******* ELECTION DAY IS TOMORROW, NOVEMBER 3RD *******
This week: Brooklyn Democratic Leadership Fight Continues in Court; New Yorkers Vote Early; Governor’s Race Decides More Than Who Will be State Chief Executive; Attorney General on Protecting New York Voting; New York Voters Guide; How To Help Protect the VotE; Attorney General VRA Preclearance; State Legislators Oppose Census Changes; Census 2030 Proposed Rule to Change Decennial Census Comment; Period Still Underway Through November 2nd; Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network); Alaska Senate Challenge Fails
LITIGATION
Brooklyn Democratic Leadership Fight Continues In State Court
Brooklyn Democratic Party: Julio Pena III v. Nydia Velázquez et al
In this ongoing litigation over the Brooklyn Democratic leadership, Julio Pena III and the reformer group ask state Supreme Court Justice Sweeny to hold former Chair Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn and her allies in civil contempt for allegedly violating the TRO.
On October 30, several documents were filed. First, attorney Anthony Genovesi filed a memorandum of law on behalf of Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, which Velázquez’s lawyers corrected, saying it was on behalf of the intervenor-respondents, (Nikki Lucas and her allies). Genovesi argues against the Court’s potential partial invalidation of only the rule changes adopted at the September 23 organizational meeting. The argument is that courts cannot void the rules that created specific offices while preserving the officers elected under them; thus, if the adoption of the rules was invalid, the meeting was never legally organized to begin with. Further, the argument is that the only remedy authorized by statute for the reform group is an order directing an entirely new organizational meeting under the prior rules. Also, because the reform group does not ask for a new meeting, there is no valid underlying rule to keep the officer’s elections standing.
Second, Julio Pena III on behalf of the reform group, filed a supplemental memorandum of law responding to the court’s inquiry about whether the Appellate Division’s invalidation of the August 25 rules requires the complete annulment of the September 23 organizational meeting. To this point, the reform group argues that the September 23 meeting stands under 2024 rules because the meeting was conducted under those rules, before the motion to invalidate them was introduced. Also, they argue that the individuals elected to positions created solely under the void August 25 rules retain their titles because no timely challenge was filed, however because 2024 rules govern, these officers are non-voting officers with no seats, or powers on the Executive Committee.
Third, Velázquez’s lawyers filed a memorandum of law to address the court’s inquiry about the September 23 meeting and clarify the authorized legal representation. To this end, the document formally adopts and concurs with all the legal arguments made in the reformer group’s supplemental memo of law. However, they explicitly alert the court that Genovesi does not represent Velázquez, thus asking the court to reject Genovesi’s filing.
Fourth, the reform group filed a reply brief that argue the September 29 TRO was explicit and unambiguous on stopping any Executive Committee meeting or implementation of September 23 rules. Further, they argue that there was actual knowledge of the TRO, and labeling the October 4 a “gathering”, while still purporting to elect Executive Committee officers, was done in bad faith.
Also, the October 4 meeting directly prejudiced the reform group’s rights by attempting to take party control, install unauthorized Officers, and disrupt legal representation.
Brooklyn Democratic Party: Nydia Velázquez et al. v. Nikki Lucas et al
This case covers the ongoing litigation over Bichotte Hermelyn and her allies’ (establishment group) October 4, Zoom meeting where outgoing leadership voted to install Assembly Member Nikki Lucas as the new Executive Committee Chair.
On October 29, the faction aligned with Bichotte Hermelyn, including Nikki Lucas, filed a memo of law opposing Velázquez’s preliminary injunction seeking to stop the Executive Committee meetings scheduled for October 25 and October 27. They argue that the TRO expired, thus it cannot be relied on for future meetings. Further, the court cannot grant relief pretending that the October 4 organizational meeting and election of Nikki Lucas as chair did not occur at all. Also, New York courts will not intervene in internal political party governance absent a clear violation of Election Law or party rules.
On the same day, Judge Sweeney issued a decision, ruling on the preliminary injunction. Judge Sweeney barred the Bichotte Hermelyn faction from conducting official business or taking formal actions as the Executive Committee pending the final determinations of the petition, however, nothing in the injunction prohibits the faction from meeting in their individual capacities.
The next day on October 30, the Bichotte Heremelyn faction, including Nikki Lucas, filed a notice of appeal, appealing Judge Sweeney’s decision on the preliminary injunction.
As Election Day nears, Sahalie Donaldson reported in City & State NY, that this “conflict has devoured abundant resources and time, splitting one of the largest county Democratic organizations in the country.” Further, “in a potential blue wave year, four state legislative seats in Brooklyn are in play for Democrats, [however], will the county machine’s mess be a costly distraction?”
