New York Election News

September 29, 2026

New York Election Law News This week:-Election Law Litigation Deadlines-Brooklyn Democrats’ Leadership Fight Continues in Appellate Division-Webinar on New York Voting Rights Act-Attorney General’s Preclearance Activity-Test Census Raises Concerns-Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network)

ELECTIONS

Second Department Decision Reaffirms New York Election Law’s Strict Time Limits for Litigation​ By: Joseph T. Burns In a September 14, 2026, decision, the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department, reaffirmed the strict and unforgiving time limits for commencing election litigation under Article 16 of the Election Law. The appeal decided by the Second Department concerned a proceeding to validate a designating petition for a candidate for the party position of member of the Republican county committee in Suffolk County. This party position was to be elected at the June 24, 2025, primary election. The candidate’s designating petition was invalidated by the Suffolk County Board of Elections on April 17, 2025. It wasn’t until August 17, 2025, however, that the candidate commenced a judicial proceeding to validate her designating petition. Proceedings to validate a designating petition are governed by Election Law Section 16-102 and must be commenced within the very short time constraints found in that section of law. To institute a proceeding to validate a designating petition, a candidate has only fourteen days from the last day to file his or her designating petition or three business days from the time a board of elections invalidates the designating petition, whichever is later. The candidate in this proceeding styled it as a hybrid Election Law Article 16 and CPLR Article 78 proceeding. But because this is a proceeding to validate a designating petition, the candidate was required to commence this proceeding within the time permitted by Election Law Article 16 and not the more generous time limits of CPLR Article 78. The Second Department also noted that even if the board of elections did not notify the candidate of her petition’s invalidation within the time required by the Election Law, the candidate would have become aware of the invalidation before primary day. The proceeding, however, was not even commenced until almost two months after primary day. This also was not within the time permitted under Election Law Section 16-102 to challenge the outcome of a primary election. The time limitations for Election Law proceedings under Article 16 are some of the shortest in all of New York law. Many election cases never reach a hearing on the merits because a petitioner fails to comply with the time constraints of Article 16. While this Second Department decision concerned the time limits on a proceeding to validate a designating petition, these strict time limitations also impact other types of election cases.  For instance, Election Law Section 16-106 addresses judicial proceedings on challenges to the casting and canvassing of votes. Under this section, the time allowed for challenging a board of elections’ decision to not canvass an absentee or early mail ballot is only twenty days from the election or from the time the board of elections made its decision. With the 2026 election right around the corner, candidates, consultants, and party leaders will want to be cognizant of all of the time limitations contained in this section of the Election Law.The Second Department’s recent decision provides an important reminder that Election Law disputes that are likely to lead to litigation require immediate attention. The deadlines governing Election Law Article 16 proceedings are often measured in days, not weeks or months, and the failure to commence a proceeding within the limited time allowed by the statute will almost certainly leave a court no choice but to dismiss the proceeding. Candidates, campaign staff, consultants, and party leaders should consult counsel before an issue arises so that applicable deadlines can be identified and available remedies preserved. Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the Holtzman Vogel law firm’s New York office. https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns

