This week- GOP Matching Funds Legislation Introduced; Party Flipping?; Federal Lawsuits; A Look Back at N.Y. Voting Rights Cases; Upcoming Events; Voting Rights Act Preclearance; N.Y.C. Charter Commission Meets; Around the Nation from @RedistrictNet
ELECTIONS
GOP Seeks 2026 Campaign Finance Matching Funds
Following the New York Public Campaign Finance Board (PCFB) vote to deny Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman public campaign matching funds, Blakeman went to court challenging the decision.
On Monday, April 20, New York State Republican legislative leaders introduced a bill in response to the PCFB denying Blakeman public campaign matching funds. The legislation would allow the board to accept an application form jointly signed by candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to be eligible for the matching fund program. Further, the bill would give denied campaigns, like Blakeman’s, a week to submit a co-signed form and regain eligibility.
With the current makeup of the Democrat-led legislature, the chances of a GOP sponsored bill passing are slim, however this bill was introduced for to help publicize the situation among voters.
Party Flipping?
In the 113th Assembly district (Saratoga, Washington & Warren counties, candidate Thomas J. Kennedy is being questioned over his switch from the Conservative Party to the Working Families Party. An effort is underway in state supreme court to remove Kennedy from the Working Families line following his failure to file campaign finance paperwork with the state Board of Elections. Working Families officials claim that Kennedy has no relationship to the party. Candidates have often attempted to gain an advantage with additional party lines to benefit their candidacies on the major party lines. Kennedy is challenging incumbent Democrat Carrier Woerner.
LITIGATION
Three Lawsuits against Trump’s Executive Order on “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”
On Tuesday, March 31, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” This executive order (EO) directs federal agencies like the Social Security Administration to compile lists of U.S. citizens and verified eligible voters, directs the U.S. Postal Service to create a list of “approved” mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list.
First, on Wednesday, April 1, Democratic party leaders filed a lawsuit arguing that the Executive Order is an unconstitutional interference with the power of states to regulate elections. Second, on Thursday, April 2, a coalition of voting rights organizations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Third, on Friday, April 3, New York Attorney General Letitia James and a coalition of 22 other attorneys general filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts focused on the sovereign power of states to manage their own elections.
On April 9, these cases were consolidated, and on April 17, the plaintiffs in the cases filed briefs in support of their motion for preliminary injunction. The Democratic Party plaintiffs (DSCC) argue among other things, that under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 4 powers, the power to regulate elections belongs to Congress and the states, not the Executive. Thus, the DSCC plaintiffs argue that since Congress refused to pass the SAVE Act, the President is trying to bypass Congress to get that result. Also, they argue the President is forcing the USPS to create “state citizenship lists” and voter enrollment with the post office, which is not legally allowed because the USPS is an independent agency.
The NAACP, Common Cause, and Black Voters Matter plaintiffs argue in their brief that the federal databases the EO directs to use to verify citizenship are notoriously inaccurate, potentially leading to eligible voters being “purged” from the voter rolls by mistake. Further, they argue the EO’s threats of criminal prosecution for election officials are intended to intimidate voters and local officials. Also, the voting rights organization plaintiffs argue the EO creates a system specifically designed to trip up marginalized communities including Black and Latino voters, students, and naturalized citizens.
Both briefs argue that if the Executive Order is allowed to go into effect, it will cause “irreparable harm” in the form of damage to the voting process and voters’ rights.
On April 20, twelve Republican-led states (Missouri, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas) filed a motion to intervene as defendants. The intervenor defendants argue that the EO helps them secure their elections because the current system is “vulnerable to fraud” and thus using federal databases and USPS tracking will increase public confidence in the 2026 elections. They further argue that while the DOJ is defending the EO, the states need to defend their specific right to use the data provided by the order.
A Look Back at New York Election Law Cases
Election law litigation in New York State has historically centered on disputes over representation, districting, and the balance of political power between rural and urban populations. For much of the early twentieth century, the structure of the New York State Legislature reflected a constitutional system that favored geographic representation rather than population equality. Under the New York Constitution, each county was guaranteed at least one member of the State Assembly. Although this arrangement initially appeared reasonable, demographic shifts over time created severe disparities in representation.