ELECTIONS
New York State Voters Vote Early
Early voting continues to play an increasingly central role in elections. Data compiled from the New York State Board of Elections and reported by the University of Florida Election Lab show that, as of October 29, 2026, more than 1.25 million New Yorkers had already cast ballots, including approximately 1,110,053 in-person early votes and 145,865 returned mail ballots. These numbers demonstrate that early voting has become a mainstream method of electoral participation rather than a supplemental alternative to Election Day voting.
The strongest early-voting participation remains concentrated in the New York metropolitan region. Nassau County led the state with 69,868 early voters, followed by Kings County (Brooklyn) with 64,556, Suffolk County with 64,424, New York County (Manhattan) with 63,195, and Queens County with 54,595. Westchester County recorded 45,776 early voters. Together, these counties account for a significant share of New York’s electorate and underscore how early voting has become deeply embedded in voting behavior throughout the downstate region.
Outside New York City and its suburbs, major upstate counties also reported substantial early-voting activity. Monroe County, home to Rochester, recorded 37,794 early voters, while Erie County, which includes Buffalo, reported 36,109. Onondaga County, centered on Syracuse, registered 23,137 early voters. Other significant totals included Albany County with 17,596, Dutchess County with 16,052, and Orange County with 15,991. These figures show that early voting has become a statewide phenomenon rather than one concentrated solely in New York City’s population centers.
The Hudson Valley and Capital Region posted particularly strong numbers relative to their populations. Rockland County reported 14,022 early voters, Saratoga County recorded 10,596, and Ulster County registered 9,633. Additional participation was reported in Schenectady County (7,007) and Rensselaer County (5,881). These totals reflect growing voter familiarity with early voting opportunities and suggest that counties throughout the state have successfully integrated early-voting operations into routine election administration.
Smaller counties likewise reported meaningful participation. Broome County recorded 7,849 early voters, Oneida County 7,159, Niagara County 7,595, Ontario County 5,182, and Tompkins County 4,663. Even less populous rural counties demonstrated consistent usage of early-voting opportunities, indicating that the reform has penetrated virtually every region of the state.
The 2026 statistics demonstrate the continued growth of one of New York’s most important voting reforms. New York enacted statewide early voting in 2019, ending its status as one of the last states that required nearly all voters to cast ballots on a single Election Day. Since that reform took effect, voter participation patterns have changed dramatically, with millions of voters now choosing to vote before Election Day during presidential and midterm election cycles.
Early voting addresses long-standing concerns regarding access to the ballot. Courts evaluating election regulations frequently balance the burden placed on voters against the state’s interest in orderly election administration. Early voting reduces many practical obstacles associated with voting, including work schedules, childcare responsibilities, transportation difficulties, and long Election Day lines. By expanding the number of days and locations available for voting, New York has provided additional opportunities for voters to exercise the franchise while maintaining existing voter-qualification requirements.
The regional distribution of early-voting participation is also significant. Election-law experts have often expressed concerns that voting reforms may disproportionately benefit certain geographic areas or demographic groups. The 2026 figures demonstrate widespread utilization across urban, suburban, and rural counties. Participation in counties such as Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Albany, and Saratoga suggests that access to early voting is not confined to downstate counties but is functioning as a genuinely statewide reform.
Early voting also affects election administration and election-related litigation. Historically, Election Day disputes often involved overcrowded polling places, machine failures, ballot shortages, and requests for judicial intervention to extend polling hours. By spreading voter participation across multiple days, early voting can reduce stress on election infrastructure and lessen the likelihood of Election Day emergencies. In that respect, early voting functions not only as a voter-convenience measure but also as an administrative safeguard that promotes orderly election management.
Another important implication is that campaigns must now operate within an extended voting period. Because many voters cast ballots before Election Day, campaign strategy, voter-contact efforts, and election-law compliance increasingly revolve around a voting period that spans weeks rather than a single day. This shift has changed the practical landscape of modern elections and is likely to influence future debates over absentee voting, vote-by-mail expansion, election funding, and voter-access reforms.
New York’s 2026 early-voting data demonstrate that early voting is no longer an experimental reform. The 2026 election reinforces early voting as a permanent and integral component of New York’s electoral system.
New York Governor’s Race Will Decide More Than Just Who Will Be the State’s Chief Executive
By Joesph T. Burns
On November 3, 2026, New Yorkers will decide who will lead the Empire State over the next four years, incumbent Kathy Hochul or challenger Bruce Blakeman. But many New Yorkers don’t realize that their vote for governor will also determine which existing political parties will continue to have party status and which independent bodies will receive enough votes to achieve party status.
