By Jeff Wice, Jarret Berg, Alexis Marking & Alexis Lanzilotti
This week: New Nassau County Legislative Map, More on the Census Citizenship Question, Assembly to Consier Voting Bills, Report On Hispanic Children in the Census, Around the Nation- North Carolina & Louisiana, Register Now for January 28th Census Conference
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LIGITATION
Landmark Settlement in Coads et al. v. Nassau County & NY Communities for Change (NYCC) v. Nassau County
On January 23rd, State Supreme Court Justice Paul Marx approved a consent decree settling the challenge to the Nassau County :Legislature’s 2023 legislative map.
The parties stipulated that the plaintiffs in these coordinated actions challenge the legality of the 2023 redistricting plan that the Nassau County Legislature enacted for its legislative districts. The plaintiffs alleged that the map violated Section 34(4) of Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL), which requires that “districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring… particular candidates or political parties.” The NYCC plaintiffs also alleged that the map diluted the voting power of Asian, Black, and Latino communities in violation of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) and broader protections in MHRL 34(4)(b) against racial discrimination in redistricting.
Additionally, “[w]ithout conceding a violation of Section 34(4) of the MHRL or the NYVRA, or any other wrongdoing, Defendants wish to replace the Enacted Map in order to end this litigation.” The parties have agreed that it is in their best interest for these actions be resolved “without the expense of further protracted, costly, and divisive litigation.” As a result, the parties agreed to entry of the consent judgment and decree. The decree sets forth a new redistricting plan for Nassau County Legislature’s nineteen districts that will comply with MHRL 34(4), the NYVRA, and all other legal requirements. The new map is anticipated to pass the Legislature and be delivered to the County executive for signature on or before February 5th.
New Nassau Map Compared to 2023 Map
The City University Graduate Center’s Mapping Service is providing a map tool to compare the new 2025 county legislative map with the 2023 map that was is no longer in effect.
You can compare the two maps here: https://nycounty.redistrictingandyou.org/
According to Newsday, the map changes districts now represented by Legis. Seth Koslow (D-Merrick), Legis. C. William Gaylor III (R-Lynbrook), Legis. Carrié Solages (D-Valley Stream) and Legis. John Ferretti (R-Levittown).
Newsday further reports that “(v)oters in Lakeview, West Hempstead and Malverne, previously in District 14 represented by Gaylor, will moved to Solages’ District 3, which now also includes Bellerose Terrace and a small portion of Franklin Square. Ferretti’s District 15 now includes North Wantagh, Seaford and most of Wantagh. It no longer includes Plainedge, a portion of North Massapequa, South Farmingdale, Farmingdale and part of Bethpage.
“In the settlement is a new District 5 spanning southern Uniondale, the central Village of Hempstead, most of West Hempstead and the southern section of Franklin Square. It changes District 14 to include more of Valley Stream instead of East Rockaway and a section of Oceanside.”
Please note that this map is subject to approval by the county legislature at a meeting before 2025 petitioning gets underway on February 25th.
A new map is also expected soon for the Onondaga county replacement map following a state court order to draw a new map.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
On the Census Citizenship Question
President Trump’s revocation of a Biden-era executive order on census counting hasescalated the citizenship question debate, most recently settled by the U.S. SupremeCourt in Department of Commerce v. New York. The decennial census determines Congressional representation, state and local redistricting, and allocations for federal funding affecting schools, roads, and other public institutions and services across the U.S. (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/661932989/how-the-2020-census-citizenship-question-ended-up-in-court). The move has renewed legal and policy disputes that raise questions about constitutional interpretation and the role of executive action.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution mandates the actual enumeration of the population every 10 years. The Fourteenth Amendment reinforces the total population principle through its requirement that the decennial count be of the “whole number of persons in each state,” without regard to citizenship status. The Supreme Court has narrowly recognized the constitutional interest in actual enumeration. See DOC v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 759 (2019).
A December 2017 letter from the Department of Justice to then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross requested that the Census Bureau add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, ostensibly to help the department enforce the Voting Rights Act. (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-justice-department-pushes-for-citizenship-question-on-census-alarming-experts). Critics argued that the true intent was to deter noncitizens and immigrant communities from participating, thereby skewing population counts for political gain. The memorandum provoked widespread litigation, culminating in DOC v. New York coming before the Supreme Court. 588 U.S. 752.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, concluded that the rationale for adding the question was contrived and lacked a genuine connection to Voting Rights Act enforcement. Id. at 783-85. The Court’s decision underscored the necessity of transparent decision-making in census administration and the high stakes of achieving an accurate count. Conversely, it left the door open for future citizenship and immigration questions, provided it can be supported by adequate reasoning and purpose.