ELECTION LITIGATION

Brooklyn Democratic Leadership Fight Continues in State Appellate Division Courtroom Brooklyn Democratic Party: Julio Pena III et al v. Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn et al On September 15th , the respondent-appellants  Brooklyn Democrats filed their notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department after the State Supreme Court declared the August 25th vote and its resulting rule amendments a nullity, while issuing permanent injunction that restrained the respondents from implementing those changes and prohibited outgoing members from exercising authority on substantial matters moving forward. The Appellate Division stayed the decision and set an order to show cause for both parties on September 16th.On September 16, oral arguments were held before Justices Linda Christopher, Helen Voutsinas, and Elena Goldberg Valazquez, who appeared skeptical of Democatic leadership’s position (argued by their Law Committee Chair Anthony Genovesi, Jr.)  that if an official’s term end date passed at the primary, according to the state Election Law, it still preserves their voting authority during the interim window. Justice Connelly noted that if election loss or term expirarion does not strip a former official of their power to vote, there would be no logical boundary preventing long-past elected officials from returning to vote whenever needed. Petitioners-respondents’ attorney characterized the committee as a “caretaker government” meant to make basic, routine operations until a newly elected body takes office, not make sweeping substantive changes. The parties also filed memorandums of law in support and opposition.  The Democratic Party Petitioner-Respondents, in their opposition to the respondent-appellants motion to stay, argued that if the stay remains in effect, the county Democratic Committee would be permitted to hold its organizational meeting on September 23 under the newly amended rules that the lower court declared “a nullity.” Further, this would allow the party chair to pack leadership with appointed, unelected seats. Thus, the petitioner-respondents requested the Appellate Division to deny a stay, vacate the temporary stay, and potentially postpone the organizational meeting to October 6th to allow for adequate appellate review.Substantively, petitioners-respondents’ brief argues that the Appellate Division should affirm the trial court’s ruling because once the incumbent committee members lost their seats or declined to run, their terms ended and so did their voting authority. Further, restricting former members from voting on substantial rule changes does not prevent the party from organizing, or conducting lawful business under its established rules. Also, the controversy was ripe because it challenged an already completed and final vote, and individual members who voted “yes” were not necessary parties. Respondent-appellants’ brief argues that the lower court’s judgment should be reversed because the state Election Law grants “all legal authority” to the existing county committee, not just for substantial matters, since that would create a four-month period of governance vacuum where no critical actions could be taken. Further, the county party Executive Committee is governed by party rules, not statute. Also, the petitioners did not present their objections to the Committee before suing, thus the controversy is not ripe, and individual members who voted “yes,” and the officers whose voting rights were affected were necessary parties. On September 18th, attorney for NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, congressional candidate Brad Lander, and county committee member George Albro requested permission to submit amicus briefs. The request argued that the appeal raises an issue of first impression affecting party governance, thus amici would bring institutional and first-hand perspectives on citywide governance, as an active member, and Brooklyn resident. Further, the amici would not be any expansion to litigation and would simply be assisting the court. Because the Appellate Division did not issue a final decision prior to the September 23rd organizational meeting, the stay remained in effect throughout the event, permitting the party to elect new leadership under the amendments that the lower court found unlawful. At the September 23rd  meeting, Chair Rodneyse Bichotte was absent, leaving District Leader Anthony Beckford to preside. The NY Law Journal reported that the meeting devolved into anger and confusion, with Chair Beckford ignoring multiple motions to reconvene, pushing forward with candidate elections. The meeting ended after the final vote passed to ratify the controversial August 25 rule amendments.Election attorney Paul Newell indicated that a new lawsuit is likely to follow.

N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT

Webinar- Wednesday, September 30 at 6:30 PM Empire State of Mind: the New York State Voting Rights Act The Let NY Vote coalition is hosting aa virtual educational discussion to learn about the Voting Rights Act, how it impacts communities’ access to vote, and how to fight to ensure a multiracial democracy perseveres. The educational discussion will be moderated by Jeffrey M. Wice of the N.Y. Elections Census & Redistricting Institute, New York Law School, and will feature the following speakers:Perry Grossman – New York Civil Liberties UnionJerry Vattamala – Office of the New York State Attorney GeneralDavid Imamura – Abrams Fensterman, LLP To register, use this link: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/__hpHKUYSNqQW1SfybnQdQ#/registration N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance 1863 Orange County Board of Elections- poll site locations- under review 1803 Erie County Board of Election- poll site locations- granted All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/

CENSUS & REDISTRICTING

Watchdog Raises Concerns Over Just-Ended Census Tests In Alabama and South Carolina by Mike Schneider The U.S. Census Bureau’s watchdog already has some concerns about what took place this summer in Huntsville, Alabama and Spartanburg, South Carolina during the first on-the-ground test of methods that will be used for the 2030 census. The Office of Inspector General this week issued a management alert over what its investigators found during a June evaluation. The red flags were over how some census takers used their personal phones to locate homes and how they didn’t always stick to the script when knocking on doors and asking questions. This was also the first time that some postal carriers were used as census takers along their routes, an innovation that was limited to Spartanburg. The United States Postal Service initially didn’t allow the investigators with the Office of Inspector General to observe the postal carriers conducting census business in June but later gave them access in August. In Huntsville, postal workers were used as temporary, part-time bureau employees but not while conducting their postal duties. The census takers were sent out to knock on the doors of homes whose residents didn’t respond to the census questionnaire online. The census takers were given bureau-issued mobile phones to take down the information that residents gave them about their demographic backgrounds. The phones had mapping capabilities and allowed the census takers to set their schedules and report mileage expenses. The bureau-issued phones, however, didn’t do a good job of locating homes, and so several census takers used mapping apps on their personal phones to find the homes. While that may not have violated privacy laws, the use of personal phones can undermine the public’s trust that their information is secure, according to the Inspector General’s report. During interviews at homes, several census takers didn’t stick to the script. They didn’t read questions verbatim and didn’t provide an information sheet explaining that respondents’ answers were confidential. “Not reading questions verbatim increases the risk of inaccurate or unreliable data being collected,” the Inspector General’s report said. “When enumerators do not highlight the confidentiality of responses, households may be reluctant to provide complete responses to questions or skip some questions entirely.”All in all, these issues were minor compared to much larger concerns that have loomed over the 2026 test. For starters, the Trump administration decided to use a lengthy survey on American life, the American Community Survey, which includes a citizenship question, rather than the shorter traditional census questionnaire, signaling its renewed effort to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the head count. The modern-day U.S. census form doesn’t ask about citizenship and hasn’t for 75 years. But a now-deceased Republican redistricting expert had argued that Republicans and non-Hispanic whites get an advantage if only U.S. citizens who are age 18 and older are counted when redrawing congressional and state legislative districts, instead of the total population. The longer questionnaire took 40 minutes to fill out compared to 10 minutes for the shorter one. Many residents in Spartanburg thought the questions were too invasive and confusing since the American Community Survey probes respondents on more than 40 topics including the appliances in their home, the type of health insurance they have and their education and income levels.The Trump administration also eliminated four other planned locations for the 2026 test — Colorado Springs, Colorado, western North Carolina, western Texas and tribal lands in Arizona. The field test gives the statistical agency the chance to learn how to better tally populations that were undercounted during the last census. Earlier this month, though, the Trump administration made public a proposed rule change that would restrict unauthorized immigrants and those in the U.S. without a green card from the 2030 census numbers used to redraw congressional districts and possibly ask about a person’s legal status on the census form. The proposed change has census advocates worried that millions of residents won’t be counted. The head count determines how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state gets, as well as how $2.8 trillion in federal funding is distributed annually. The Inspector General’s office asked the Census Bureau to comment on their concerns, but the agency provided none. Mike Schneider is a former Associated Press reporter who writes on census issues.