By the early twentieth century, population growth in urban centers, particularly New York City, dramatically outpaced that of rural counties. Despite these changes, legislative representation remained largely unchanged. As a result, sparsely populated rural districts retained the same legislative power as densely populated urban districts. Critics often described the imbalance as a system in which legislative districts contained “more cows than people.” Rural areas, which frequently supported Republican candidates, benefited from the arrangement and resisted reform.
Demographic changes further intensified these tensions. Large waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Asia settled in urban areas throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their growing political presence raised concerns among established political elites that urban voters could shift the balance of power in state government and politics. Federal immigration policy attempted to slow these demographic changes through laws such as the Immigration Act of 1924, which imposed strict national-origin quotas and significantly reduced immigration. However, the population shifts that had already occurred left New York’s system of legislative representation increasingly disconnected from the realities of population distribution.
For decades, challenges to legislative malapportionment failed because courts viewed redistricting disputes as “political questions” beyond judicial review. This doctrine changed dramatically with the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr (1962), which held that claims of unequal representation were justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling opened the door for courts to review state legislative apportionment for the first time.
The Supreme Court strengthened this doctrine in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), establishing the constitutional principle that legislative districts must be apportioned based on population. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required substantially equal populations in legislative districts, giving rise to the “one person, one vote” doctrine. In Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado (1964), the Court further ruled that states could not maintain malapportioned legislative systems even if voters approved them through referenda.
Following these landmark decisions, New York experienced a surge of election law litigation between 1962 and 1968 as courts evaluated whether the state’s legislative and congressional districts complied with constitutional standards. Several key 1964 case decisions emerged during this period. In WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s state senate apportionment plan because it failed to provide equal population representation. Similarly, Wright v. Rockefeller challenged New York’s congressional district boundaries, alleging racial segregation in the design of electoral districts. Although the Court ultimately upheld the districts, the case demonstrated the growing judicial scrutiny of redistricting practices.
These judicial developments coincided with significant political change. As courts forced states to redraw legislative districts based on population, urban voters gained increased representation in state legislatures. In New York, reapportionment helped Democrats gain control of the state legislature in 1964, marking a significant shift in political power after decades of rural dominance.
The wave of litigation during the 1960s ultimately transformed election law in New York. By dismantling malapportioned legislative systems and enforcing population-based representation, the courts reshaped the state’s electoral framework and established judicial oversight as a central feature of election law disputes. These cases laid the foundation for modern redistricting litigation and continue to influence debates over electoral fairness and representation in New York today.
UPCOMING EVENTS
May 6- New York Law School’s Civic Fame Awards event, will honor four public servants who recently completed exemplary service in city government. RSVP link:
https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/civic-fame-awards-2026/
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
1164 N.Y.C. Board of Elections (Staten Island)-poll site locations- granted
1165 N.Y.C. Board of Elections (Bronx) poll site locations- granted
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
N.Y.C. CHARTER REFORM
Adams’ N.Y.C. Charter Commission Meets
The Charter Revision Commission appointed by former New York City Mayor Eric Adams last December 31 (his last day in office) me at the Manhattan Dechert LLP law offices of former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro. Rev. Gil Monrose was elected as Acting Chair and Menashe Shapiro was elected as the Acting Vice Chair. Monrose and Shapiro were both City Hall staff members to former Mayor Eric Adams. No other action was taken.
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
April 21: Virginia has passed a new congressional map. The legality of the Virginia redistricting referendum will now be weighed by the Virginia Supreme Court. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
April 23: What are the Virginia redistricting lawsuits and where do they stand? Here’s what you need to know. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
April 23: Oral arguments will be heard by the VA Supreme Court in the Virginia Redistricting Referendum case on Monday, April 27, at 9 a.m. ET. You can listen here. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
April 23: DeSantis says he’s taking up Jeffries’ invitation to ‘F around and find out’ on Florida redistricting. — @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, Alexandria Sanatore & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.