This week- New Congressional Map Challenge Update; NYS Voting Rights Act Challenge Rejected; NYS Census Partnership Launches; Impact of US Government Shutdown on the Cenuss; Around the Nation: Texas
Note- this Update might not publish on December 1 unless there are major litigation developments this coming week.
REDISTRICTING LITIGATION
Congressional Redistricting
Williams et. al v. New York State Board of Elections et. al
On October 27, a complaint was filed in New York County State Supreme Court asking that the state legislature create a new congressional district to enhance the Black and Latino voting strength of Staten Island and parts of lower Manhattan.
On November 17, the petitioners filed a memorandum of law in support of the petition and expert reports. In the memo, petitioners argue that the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) provides the appropriate framework for evaluating vote dilution under Article III, Section 4 of the New York Constitution for three reasons.
First, the language of the NYVRA is similar to the language of the constitutional prohibition against vote dilution in Article III, Section 4(c)(1).
Second, because Article III and the NYVRA have been interpreted to have a similar scope, it follows that the same standard should be applied to vote dilution claims under both provisions.
Third, differential treatment of Article III and the NYVRA would create an inconsistent application of vote dilution protections across New York, with more robust protections afforded only to voters in municipal and local elections, and lesser protections applying to congressional and senate elections, thus undermining the will of New York voters.
Petitioners argue that the drawing of a new congressional district would remedy the racial vote dilution. In support the petitioners’ expert demographer, William Cooper, offered an illustrative map that joins Staten Island with a compact portion of lower Manhattan and would only impact the current configurations of Congressional District 11 (CD-10). According to Cooper, in the newly formed CD-11 the combined Black and Latino citizen voting age population increased to 24.7%.
Petitioners argue that the new congressional district complies with equal population, contiguity, compactness, competitiveness, preexisting district boundaries, and communities of interest requirements for redistricting.
For contiguity, petitioners argue that just like that Verrazzano Bridge connects Staten Island to Brooklyn, the Staten Island Ferry connects the same to Manhattan via Whitehall Terminal. For compactness, petitioners argue that Staten Island is not sufficiently populous to comprise its own congressional district, thus it must be joined with a neighboring borough.
For competitiveness, petitioners argue that the illustrative map would offer Black and Latino voters the same opportunity as others to find common political ground with white voters to elect their candidates of choice. For preexisting district boundaries, petitioners argue that Staten Island used to be joined with Manhattan throughout the 1970s.
For communities of interest, petitioners argue that illustrative map unites the Chinese-American communities in Chinatown, Sunset Park, Bath Beach, and Bensonhurst in CD-10, remedying the unlawful dilution of Black and Latino Staten Islanders’ voting strength on Staten Island, while also uniting communities of interest that advocates had asked the independent redistricting commission, Legislature, and special master to keep together in the first place.
An Examination of Other Expert Reports
Among the expert submissions in the case were Exhibit A, a quantitative electoral analysis by Dr. Maxwell Palmer, a political scientist at Boston University, known for his work on voting behavior and statistical election modeling. Exhibit B was a historical and sociological report by Professor Thomas J. Sugrue, a leading scholar of urban history, segregation, and inequality, currently at New York University.
Palmer and Sugrue approached the district from different perspectives. Palmer focused on the numbers, how people voted, how consistently they supported certain candidates, and how those patterns changed under different district configurations. Sugrue focused on the history, how Staten Island’s neighborhoods developed, how racial dynamics emerged, and how those dynamics continued to shape political life. Their reports together formed part of the broader analysis the court will consider.
I. Exhibit A: The Analysis of Dr. Maxwell Palmer
Dr. Palmer’s report provides a statistical backbone for petitioners’ argument. His analysis covered twenty elections between 2017 and 2024, including federal, state, and municipal races. His central question was whether racial groups in CD-11 voted differently enough to constitute racially polarized voting, a key concept in voting rights analysis.