AROUND THE NATION

From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) September 20: Missouri AG Hanaway has dropped her lawsuit seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from the 2030 Census and to redo the 2020 Census and 2021 apportionment. — @RedistrictNet [from X] September 21: House Speaker Mike Johnson’s PAC is pouring $250,000 into Colorado’s Amendment 86, a measure to make redrawing congressional districts outside the normal census cycle harder. — @RedistrictNet [from X] September 25: The US Supreme Court stayed the Eighth Circuit and district court orders requiring Missouri to use its 2025 congressional map. Missouri will use its 2022 map in November. The Court told lower courts not to block the 2022 map or require the 2025 map. — @RedistrictNet [from X] September 27: The Redistrict Network is tracking the following redistricting measures on the November 2026 ballot: Missouri Proposition A, Maryland Question 3, and Colorado Amendment 86. — @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 pagehere: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/ Archived Updates can be accessedhere: 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.eduThe 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, Cecilia Neff & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.

NY Elections, Census and Redistricting Update 09/08/26

September 8, 2026

This week: Brooklyn Democrats’ Rules Change Goes Back to Court; Good Government Groups Affirm Commitment to Election Integrity; State Board of Elections Adopts Rules for Ballot Drop Boxes; N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board Releases Post-2025 Election Report; Onondaga County Legislature Approves Term Limits Compromise; Free CLE on Voting Rights Tonight; Attorney General’s Preclearance Activity; Census Bureau Removes Bar Against Partisan Influence; Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network); Maryland Court Permits New Redistricting Amendment for A Vote

ELECTIONS

Brooklyn Democrats Change Rules and Go Back to Court

Julio Pena III et al v. Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn et al

As a continuation of last week’s update on the legal challenge to Kings County Democratic Chair Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn’s effort to change party rules adding dozens of additional voting members to the executive committee following primary election victories by progressive reformers led by the New Kings Democrats and the “Brooklyn Can’t Wait” coalition gaining a majority to elect longtime district leader Julio Peña as the new chair this fall; the county party respondents filed their memo of law in opposition on September 2, arguing the following:

1) Petitioners bear a heightened burden for the drastic, mandatory relief they seek because they are asking the Court to strip effect from amendments already adopted and filed and to dictate who may vote going forward, which is a mandatory injunction that is rarely granted.

2) Election Law § 2-112(1)(B) grants the existing County Committee all legal authority through the organizational meeting because the new committee assumes authority only “upon conclusion” of that meeting. Further the election law explicitly lists making and changing rules as one of the main powers given to “the committee.” Also, respondent points out that in 2019 the New York legislature amended the Election Law to state explicitly that the old committee keeps “all legal authority” until the new committee officially organizes.

3) There is settled New York case law allowing a political party’s full county committee to delegate its powers to its executive committee, specifically authority to amend rules by majority vote whenever the full County Committee is not in session, provided five days notice is given. The petitioners bear the burden of proving that the full County Committee was “actually in session” at the time, and if not, the Executive Committee’s actions are legally valid.

4) Generally, courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of a political party, absent inconsistent statutory directives.

5) Petitioners cannot manufacture an actual controversy by staying silent before the Committee, when the Committee might well have agreed and declined to adopt the amendment, and instead asking Court to resolve it in the first instance.

At their originally scheduled order to show cause on September 2, Brooklyn Democratic Party Law Chair Anthony Genovesi Jr. on behalf of the defendants, asked the judge to grant three individuals named in the suit, Anthony Beckford, Arleny Alvardo-McCall, and Heriberto Mateo, additional time to obtain counsel.