President Trump’s “day one” revocation of orders and actions included Executive Order 13986. Speculation about changes to the 2030 census reflecting this policy shift has reignited debates over the citizenship question and what persons are included for the purpose of apportionment. (
https://apnews.com/article/trump-census-bureau-2030-statistical-agency-c1fc386ed224e658abb0fbb3cdd05d27). Legal and policy debates over the census citizenship question underscore its significance to the democratic process and the critical role of the courts and executive action in conducting a constitutionally mandated census.
STATE LEGISLATION
Legislature Advances Chapter Amendments to Clean Up 2024 Voting Reforms
On Tuesday, the State Assembly Election Law Committee is scheduled to advance three Chapter Amendments–clean up legislation that modifies voting laws passed in 2024–to effectuate policy agreements between the legislature that passed the original proposals and the Governor who agreed to sign them in November and December, on condition that certain changes be swiftly enacted. The Senate’s side of these agreements have already been moved to the floor.
A438-2025 (amends A494B/S6199B of 2024)
A newly enacted 2024 law requires the Board of Elections to notify residents that they have been designated for political party county committee positions, as well as how to decline the designation. The Chapter Amendment agreement strips the requirement that such residents be informed that they can decline the designation, and the legal mechanism for doing so. Upon signing the bill in December, the Governor’s Approval Memo (84) claimed the agreed upon language “remedies potential constitutional questions and accomplishes the goal” of preventing the practice,
notorious in New York City, of “ghost” candidates for local party positions serving in these roles without their knowledge or consent. A related system of proxy voting (and in some cases, forged proxies) is used to entrench political power. This practice “has been going for decades,” according to former Brooklyn Democratic Party leadership. The chapter amendment is likely to reduce the quantity of declinations, as those impacted may not be familiar with the political maneuver, much less the election law, perhaps undercutting the efficacy of the reform.
A1014-2025 (amends A7243/S610 of 2024)
In 2024, New York authorized local Boards of Elections to deploy secure absentee ballot dropboxes for the convenience of voters returning their ballot envelopes, and directed the State Board of Elections to regulate permissible dropbox locations, chain of custody, pick-up times, proper labeling, and security. The law permits voters to use dropboxes in their county or city of residence and clarifies that dropbox ballots are timely if returned before the close of polls on Election Day, when the dropboxes are sealed and emptied. To protect voting rights, timely-received ballots are not disqualified if the Board of Elections fails to timestamp the dropbox ballots in their custody on election night. The chapter amendment clarifies that the dropboxes can also be used by citizens casting early mail ballots, which–unlike absentee ballots–may be requested by any voter. However, the law merely authorizes counties to deploy dropboxes, there is no mandate that they do so. Since the policy is new, it is unclear whether bipartisan officials at local boards around the state will agree to offer the new dropbox ballot-return option to their residents.
A1015-2025 (amends A1244D/S612D of 2024)
In 2024 Albany lawmakers enacted a Board of Elections reform prohibiting actual and perceived conflicts of interests of board employees, caused by outside income relating to the administration or supervision of elections. The law also prohibited current board employees from being a candidate in a contested election that their board oversees. The 2025 chapter amendment allows board of elections commissioners to take a vote “authorizing” the conflict in particular circumstances prescribed by the state board of elections, provided that the board employee be restricted from working on matters directly related to their own election. The Governor’s Approval Memo (100) noted that some local boards have limited staff, and expressed the need for flexibility where there is bipartisan support to keep a staff member on payroll.
CENSUS
County Level Analysis of 2020 Census Coverage of Young Hispanic Children
A new report has been released which uses 2020 Census data to analyze which U.S. counties experienced the largest net numeric undercounts of Hispanic children.
In the fifty U.S. counties with the highest undercount rates, this analysis revealed that more than two-thirds of the counties (23 counties total) occurred in four states: California (12 counties), Texas (11 counties), New York (6 counties), and Florida (5 counties). The five New York counties, as well as their ranking, include: Bronx County (9th), Queens County (17th), New York County (20th), Suffolk County (22nd), Kings County (26th), and Nassau County (34th).
When comparing the Census total of Hispanic children (0 to 4 years old) and the Vintage 2020 Population Estimates for Hispanic children (0 to 4 years old), the percentage difference was substantial. The percentage differences are as follows: Bronx County (-14.0%), Queens County (-11.9%), New York County (-16.7%), Suffolk County (-12.3%), Kings County (-9.0%), and Nassau County (-12.7%).
The top six states accounted for seventy-six percent of the total net undercount of young Hispanic children in the 2020 Census. In order, these states include Texas, California, Florida, New York, Arizona, and North Carolina. When comparing the Census count of Hispanic children (0 to 4 years old) to the population estimates of Hispanic children (ages 0 to 4), the net coverage rate in New York was -9.6%, or -27,154 Hispanic children.