Using ecological inference, a standard method for estimating voter behavior by demographic group, Palmer found that Black and Latino voters consistently supported the same candidates at high rates. In many contests, support among Black voters for their preferred candidates approached ninety percent, with Latino voters showing similarly cohesive patterns.
At the same time, Palmer found that White voters in CD-11 voted cohesively for different candidates, typically supporting minority-preferred candidates at much lower rates, often around twenty-five percent. This pattern, in which different racial groups regularly supported opposing candidates, fit the standard definition of racially polarized voting.
Palmer then asked how minority-preferred candidates fared under the current district boundaries. Based on his analysis of the twenty elections, he found that minority-preferred candidates won only five of them, concluding that the district’s demographic composition made it difficult for candidates strongly supported by Black and Latino voters to build districtwide majorities.
He also evaluated a hypothetical alternative district drawn by petitioners for analytical purposes. Under this illustrative configuration, minority-preferred candidates won sixteen out of eighteen analyzed contests. Palmer attributed this shift in outcomes to changes in the district’s political and demographic composition.
He further noted turnout differences between White voters and minority voters, describing them as a consistent feature of recent elections without drawing conclusions about their causes.
II. Exhibit B: The Analysis of Professor Thomas J. Sugrue
While Dr. Palmer described electoral outcomes, Professor Sugrue explored the historical, demographic, and sociological environment in which those outcomes occurred. His report spanned more than a century of Staten Island’s development and drew on archival records, census data, academic research, and public documents.
Sugrue detailed the history of residential segregation on Staten Island. He examined federal lending practices from the 1930s and 1940s, including “redlining” maps that labeled certain neighborhoods, especially those with Black residents, as undesirable for investment. Although these classifications were later abandoned, Sugrue explained that their influence persisted, shaping homeownership patterns, population distribution, and the division between the diverse North Shore and the more homogenous South Shore.
He documented repeated episodes of racial tension and conflict, including disputes over school integration, housing, and neighborhood change. Sugrue described these not as isolated moments but as part of a longer continuum that influenced how residents interacted with public institutions.
The report highlighted socioeconomic disparities between White residents and Black and Latino residents, including differences in income, poverty levels, educational outcomes, and homeownership rates. Sugrue concluded that these disparities reflected structural inequalities that likely affected political participation by shaping access to economic stability, civic resources, and institutional engagement.
He also examined police-community relations, noting instances of strained interactions and public controversy, and identified examples of racially coded political messaging in past campaigns. Sugrue presented these features as elements of the political environment in which voting occurred.
III. Impact on the Case
Under the NYVRA, courts must evaluate both quantitative electoral evidence and qualitative historical context. These two expert reports, considered alongside the other expert submissions in the case, provided complementary forms of information.
Dr. Palmer’s report described how elections behaved in CD-11: how racial groups voted, how cohesive those voting patterns were, and how minority-preferred candidates performed under different district configurations. Professor Sugrue’s report described the environment in which those elections unfolded, explaining how Staten Island’s historical, demographic, and social conditions may have influenced political engagement and political cohesion.
Together, the two reports offer the court a fuller factual picture. Dr. Palmer’s analysis outlined the measurable outcomes of elections, while Professor Sugrue’s analysis explained the broader forces that shaped those outcomes. Their combined findings will help the court assess whether the configuration of CD-11 afforded minority voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process, as required under New York law.
STATE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Court of Appeals Rejects State Voting Rights Act Challenge
Orange County: Clarke et. al v. Town of Newburgh
On October 14, the New York Court of Appeals heard the case of Clarke et. al v. Town of Newburgh. This case challenged the constitutionality of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) that seeks to protect voting rights and ensure equal political participation for racial, ethnic, and language-minority groups.
Six voters in the Town of Newburgh allege that the Town’s at large method of election for Town Board members dilutes the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters in violation of the NYVRA.
On November 25, the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case, authored by Chief Judge Wilson, affirming the Appellate Division ruling in favor of Clarke. The court reasoned that towns generally cannot sue to invalidate state legislation because local governments are created by the state, and courts are reluctant to let a subordinate entity use the courts to strike-down state laws.