The parties were given an additional day; however, the hearing was postponed again for procedural reasons.

The order to show cause was moved to and will be held in Brooklyn Supreme Court on September 8th

Good Government Groups Affirm Commitment to Election Integrity

Voting news has been dominating the airwaves this week. Several courts are considering challenges to President Trumps’ effort to have the U.S. Postal Service screen mail-in ballots based on information provided by election officials.

This follows news from Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal’s announcement that the Post Office is drafting plans that could disenfranchise thousands of voters. CNN also reports that the Department of Homeland Security will looking into voter fraud in several states, including New York.

In New York, groups including Citizens Union, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, NYPIRG, ReInvent Albany and the New York City Bar Association have released a statement urging candidates for federal and state office to affirm the importance and integrity of the state’s upcoming elections progress. The statement reads:

We urge New York’s candidates for federal and state office to join in a bipartisan effort affirming the importance and the integrity of the outcome of the state’s upcoming elections. Every elected official swears to support and defend the federal and state Constitutions. That promise hinges on a commitment to abide by the certified results of elections, without regard to party or power. Comments by candidates for office that echo assertions – without evidence – that previous elections have been “stolen,” or otherwise raise such concerns, undermine that commitment.

New York has a robust election security system that allows challenges to election results and contains mechanisms for the audits of results and recounts. For example, many of our groups fought for and won a requirement in state law that election integrity be underpinned by paper ballots that can be counted in the event of a challenge.

Thus, we urge that candidates for New York office safeguard the integrity of the state elections by:

● providing poll workers and election officials the space to do their jobs while conducting monitoring of polls and processes consistent with the requirements in state election law;

● defending the process of state certification;

● recognizing the election winners certified under New York’s law;

● opposing efforts to undermine elections or override those outcomes; and

● serving as a responsible voice affirming the integrity of New York’s election results and challenging those seeking to undermine those results. Since the beginning of the nation, New York’s electeds have honored the decisions by voters regardless of who prevails. New York’s candidates for office must commit to that principle ahead of the 2026 elections — defending state certification, recognizing certified winners, and opposing any effort to cast doubt on the integrity of New York’s system.

State Board of Elections Adopts Regulations On Ballot Drop Boxes

The State Board of Elections adopted regulations last week to permit local election. boards to provide unstaffed ballot drop boxes to make voting more efficient if certain requirements are met, including requirements that ballots can be collected daily and on election night by a by a bipartisan team of bipartisan officials and that ballot drop boxes can be placed indoors out outside and under video surveillance.

The new policy will not apply to this year’s elections.

N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board Releases 2025 Post-Election Report

The New York City Campaign Finance Board released its 2025 Post-Election Report last week.

According to the Board, “As turnout surged in the 2025 New York City municipal elections, candidates had more small-dollar contributors supporting them on average than in past years, and the median contribution size was just $50 – all while independent spenders poured a record-breaking $83.2 million into the field, more than double the amount from 2021. While the mayoral election result proved small-dollar contributions in publicly financed elections can stand up against historic levels of big money, New York City could still update campaign finance laws to reflect fundraising in the digital age and ensure adequate disclosure and accountability of independent spenders and their activity.

These new data, analysis, and recommendations come from the New York City Campaign Finance Board’s Post-Election Report, which examines how money animated the 2025 city elections – including everyday New Yorkers making small contributions, the city’s public matching funds program, campaign spending, and the major corporations and wealthy individuals who contributed to historic independent spending.”

From the report:

Program participation

Candidate participation in the matching funds program has remained high over recent election cycles. 82.9% of candidates who qualified for the ballot participated in the program in 2025, including all mayoral and comptroller candidates. 80.7% of candidates reported that public funds were important to their decision to run, underscoring the critical role that the program plays in enabling candidates to run competitive campaigns even if they lack access to wealthy contributors, party leaders, lobbyists, or special interest groups.

Individual contributions

In the 2025 election cycle, campaigns received 244,401 individual contributions totaling $41.1 million. Small-dollar contributions remained the foundation of candidate fundraising accounting for 88.2% of all contributions, and the median contribution was $50. 78.2% of all individual contributions came from New York City residents. The average New York City contribution amount was $150, though this varied across the city. These contributions demonstrate the continued importance of small donors in financing city elections and reflect the role of the matching funds program in encouraging candidates to seek broad-based support from New York City residents.

Public funds

The CFB distributed $86.8 million in public funds to 131 candidates in 2025. Mayoral candidates received $50.2 million, or 57.8% of all public funds distributed, reflecting both the full participation of qualified mayoral candidates in the program and the higher public funds cap for that office. City council candidates received the second-largest share, at $18.6 million.