Under the New York State Election Law, a party achieves party status when the party’s candidate for governor or president receives at least two percent of the total vote cast or 130,000 votes, whichever is greater, on its ballot line. The party whose nominee for governor receives the most votes is assigned to row or column A on the ballot.
Not long ago, the number of votes a party needed to achieve or maintain party status was significantly lower. Prior to an amendment to the Election Law in 2020, party status was achieved or maintained when a candidate for governor received at least 50,000 votes on the party’s ballot line. The 2020 amendments to the Election Law increased this to the current minimums and also required party status to be maintained in the presidential election cycle.
Currently, New York has four recognized political parties – the Democratic, Republican, Conservative, and Working Families parties. Each of these parties maintained its party status in the 2024 presidential election.
Becoming a recognized political party isn’t just about bragging rights. Parties, under the New York State Election Law, are given a number of benefits not enjoyed by independent bodies. For instance, political parties may coordinate campaign spending with their candidates without limitation. Parties are also allowed to raise money into what is known as a housekeeping account. This permits parties to raise unlimited funds – including from corporations – into an account that may pay for certain party expenses like the cost of renting office space. Neither independent bodies nor their candidates enjoy these benefits.
In addition to the campaign finance benefits, parties and their candidates face as easier ballot access process than candidates seeking independent nominations. Candidates seeking to petition their way onto a party’s primary ballot face lower signature thresholds than independent candidates for the same public office.
On this year’s ballot, the Democratic and Working Families nominee for governor is Kathy Hochul while the Republican and Conservative nominee is Bruce Blakeman. In addition, Blakeman is the nominee of Vote Affordable, an independent body. To maintain or gain party status under the New York State Election Law, these parties or independent bodies will each have to meet the requirement that their candidate for governor receive 130,000 votes or two percent of the total vote on their ballot line.
Little will change, legally or politically, for the four existing parties should they maintain their party status. If, however, Vote Affordable qualifies to be a political party, it will be required to navigate the Election Law’s legal requirements for new parties in 2027.
For instance, as a new party in its first year of existence, Vote Affordable would have a nomination process different from the other qualified parties for its candidates for office. Pursuant to the Election Law, nominations by new parties in their first year of existence are made by the filing of a certificate of nomination. These nominations are to be made in accordance with the requirements for the certificate set forth in the Election Law as well as the party’s rules. The party rules are to be adopted by a majority vote of that party’s statewide candidates from the preceding election.
The 2026 General Election will do more than decide who governs New York for the next four years. It will help determine which political organizations retain a formal place in the state’s electoral system as political parties. As election returns arrive after the close of polls, seasoned observers of Empire State politics would be wise to keep an eye on how each party fares.
Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the Holtzman Vogel law firm’s New York office. https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns
Attorney General on Protecting New York Voting
New York State Attorney General Letitia James and her office is taking a major lead to protect New York voters next week. Her office has released material outlining current legal prohibitions on intimidation and coercion of voters, including prohibitions against ordering or keeping troops or armed federal law enforcement officers at polling places. The materials also address the role of poll watchers and monitors and the laws governing their conduct at polling places. While voting in New York should be safe, the Attorney General’s office wants New Yorkers to be aware about any interferences with the right to vote or any attempt at interference. Incidents should be reported to the Attorney General’s Election Protection Hotline at (866) 390-2992 or https://electionhotline.ag.ny.gov/.
Incidents involving potentially dangerous conduct should be reported to local law enforcement.
How The Law Protects Voters From Intimidation At The Polls
Under federal and state law, it is illegal for anyone to intimidate, threaten, or coerce voters to interfere with their right to vote.
Types of conduct likely to constitute unlawful voter intimidation Voter intimidation can take many forms, such as:
· individuals or groups patrolling outside polling places and trying to scare people out of the voting line
· poll watchers inside a polling place aggressively challenging many voters, or challenging specific types of voters, leading to long lines and baseless fears about illegal voting
· poll watchers in a polling place standing near privacy booths or in unauthorized areas videorecording or photographing voters, or following or harassing voters
· civilians dressing as law enforcement officers and harassing voters at poll sites2 · people spreading rumors that there are negative consequences to voting
· people or groups carrying weapons4 or displaying foreign military uniforms or other military paraphernalia5 at polling locations
· poll watchers or other individuals demanding to see identification or proof of citizenship from individuals attempting to vote
Behavior that courts have found to constitute voter intimidation includes:
· threats of violence
· following voters to poll sites and speaking loudly about prosecuting them for illegal voting
· threatening to share voter information with debt collectors or to boycott an individual or business to prevent a person from voting
· threatening to evict someone for voting
· threatening to use voter information to track down old warrants
· making baseless arrests or threats of prosecution in the vicinity of voter registration meetings
· publicizing individuals’ names and addresses (“doxing”) in an effort to intimidate them
For more information on voter protection laws, see the Attorney General’s guidance at:
Click to access law-enforcement-guidance-on-elections.pdf
New York Voter Guide: What to Know Before Election Day
As the November 3rd general election approaches, understanding voting options and deadlines is essential. Whether you are a first-time voter or a longtime participant, planning ahead can help ensure that your vote is counted.
