By Jeff Wice & Alexis Marking
REDISTRICTING
Onondaga County: Court Orders Legislature to Redraw County Legislative Districts Map
On September 24th, a State Supreme Court Judge in Onondaga County ordered the county legislature to redraw the county legislative map originally redrawn in 2022 following the 2020 census. The county legislature failed to follow the state’s new Municipal Home Rule requirement that district populations not exceed an overall 5% population limitation and another requirement that the population data used for redistricting reflect the incarcerated persons reallocation data law. The court also directed the legislature to hold one public hearing before a new map is adopted. The case is Ryan et al v. McMahon et al. The original case was brought by county legislature minority leader Christopher Ryan and a group of Democratic voters. No action on the remedial mapping has yet been scheduled.
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LIGITATION
Erie County: Young v. Town of Cheektowaga
In March, onetime Town Board candidate Kenneth Young filed a lawsuit against the Town of Cheektowaga, alleging racially polarized voting and violations of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) in the Cheektowaga Town Board elections. Young claims that minorities cannot elect candidates of their choice under the town’s current at-large voting method and should adopt a ward voting system.
On September 27, State Attorney General Letitia James filed a 32-page memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The memorandum first provides an explanation of the NYVRA, as well as its factual background and procedural history.
The memorandum argues that the plaintiff’s claim is “ripe for judicial review,” meaning that this matter is appropriate to be reviewed and the denial of judicial review would impose a hardship on the parties. A delay or denial of judicial review could result in unequal opportunities for voters to participate in the political process. Furthermore, actions brought under the NYVRA are subject to expedited pretrial and trial proceedings.
The memorandum’s second argument is that the NYVRA is not “facially unconstitutional.” This section addresses each of the defendants’ claims separately. The Attorney General argues that the NYVRA does not violate Equal Protection, does not create any racial classification subject to strict scrutiny (how a court reviews cases regarding violations of Equal Protection), and that the NYVRA satisfies rational basis review (another way for a court to review Equal Protection cases).
Additionally, the memorandum argues that the NYVRA does not violate Due Process, the Separation-of-Powers Doctrine, the First Amendment, or the Fifteenth Amendment. It concludes by stating that the court should deny the cross-motion for summary judgment and reject the defendant’s constitutional challenges to the NYVRA.
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Town of Newburgh
In January, several Black and Hispanic residents of Newburgh filed this lawsuit, claiming the town’s at-large election system for Town Board elections has prevented Black and Hispanic residents from electing candidates of their choice, thus violating the N.Y. Voting Rights Act.
On September 24, the state supreme court granted the parties’ request to enlarge time in part. According to the new schedule, the last day to file any dispositive motion was September 25. Opposition to these motions must be filed by October 10 (no cross motions) and replies are due by October 17.
On September 25, the defendants (the Town of Newburgh and the Newburgh Town Board) filed for summary judgment. The motion included ten exhibits (labeled Exhibit A through J), such as transcripts of depositions and expert reports.
The defendants’ memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment was also filed on September 25. The memorandum focuses on two main arguments. First, the defendants argue that the NYVRA’s provisions on vote dilution, including the at-large provisions (regarding the type of electoral system) at issue here, violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the New York Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the defendants argue that the “undisputed record evidence” shows that the Town of Newburgh’s at-large electoral system complies with the NYVRA. The memo concludes by asking the court to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims.
Westchester County: Serratto et al. v. Town of Mount Pleasant
This lawsuit was filed in January by voters from the Mount Pleasant Hispanic community. The suit asserts that the Town’s use of an at-large method of election, where all voters elect the Town Supervisor and all four Town Board members, led to racially polarized voting and prevented Hispanic voters from electing the candidate of their choice.