Campaign spending

Campaigns spent $123.5 million across all races in the 2025 election cycle on goods and services such as staff, advertising, voter outreach, and administrative costs. Mayoral campaigns spent $72.2 million, accounting for 58.5% of all campaign spending. Total spending remained high in both the primary and general elections, with candidates spending $68.2 million in the primary and $55.3 million in the general election. The unusually high level of general-election spending distinguished 2025 from prior municipal cycles. In a typical New York City election, spending declines substantially after the primary election. In 2025, however, the competitive mayoral general election sustained spending through November.

The report can be accessed here: https://www.nyccfb.info/media/reports/2025-post-election-report/

LEGISLATION

Onondaga County Legislators Approve Term Limit Compromise

Onondaga County legislators voted to place two term limits options on the November ballot following a standoff between the GOP county executive and the Democratic county legislature. As reported previously, County Executive Ryan McMahon approved a term limits law he later tried to unsuccessfully claw back from being approved. The compromise would allow voters to vote on two different ballot options. One would took the first step toward a proposed compromise to fix a bungled local law establishing term limits for the county’s top elected positions.

Legislators voted unanimously to put two options for term limits for the county comptroller and county executive on November’s ballot. One would permit the county executive and county comptroller to run for three terms of four years, or a total of 12 years; and another would permit four terms of four years, for 16 years. The compromise legislation now goes back to the county executive to approve the questions after he holds a public hearing on it.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Free Voting Rights CLE Session- September 8th at 6:30 PM

The New York Democratic Lawyers Council (NYDLC) is offering a free CLE session to present a discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent Callais and Watson decisions, the current state of the Rule of Law as applied to voting rights and the Voting Rights Act, and on the future of voting rights. Panelists include: Abha Khanna – Partner, Elias Law Group – Arthur Mitchell – Director of Litigation and Policy, National Redistricting Foundation – Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky – Co-Executive Director, New York State Board of Elections – Jeff Wice – Distinguished Adjunct Professor & Senior Fellow, NY Law School – Alejandra Pollak – Voter Protection Director, New York State Democratic Committee This course is a two (2) hour program offering 2 NYS professional practice CLE Credits to attorneys who attend, and is appropriate for newly-admitted and experienced attorneys.

Register here: https://www.mobilize.us/nyvoterprotection/event/990487/

N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE

N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance

1661 New York City Board of Elections poll site locations- granted

1722 New York City Board of Elections (Brooklyn)- poll site locations- additional information needed- under review

1762 Monroe County Board of Elections poll site locations- under review

1664 Onondaga County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted

All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/

CENSUS

Census Bureau Removes Bar Against Partisan Influence

The stability of the Census Bureau is now being called into question after the Trump administration made an unannounced policy revision that removed language protecting against political interference from the Commerce Department’s scientific integrity policy. According to NPR, a policy revision dated August 19 no longer includes language protecting against “inappropriate influence” in the scientific findings produced by the department’s agencies. Former Census Bureau officials and other data experts worry that the Trump administration is making quiet moves that could undermine the independence of a key statistical agency.

The Commerce Department’s 2025 policy stated that its mission included “ensuring scientific findings at its agencies ‘are not suppressed, delayed, or altered for political purposes and are not subjected to inappropriate influence,’” as well as ensuring “independent review of facilities, methodologies, and other scientific activities as appropriate to ensure scientific integrity.” According to NPR, that language is now missing from the Trump administration’s revision of the policy.

Most of the public may not be familiar with the Commerce Department’s scientific integrity policy to begin with. However, NPR interviewed Nancy Potok, a former deputy director at the Census Bureau, who sees the removal of this language as “a major change that eliminates the guardrails against political interference in the statistical and scientific data products of the department.” She also stated that “the fact that there is a conscious effort to revise the department administrative orders [. . .] instead of going in the other direction, is definitely troubling and needs some explanation.”

This is not the first effort by the Trump administration that has raised concerns about the integrity of the Census Bureau. In June 2026, the administration banned the bureau from using a data privacy protection technique that the agency had used for decades to keep track of local areas, small populations, and rural communities. Because of this ban, estimates from the American Community Survey may be affected, and the amount of statistical information the bureau can release about rural communities could be reduced.

AROUND THE NATION

From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)

August 31: A conservative ballot initiative to shore up the Colorado congressional redistricting commission and add language on mid-decade redistricting has been placed on the November ballot. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

September 3: The Missouri Supreme Court ruled the state constitution permits a referendum on a congressional redistricting map passed by the legislature.