Here are a few dates to keep in mind:
Election Day: Tuesday, November 3. Polls are open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM in New York.
Early voting: October 24th through November 1st. Hours and locations vary by county.
Voter registration deadline: October 24th.
Early mail and absentee ballot applications: Applications submitted online or by mail must be received by October 24th
In-person applications are accepted through November 2nd.
You can check the New York State Board of Elections website for more information.
In-person early voting: Registered voters can vote in person before Election Day without providing a reason. No advance ballot request is necessary. In New York City, your early voting location may differ from your Election Day polling place. Check your assigned location and hours before going.
Early mail ballot: Any registered voter can request an early mail ballot without giving a reason. You can apply online, by mail, or in person through your county Board of Elections. This option is ideal for voters who prefer to complete their ballot at home.
Absentee ballot: Absentee ballots are for voters who qualify under New York’s eligibility rules. Reasons may include being away from your county on Election Day, illness or disability, or caregiving responsibilities. Business travel or attending school away from home may qualify depending on the circumstances. Unlike an early mail application, an absentee application requires you to indicate your qualifying reason.
Learn more or apply through the State Board of Elections.
Returning Your Mail Ballot
Follow the instructions included with your ballot carefully. Mark your choices, complete and sign the required oath or affirmation envelope, and seal and return the envelopes as directed.
For the November election in New York, ballots must be postmarked by November 3rd and received by your county Board of Elections by November 10th. You may also deliver your ballot to your county Board of Elections office or an authorized polling location by 9:00 PM. on Election Day. Ballots can also be delivered to an early voting site in your county during the early voting period.
Return your ballot early to reduce the risk of postal delays.
Resources for New York City Voters
NYC Votes provides nonpartisan information about candidates, ballot proposals, registration, and voting dates. You can confirm your registration, research candidates using reliable sources, and check your polling location before voting. You cannot cast a regular vote entirely online, but online services can help you access information and request a ballot.
If you live outside New York City, information can be found at: https://elections.ny.gov/
Make Your Voting Plan
Before November 3rd, you can confirm your registration, choose your voting method, and review official deadlines. If voting by mail, request and return your ballot early. Every eligible vote matters, and preparation helps ensure your voice is heard
Connecticut voters can find voting information at: https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Election-Services/Voter-Information/Voter-Fact-Sheet
New Jersey voters can find voting information at: https://www.nj.gov/state/elections/vote.shtml
New York City: Volunteer Protect the Vote On Election Day
Do you want to help protect the vote on Election Day?
The New York City Bar Association held a virtual program on September 22nd, “Ensuring Fair Elections and Voter Participation: What Lawyers Can Do,” https://bit.ly/47txBdR to encourage lawyers to become involved in election protection efforts (a recording of the program is available here https://bit.ly/4s9witY).
You can also visit the City Bar Association voter protection page at https://www.nycbar.org/serving-the-community/election-protection-opportunities-for-lawyers/, for listings for both lawyers and non-lawyers to get involved.
Common Cause NY is also coordinating a non-partisan statewide voter protection effort.
To learn more, go to: https://bit.ly/4hSWPbJ
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance Activity
1924 New York City Board of Elections (Queens)- poll site locations- preliminarily granted
1943 Suffolk County Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
CENSUS
State Legislators Oppose 2030 Decennial Census Changes
A group of 22 State Senators and 41 Assembly Members sent a comment letter on the Commerce Department’s plan to change the 2030 decennial census questionnaire. The letter was spearheaded by Senator Shelley Mayer, the co-chair of the legislature’s Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research & Reapportionment (LATFOR) and Assembly Member Michaelle Solages, Chair of the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic & Asian Legislative Caucus. The letter follows:
“We, the undersigned members of the New York State Legislature, are submitting this comment on the proposed rule “Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions” (Federal Register Notice Docket Number USBC-2026-0628, published September 10, 2026). We oppose limiting the decennial count to include only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (holding green cards), as well as the proposed removal of demographic questions from the 2030 Census.