On September 26, the plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs frame their argument with three main points. First, they argue that the NYVRA is constitutional. One sub-argument is that the reference to race in a statute (a statute in this case that is “intended to identify and eradicate racial discrimination in voting”) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Second, the plaintiffs argue that New York’s capacity rule does not “insulate” the NYVRA from the U.S. Constitution, but it does bar the defendants from asserting that the NYVRA is “facially unconstitutional.” Third, the plaintiffs argue they have established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under the NYVRA and that the defendants have failed to raise a “triable issue of fact.” The plaintiffs state in their memo that they have proven racially polarized voting and that an alternate electoral system would improve Hispanic voters’ “electoral influence” relative to the current at-large system.
Additionally, on September 26, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. The defendants argue that the NYVRA is unconstitutional because it is “indeterminate and unenforceable” and violates Equal Protection standards because strict scrutiny applies in this matter and is not satisfied.
The defendants’ reply memorandum also argues that the plaintiffs’ claims are moot, that three out of the four plaintiffs lack standing, that the plaintiffs applied the wrong racial polarization standard, and that the plaintiffs lack relevant evidence for their totality claim.
ELECTIONS
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to Appear on New York Ballot
In an unsigned order last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to appear on the New York ballot in November. Despite Kennedy dropping out of the race to support Donald Trump, Kennedy sought to remain on the state ballot, seen as a way be some to take votes from Kamala Harris.
Rensselaer County Officials Not Guilty in Vote Fraud Case
Three Rensselaer County election officials were found not guilty by a jury of conspiring to commit ballot fraud last week. The three officials were accused of using their positions to get county employees to sign voter registration and absentee ballot applications in 2021 to help sway the outcome in primary and general elections.
CENSUS
American Community Survey Releases New Data, Shows 2018-2022 State-to-County Migration Flows
On September 26, the U.S. Census Bureau released new 2018-2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year state-to-county migration flows. The state-to-county migration flows highlight the number of individuals who moved into specific counties from U.S. states and “state equivalents, U.S. Island Areas, and foreign regions.”
The ACS and the Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) ask respondents to provide information for residents one year and older whether they lived in the same residence one year ago. For people who respond that they lived in a different residence, the location of their previous residence is collected.
The ACS uses a series of monthly samples to produce estimates. The 5-year state-to-county migration flows are created from tabulations of the current county of residence crossed by the state of residence one year ago.
For more information and to view the 2018-2022 migration flows, click here.
Pew Reports Most Immigrants Live in Four States
The Pew Research Center reports that in 2022, a majority of the nation’s 46.1 million immigrants lived in four states: California (10.4 million or 23% of the national total), Texas (5.2 million or 11%), Florida (4.8 million or 10%) and New York (4.5 million or 10%). According to Pew, “most immigrants lived in the South (35%) and West (33%). Another 21% lived in the Northeast and 11% were in the Midwest.
In 2022, more than 29 million immigrants – 63% of the nation’s foreign-born population – lived in just 20 major metropolitan areas. The largest populations were in the New York, Los Angeles and Miami metro areas. Most of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population (60%) lived in these metro areas as well.”
For more information from the Pew report, see: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/
AROUND THE NATION
TENNESSEE: A group of Tennessee voting and civil rights advocates will not refile a federal lawsuit alleging that Tennessee’s U.S. House and state Senate boundaries were racially gerrymandered and unconstitutional. A three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit last month, but provided time to refile the complaint if the plaintiffs could amend it to “plausibly disentangle race from politics.”
This lawsuit was the first challenge regarding Tennessee’s congressional redistricting map, which many claimed was a strategic move because the new map diluted the power of Black voters and other communities of color in one of the only Democratic strongholds in the state. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit included the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP, the African American Clergy Collective of Tennessee, the Equity Alliance, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute, the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, and individual state voters.
In a news release, the plaintiffs stated that there were “new, substantial, and unjust standards to prove racial gerrymandering” under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that involved South Carolina’s redistricting maps. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that disputes over partisan gerrymandering (for congressional and legislative districts) were strictly limited to state courts under state constitutions and laws.
Tennessee’s state legislative maps are still facing another lawsuit in state court, which challenges the maps on state constitutional grounds. Oral arguments will be heard this week by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
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 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice & Alexis Marking.