are implemented for the nation’s once-a-decade head count in 2030.
The American Community Survey (ACS) “will become less reliable,” the report said.
Other federal surveys “may deteriorate” after the release of the 2030 census data because of downstream effects from the changes, the Census Bureau analysis said.
The Trump administration’s proposed changes would eliminate race and ethnicity questions from the 2030 census questionnaire and cut out undocumented immigrants and those without permanent residence from the census figures used to divide up congressional seats and Electoral College votes among the states.
They are dramatic breaks from how the census has been conducted and could drastically reduce who is included and what information is gathered. Some Republicans believe the restrictions can give their party a leg-up when redrawing political districts.
Former bureau leaders believe the proposal was introduced without the consultation of the statisticians and economists at the Census Bureau, and it is being promulgated by political appointees at the Commerce Department which oversees the statistical agency. At least six political appointees affiliated with a think tank connected to several former and current Trump administration officials have been brought into the Census Bureau, according to Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The Trump administration says the proposal is necessary to streamline the census questionnaire by removing demographic questions and focus on the population count, which is the primary reason for the census.
One of the reasons cited by the Trump administration for eliminating race and ethnicity questions was concern over respondents’ privacy. But that argument is disingenuous, given that the Commerce Department this summer prohibited the use of a sophisticated privacy method that had been in place this decade. The Commerce Department said that an old-school method from decades ago should be used instead.
The WIPP Education Institute last week put the economic value of population counts and race and ethnicity data at $778 billion a year in capital investment and market-related spending.
“The activity is tangible: homes built, stores and healthcare facilities located, telecommunications networks deployed, bank branches opened, audiences measured, and advertising dollars allocated,” the institute said in a report.
Data advocates warn the changes could cause serious damage to the quality of the data that comes out of the 2030 census numbers. They are used to determine how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state gets, as well as the distribution of $2.8 trillion in federal spending.
“It could diminish the accuracy and usefulness of demographic information produced by many other surveys,” the Population Association of America wrote in a public letter opposing the changes.
That is similar to the conclusion the Census Bureau reached in its own analysis.
Some of the data gaps caused by the changes can be filled in by the ACS, the Census Bureau said.
But the Census Bureau’s analysis noted, “The accuracy of ACS total‑population estimates may decline because the ACS will not have an updated full count of the U.S. population.”
The ACS also has limitations compared to the decennial census. The ACS 1-year survey only provides data for communities with at least 65,000 residents, while the census covers every geography. The decennial census covers all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and the U.S. islands area. The ACS doesn’t cover the islands area.
There could be a downstream effect on other federal surveys after the 2030 data are released since they rely on race and ethnicity data derived from the census for population estimates used throughout the decade, according to the Census Bureau’s analysis.
“Omitting race and ethnicity from the 2030 Census questionnaire would require the development of estimates from a base population derived from outdated and/or less accurate data and would deteriorate the accuracy of the estimation method itself,” the analysis said.
Public comment on the Trump administration’s proposals was slated to end on Oct. 13, but advocates pushed for an extension which was granted on Friday, until Nov. 2. Of the more than 15,000 public comments submitted so far, 88% oppose the changes, according to an analysis by Chris Marcum and Abigail Haddad for Hands Off Our Census, a consortium of advocacy groups.
Mike Schneider is a former Associated Press reporter who writes on census issues.
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
October 2: The Mississippi Legislative Committee on Reapportionment has concluded its public hearing series to gather input on the state’s legislative, congressional, and Supreme Court maps. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
October 3: A three-judge panel dismissed a lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s new congressional map.
The court found plaintiffs failed to overcome the presumption of legislative good faith because the legislature’s partisan goal offered an alternative to their racial discrimination claims. Tennessee redrew the map after Louisiana v. Callais. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
October 4: The Trump administration has extended the public comment period in the Federal Register for its proposed 2030 census changes to Nov. 2.
The proposal seeks to exclude noncitizens without green cards from apportionment counts, drop race and ethnicity questions and bar a sexual orientation question. — @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, & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.