The court also rejected Newburgh’s argument that complying with the NYVRA would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because there is no precedent showing that the local government has successfully invoked this “dilemma” in New York.
The court further held that Newburgh would need to show that every possible remedy under the NYVRA would force it into an unconstitutional act. The court highlighted potential remedies under NYVRA, like increased polling hours or voter education, finding that they do not require changing the at-large system. Thus, the court declined to reach the merits of Newburgh’s constitutional claims because Newburgh does not fit the very narrow exception required for a facial constitutional challenge.
The case is now remanded to the Westchester County state supreme court for a hearing on the merits. A status conference has been scheduled for December 12th.
UPCOMING EVENTS
There are no upcoming events.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance
There was no preclearance activity in the past week.
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
CENSUS
New York State Census Partnership Launches
The New York State Census Partnership launched on November 14th, energized by the level of engagement of over 400 registrants for the ZOOM event., the thoughtful questions, and the clear commitment to ensuring a fair and accurate count across New York. A recording of the two hour program is provided here for those who want to share it with their colleagues. Please note that the link will expire in 45 days, so download it if you want to reference it in the future.
Recording: http://bit.ly/4rg6RX1
The organizers received more questions than time permitted to answer during the session.
If you would like to get more involved in the NYS Census Partnership—whether by joining working groups, staying connected to future activities, or contributing your expertise—please reach out to nyscensuspartnership@gmail.com.
The Effect of the Government Shutdown on the U.S. Census Bureau
The longest government shutdown disrupted the Census Bureau’s operations, pausing data collection activities – such as the American Community Survey – for 45 days, which is particularly consequential for measuring commuting patterns that are seasonal. It also interrupted work on the Household Trends and Outlook Pulse Survey (HTOPS), originally developed during COVID to track food insecurity and public attitudes about the Census.
Further, planning for the 2030 Census was stalled as well. Although the critical components of the 2026 test continued, the integration of updated federal race and ethnicity standards, related messaging, supplemental materials, and underly race and ethnicity coding remained untouched.
Last week the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing discussing issues related to apportionment, including whether undocumented individuals could be excluded, despite the Constitution’s reference to counting “persons” as all persons.
Other topics discussed included the addition of the controversial citizenship question on the Census and how the Census will apply differential privacy. However, because the House Judiciary Committee lacks jurisdiction over Census planning (which lies with House Oversight), these discussions did not advance operational work on the 2030 Census, compounding the impacts of the government shutdown.
Written with the assistance of Meeta Anand from the Leadership Conference.
AROUND THE NATION
Texas: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Greg Abbott
On November 18, the U.S District Court for the Western District of Texas voted to block Texas from using new congressional maps to gerrymander for 2026 midterm elections, requiring the use of 2021 maps.
The Texas map was hoping to yield control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts — up from the 25 they currently hold — and help protect the narrow GOP majority in the U.S. House. Several advocacy groups sued over the new district lines, arguing that lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black and Hispanic Texans and drew racially gerrymandered maps.
The court’s opinion discussed the Purcell principle, the notion that courts should not enjoin state election laws close to an election. However, the court held that Purcell does not require the denial of an injunction and cannot apply in this case. This is because of three reasons.
First, Purcell sets flexible standards based on fact-intensive analysis and is not dispositive on its own. Second, the 2025 map was not even law three months ago, so the state’s minimal election preparations have not relied on the 2025 map for long enough. Third, the Purcell principle was deemed moot when the legislature enacted a new congressional map days before the precinct chair filing period opened and two months before the candidate filing period opened.
On November 19, Judge Jerry Smith issued a dissent accusing the majority of “judicial activism” and of issuing an opinion too quickly without giving him an adequate opportunity to respond. Judge Smith argued that the majority’s behavior undermined the deliberative process and that the ruling allowed for political considerations over legislative authority.
The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court where a temporary stay has been granted by Justice Samuel Alito.
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, the Mellon Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice, Esha Shah, and Daniel Bonaventura.