The 2022 congressional map governs the November 2026 election. HB 1 takes effect only if voters approve it. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

September 3: Maryland’s Supreme Court just ruled Question 3, the state’s redistricting amendment, stays on the November ballot, but ordered the state to scrap the ballot language and swap in the amendment’s official purpose text. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

September 3: MO Attorney General Catherine Hanaway says the state will immediately appeal the Missouri redistricting referendum decision to the US Supreme Court. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

Maryland Supreme Court Permits Congressional Redistricting Amendment To Move Forward

The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled on September 3 that a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting will appear on the November ballot, reversing two circuit courts that had blocked it. The amendment would supersede a 2022 circuit court ruling by Judge Lynne Battaglia that applied the Maryland Constitution’s compactness and contiguity requirements to congressional districts for the first time, standards previously understood to govern only state legislative districts. Senate President Bill Ferguson cited that ruling when he declined to have a Senate vote on a House-passed congressional map in February. The amendment (HB 2100) is intended to remove the legal obstacle from the 2022 ruling.

The General Assembly passed House Bill 2100 during the August special session, with Democratic supermajorities in both chambers approving it along party lines. Days later, Republican legislators filed two challenges, one in Annapolis and one in Cambridge. In fast-tracked rulings in late August, judges in Anne Arundel and Dorchester counties found legal deficiencies in the legislature’s process and missed statutory deadlines, and identified violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Both courts enjoined the question from the ballot, and both rulings were immediately appealed.

The Maryland high court agreed with the lower courts on the central point but disagreed on the remedy. In an eight-page order for the majority, Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader concluded that the ballot question as written by the General Assembly “is misleading and therefore violates due process requirements,” faulting in particular its reference to “applicable federal laws” as the criteria for determining congressional boundaries. But the majority held that the circuit judges were wrong to enjoin the question and instead rewrote it. The revised Question 3 tells voters the amendment would clarify that certain requirements apply only to state Senate and House of Delegates districts, authorize the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over congressional districting plans, and provide “that nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.” The majority also rejected the lower courts’ findings that the legislature missed a legal deadline and improperly combined two subjects in one question. The court majority and a dissenting judge both indicated fuller opinions would follow. The amendment will be on the November 3 ballot for voter approval.

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, Cecilia Neff, Michelle Davis of Redistricting Online & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.