More information on this data, as well as potential reasons as to why young Hispanic children are being undercounted in the Census, is available by
Count All Kids.
AROUND THE NATION
U.S. Department of Justice Drops Out of Louisiana Redistricting Case
Following the change from the Biden administration to the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has reconsidered the government’s position in a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The consolidated cases at issue here concern a constitutional racial-gerrymandering challenge to Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District, which the Louisiana Legislature redrew after a district court ruled that the state’s previous map likely violated Section 2 of the VRA.
In the decision under review, a three-judge district court ruled that race predominated in the redrawing of district lines and that Louisiana’s use of race did not satisfy strict scrutiny. In December, the DOJ filed a brief as amicus curiae and argued that the district court applied the wrong legal framework when determining that Louisiana’s district fails strict scrutiny.
The brief also argued that the court erred in “requiring the State to prove that [the district] as drawn would have satisfied the preconditions for VRA liability if it had been offered as an illustrative district by a Section 2 plaintiff.” Earlier VRA litigation provided Louisiana with a strong basis in evidence to believe that in order to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, the state needed to draw another majority-minority district.
In mid-January, the DOJ also filed a motion for leave to participate in the oral argument as amicus curiae and for an enlargement of the argument time. The Court has not ruled on this motion yet. The DOJ has now written a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court to notify the Court that its previously filed brief “no longer represents the position of the United States.” The letter also stated that the DOJ would be withdrawing its pending motion.
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Georgia Case, Considers Future of the Voting Rights Act
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments last week in a case that will determine whether Georgia’s current congressional and state legislature maps will remain in place. Five Georgia voters filed a lawsuit against the Georgia Secretary of State and Georgia State Election Board in December 2021.
The lawsuit challenged the 2021 redistricting maps enacted by the Georgia State Legislature, arguing that the maps violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) by unfairly diluting the voting power of Black communities. The plaintiffs alleged that instead of drawing new majority-Black populations to reflect Georgia’s changing demographics, Georgia “packed some Black voters into Atlanta metro districts and cracked others among mostly white districts in more rural areas.” As a result, the growth of Georgia’s Black population “will not translate to increased political influence.”
In October 2023, a federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Georgia to redraw the state congressional map with an additional majority-Black district and to redraw the state legislative maps with seven additional majority-Black districts. The judge also rejected the state’s argument that Section 2 of the VRA does not have a private right of action, which allows citizens to file lawsuits against discriminatory redistricting maps.
The U.S. Department of Justice intervened under the Biden administration in November 2023 to defend the constitutionality of Section 2 and private right of action. The Trump administration has now continued to support this argument. Without Section 2, only the U.S. Attorney General would be able to bring Section 2 cases, which would “effectively gut” the VRA.
No ruling has been made yet.
North Carolina Electoral Race Will Remain Uncertified as Lawsuit Continues
The North Carolina Supreme Court has dismissed GOP candidate Jefferson Griffin’s petition, which challenged over 60,000 ballots cast in his November 2024 race. Griffin lost to incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs by more than 700 votes.
The court’s decision stated that the Wake County Superior Court must hear this lawsuit before the state supreme court weighs in on the case. Griffin’s petition challenges three categories of ballots, all of which were previously rejected by North Carolina’s State Board of Elections. These three categories include ballots cast by overseas voters who did not submit a copy of their photo IDs, voters who did not reside in North Carolina prior to the 2024 general election, and individuals “whose voter registrations were allegedly incomplete.” The North Carolina Supreme Court’s earlier order halting certification of this electoral race will remain in place until the legal matters have concluded.
The state’s Board of Elections and Justice Riggs had removed the case to federal court, but a judge remanded the case back to the state supreme court. The state board then appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It is unclear whether the 4th Circuit will still hear oral arguments regarding the appeal to keep this case in federal court.
Three additional legal actions (involving the three categories of ballots) were filed by Griffin in Wake County Superior Court in December. The state supreme court ordered the lower court to “proceed expeditiously” in these actions, which will likely be appealed to the highest court in the future. The state’s board attempted to move these actions to federal court as well, but the same federal judge remanded these cases to state court. The board also appealed this order to the 4th Circuit, but oral argument has not yet been scheduled.
UPCOMING EVENTS
New York “American Community Survey” Census Conference
January 28, 2025- Census” “ACS On the Road” – Join New York Law School, New York Counts, the Population Reference Bureau, New York City Planning Department, and the U.S. Census Bureau to learn how different data users in New York City use American Community Survey (ACS) data. We will conclude with small breakout sessions where you will have the opportunity to interact with Census Bureau staff and share what you need to better use ACS data in your own work. The event will be held at New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, Manhattan from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Registration is required. You can register here: https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/qnqo80v1iobqqa/
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 and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice, Jarret Berg, Alexis Marking & Alexis Lanzilotti.