A full and accurate census count is critical for democratic representation as required by law. We must ensure that every resident is counted and that the decennial census accurately reflects the population numbers required by the U.S. Constitution.
We are strongly opposed to the narrowing of the Census count. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly requires an accounting of the entire population residing in the United States, irrespective of citizenship status. Section 2 of the amendment requires that congressional representation be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations, “counting the whole number of persons in each State. ” At the time of the Amendment’s adoption, Congress explicitly and deliberately rejected proposals to base apportionment strictly on the number of citizens, choosing the broader term “persons” to ensure the entire population was represented.
The Census Bureau has long defined “usual residence” as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time, regardless of citizenship status. This definition has helped ensure that congressional representation reflects the actual population of each state, where many non-citizens reside, working, paying taxes, raising families, and attending schools in their local communities. Excluding non-citizens would undermine the constitutional goal of apportioning representatives and providing for fair and equal representation at all levels of government. Removing millions of people from the apportionment count would reduce representation for communities where those residents actually live.
In addition, we are strongly opposed to the removal of demographic questions from the decennial census questionnaire. Questions about respondents’ race and ethnicity provide foundational demographic data required to enforce civil rights laws, allocate federal funding, and track social or economic disparities.
These data help determine how billions of dollars in federal and state funding are distributed for public schools, hospitals, roads, housing assistance, and public health programs. State and local governments use these data to draw legislative districts that comply with state and local laws, the federal and state
Voting Rights Acts, and to help ensure fair representation. Moreover, public health researchers and policymakers use census data to help measure and address inequities in healthcare, employment, education, and exposure to environmental hazards. Similarly, business and industry use this data to help determine where to direct resources and guide planning.
We also request that you provide states with the local home addresses-of-record of incarcerated residents who are now counted by the Census Bureau at the prison facilities. Providing states with this information will make it easier and more efficient for states that reallocate prison populations to home-of-record addresses for redistricting purposes.
Finally, given the importance of public input on these important matters, we urge the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to immediately extend the initial comment period through November 2026.”
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
AROUND THE NATION
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)
October 26: Former President Barack Obama urges Marylanders to vote ‘Yes’ on Question 3 (Redistricting Constitutional Amendment). — @RedistrictNet [from X]
October 30: A new poll from the USC Fair Elections and Democracy Lab shows the districts most changed by Prop 50 appear to be working as Democrats in the legislature intended.
Prop 50’s goal of adding Democratic seats to California’s congressional delegation is likely to be achieved in all targeted seats. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
November 1: This Election Day, voters in five states will decide whether to rewrite the rules of direct democracy, with North Dakota’s Measure 1, South Dakota’s Amendment L, Missouri’s Amendment 6, Utah’s Amendment B, and Montana’s CI-133 all on the ballot.
Voters in Maryland, Missouri, and Colorado will also cast ballots on redistricting through Question 3, Prop A, and Amendment 86. — @RedistrictNet [from X]
DOJ Litigation in Alaska U.S. Senate Race
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) litigation in Alaska stems from a closely contested U.S. Senate race between incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan, Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, and independent candidate Daniel J. Sullivan.
The core dispute, which Republicans and the DOJ argue, is that Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy is a deliberate tactic intended to confuse voters, however the Alaska Supreme Court ruled earlier that Daniel J. Sullivan earned a rightful spot on the ballot under state election rules.
Days before the election, the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction that would delay or block the certification of Alaska’s Senate election results if incumbent Dan Sullivan were to lose. The DOJ contended that it needed time to investigate whether voters were misled or confused by identical names on the ballot.
On Sunday November 1st, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit, finding that the federal government lacked standing and that there was no constitutionally viable way to investigate voters’ intentions without violating ballot secrecy. The DOJ filed a notice of appeal shortly after.
According to NYU Law School Professor Richard Pildes on the Election Law Blog, the DOJ’s litigation is designed to “tee up this ‘confusion issue’ for other institutions” including the certification process within Alaska, where the Lieutenant Governor, unlike the Secretary of State, is the primary overseer of the election process. To certify elections for the U.S. Senate, the two signatories in Alaska are the Governor and Lt. Governor, thus “the litigation will give ammunition to anyone in the certification process, particularly the Lt. Gov., who might seek to delay or deny certification to the Democrat, Mary Peltola, if she wins,” based on the “voter confusion” claim.
It is worth a reminder that elections are governed by state law, so while federal officials have conducted underlying investigations into potential campaign funding or coordination irregularities, the DOJ’s litigation goes beyond that, and the federal courts have rejected the DOJ’s effort, allowing Alaska’s election process to remain governed by state law as voters go to the polls.
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.