New York Election Law News Update

August 17, 2026New York Election Law News This week:-Trump Administration Considers Sweeping Census & Redistricting Data Changes-NYC Speaker Menin Appoints 2030 Census Task Force-Will Onondaga County Considers Compromise on Term Limits?-MEC Offers Census Bureau Redistricting Data Training-NYS Voting Rights Act Preclearnace-Around The NationCENSUSTrump Administration Considers Sweeping Changes to 2030 Census & Redistricting Potential sweeping changes to the 2030 decennial census are under Trump administration review and could affect the accuracy of the census count, congressional apportionment, census data blocks for redistricting, and the data that we all rely on to improve peoples’ lives. Two policy issues are being actively considered: a citizenship question on the census and changes to how race and ethnicity data are collected. A leaked draft rule suggests the administration may be moving on both issues at once, in a more far-reaching way than expected. If adopted as leaked, it would: ·      For the first time, exclude broad categories of noncitizens from the count used to allocate congressional seats – not just undocumented immigrants, but potentially international students, H-1B visa holders, and other lawfully present noncitizens (the draft rule leaves key terms undefined). ·      Stop collecting race and ethnicity data on the census altogether – something the census has done in some form since the first count in 1790. ·      Jeopardize the ability of the Census Bureau to produce census blocks necessary for redistricting technology and mapping   Where Things Stand On June 25, the Commerce Department and Census Bureau sent a proposed rule (Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. OMB recently circulated the draft within the government and Talking Points Memo obtained and published a copy of the draft. It is possible that the review process will result in changes to the proposed rule. If the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments. (Agencies are required to provide at least 30 days.) After the public comment period concludes, the Commerce Department will publish a final rule. Again, the final rule could be different than the proposal.  How It Works The first Trump administration attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, even though the Census Bureau found that adding such a question would impact response rates and data accuracy. That effort was stopped by the Supreme Court, and subsequent efforts using presidential directives to exclude undocumented individuals from congressional apportionment also failed. The leaked rule takes a different approach by rewriting who counts as a “resident,” arguing that some subsets of noncitizens “are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.” The draft therefore concludes that anyone from a foreign country who isn’t a lawful permanent resident, an “approved asylee,” or an “approved refugee” – terms the draft does not define – should not be counted for congressional apportionment. It also argues that excluding some subsets of noncitizens from the apportionment count is legal, notwithstanding the constitutional requirement to count the “whole number of persons in each State.” The leaked rule does not describe a process by which the Census Bureau would identify and exclude subsets of undocumented individuals from the apportionment count.  On Demographic DataThe leaked rule also says, “No question about race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation shall appear on the short form decennial census questionnaire or any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population.” Questions on biological sex, date of birth, household relationship, and the new residence criteria (including, potentially, a citizenship question) may still be asked. The draft would allow the restricted demographic questions to be asked on the American Community Survey and other surveys “not used for the enumeration of the population.”  On Redistricting The proposals reach redistricting on two tracks. Excluding noncitizens from the apportionment base would shift House seats and Electoral College votes among the states. Ending collection of race and ethnicity data would remove the block-level demographic detail used to draw districts and to litigate claims under the Voting Rights Act and many state laws. Losing race and ethnicity data on the census would be an unprecedented gap. These data are used in many ways, including to understand how the country’s population is changing over time; track health outcomes, life expectancy, and disease prevention; enforce anti-discrimination laws; and allocate federal funds. The administration and Supreme Court are attempting to change how these data are used in redistricting and voting rights enforcement, but such data have been essential to civil rights enforcement.  Comments The Commerce Department submitted the underlying rulemaking request in June 2026, and the proposal remains in White House review, where interested parties may request a meeting under Executive Order 12866 before a rule is drafted for publication. A July briefing on the potential proposed rule hosted by the Association of Public Data Users, the Population Reference Bureau, et al. can be viewed here. This information is based on a leaked draft and could change substantially before – or if – it’s formally proposed. But it signals potentially profound changes to the 2030 Census and warrants close attention. We will continue to monitor the process and share updates, including information about opportunities for public comment, as they become available. Speaker Julie Menin Announces Launch of New Council-led Census Taskforce New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin and civic engagement leaders this week announced the launch of a new Census Taskforce and convened for the group’s inaugural meeting. In early preparation for the 2030 Census, the New York City Council Census Taskforce is bringing together community leaders, census experts, advocates, researchers, faith leaders, labor representatives, and civic institutions to inform the work of the newly established Office of the Census. Taskforce co-chairs, in addition to Speaker Menin, include: L. Joy Williams, President, NAACP New York State Conference Emely Paez, Associate Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, United Way of New York City Jeffrey M. Wice, Director, New York Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute, and Distinguished Adjunct Professor & Senior Fellow, New York Law School Over the course of the next year, the Taskforce will meet, conduct research and community outreach, hear feedback, and produce a report with best practices and recommendations to help New York City achieve the most complete, accurate, and inclusive census count in City history and establish the infrastructure necessary for a successful 2030 Census.The newly established Office of the Census was spearheaded by Speaker Menin and signed into law last November, with the intent of maximizing local participation in the federal census. The goal is to start this work early to reach and engage communities across the city and educate about the importance of the Census—particularly among groups that have been historically undercounted. “The Census determines everything from how much federal funding New York receives to our representation in Congress, which is why we can’t afford to wait until 2029 to begin preparing,” said Speaker Julie Menin. “That’s why we’re launching this Taskforce nearly four years ahead of the count and bringing together the trusted leaders who are best positioned to reach every possible New Yorker. Having led NYC Census 2020, I know that achieving a complete count takes years of planning, deep community partnerships, and vigilance against efforts like proposed citizenship question that are designed to discourage participation. Every New Yorker counts, and we’ll keep fighting to ensure every community receives the representation and resources it deserves.” This effort is a continuation of an ongoing push from the City Council for proactive planning and investment ahead of the next count, to ensure New York receives an appropriate share of federal funding and Congressional representation. This initiative also continues to push back against the Trump administration’s effort to include a citizenship question in the testing phase of the 2030 Census, which, if inserted into the Census, would discourage participation from New York City’s diverse communities and undermine efforts to count every New Yorker. In April, Speaker Menin and New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a joint letter to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick expressing their strong opposition to the inclusion of the citizenship question in census field tests, a likely precursor to including them in the 2030 Census. In 2019, Attorney General James successfully defeated the first Trump administration’s attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census after a months-long legal battle that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Speaker Menin served as the Director of NYC Census 2020, in which New York City saw the highest self-response rate compared with other major cities. The City gained over 620,000 new residents, accounting for a majority of the state’s population growth since 2010. “For New York City—the census is not just an administrative task. It is a high-stakes battle ground. Every single response dictates our political weight, our economic share, and our local quality of life. And the census count has never been more threatened as it faces threats and promises of a citizenship question, limited language outreach, fewer enumerator visits, poorer national planning, insufficient testing, a shortage of funds, the specter of federal agents interfering- the list goes on,” said Jeffrey M. Wice, Director of New York Law School’s New York Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute and Distinguished Adjunct Professsor & Senior Fellow. “The census is not about politics in the partisan sense. It is about equity, visibility, and justice. It ensures our children have textbooks in their schools; it ensures our seniors have hot meals and reliable healthcare; it ensures our roads are safe and our transit systems function; and it ensures that when decisions are made in the halls of Congress, Albany, and City Hall, New Yorkers have a full team at the table fighting for our city. Every New Yorker matters. Every community counts. Let us work together to make sure every single New Yorker is included.” “For Black communities, the Census is not just a statistical count, it is the bedrock of our political power and civic infrastructure. This new Census Taskforce in New York City ensures that our communities are not erased through lines drawn on a map or shortchanged in city, state, and federal funding,” said L. Joy Williams, President of the NAACP New York State Conference. “As NAACP New York State Conference prepares for the next decade and the 2030 redistricting cycle, we refuse to enter the fight for resources and representation just hoping to be heard. We are moving Black New York Forward using undeniable data to be decisive and guarantee that Black New Yorkers are accurately counted and our communities and institutions are adequately resourced.” “A complete 2030 Census begins with trust. At United Way of New York City, we know that people are more likely to participate when they feel informed, respected, and confident that their voices matter,” said Emely Paez, Associate Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at United Way of New York City. “An accurate Census is essential to ensuring that our communities have the resources and representation they need. I am honored to serve as Co-Chair of the Census Task Force and grateful to Speaker Julie Menin and the New York City Council for this appointment. I look forward to working with partners across the city to build trust, strengthen participation, and help ensure no community is overlooked in the 2030 Census.”ELECTIONSOnondaga County Term Limits Remains In Court While Compromise is Considered Democrats and Republicans in Onondaga County may meet In an effort resolve the term limits ballot question standoff. Democrats argue that County Executive Ryan McMahon’s approval of a term limits ballot question was a final action (despite McMahon’s effort to clawback his approval), the county executive is offering to move forward with two competing term limit laws, one for three terms and another for four terms. According to a state precedent, if two competing ballot questions are placed before the voters, the one with the most votes would win. However, the ballot question sponsors would have to clearly indicate the purpose and sponsors of the measures. UPCOMING EVENTSLearn About the Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program The DuBois Bunche Center at Medgar Evers College, in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau, invites you to join an upcoming virtual webinar: – Thursday, August 20, 2026- 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM (ET) Via ZOOM- Guest Speaker: James Whitehorne, U.S. Census Bureau This session will introduce the U.S. Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program and its role in supporting fair representation through the 2030 Census. Participants will learn about the program’s mission, key initiatives, and collaboration with states to meet redistricting needs. Topics include:Block Boundary Suggestion ProjectVoting District ProjectPhased delivery of 2030 Census redistricting dataThis webinar is ideal for community leaders, educators, students, researchers, public officials, and anyone interested in the intersection of Census data, voting rights, and redistricting. Registration is free. Please register by using this registration link:https://forms.gle/hJHV32cV46b682ka7nt is a god ida, while 44% think it’sN.Y.S. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE 1641 Albany County Board of Elections- poll site locations- under review 1722 New York City Board of Elections (Kings)- poll site locations- under review All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/ AROUND THE NATIONFrom The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) August 11: During Ohio’s 2020 redistricting cycle, the state Supreme Court quietly weighed transferring the Redistricting Commission’s duties down the line of succession, but ultimately declined to take that path. — @RedistrictNet [from X ] August 11: Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Powell has written a letter requesting that a trial court fast-track the lawsuit that will decide whether the congressional redistricting referendum reaches the Nov. 3 ballot. State law bars any additions to the ballot after Sept. 8, so the courts have only weeks to resolve it. — @RedistrictNet [from X] August 14: The Mississippi NAACP and ACLU have filed an emergency TRO to stop Secretary of State Michael Watson from reverting the state’s legislative districts from the 2025 maps back to the old 2022 lines. A hearing on the underlying dispute over which maps are in effect is set for August 28. Candidates begin qualifying for those elections in January 2027. — @RedistrictNet [from X] August 14: The Texas Supreme Court has denied an emergency motion to stop Galveston County from using a different redistricting map for the general election than the one used in the primaries. Plaintiffs have since refiled the emergency motion in the Texas Court of Appeals — @RedistrictNet [from X] August 15: The trial for the Missouri congressional redistricting referendum has been postponed to Wednesday, August 19, at 10am. — @RedistrictNet [from X]INSTITUTE RESOURCESThe 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 pagehere: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/ Archived Updates can be accessedhere: 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.eduThe 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, & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet and Michelle Davis of Redistricting Online.

NY Elections, Census and Redistricting Update 08/10/26

August 11, 2026

This week: Onondaga County Term Limits Goes to Court; MEC Offers Census Bureau Redistricting Data Training; Controversial Election Proposals Facing Albany in 2027; Security Cameras at the Polls?; Onondaga County Term Limits Compromise?; Around The Nation

VOTING RIGHTS

The Future of State Voting Rights Acts

by Michael Pernick, Senior Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund

The rapid growth of State Voting Rights Acts (“State VRAs”) has become one of the most significant developments in election law over the past decade. In every year since 2018, except for the pandemic year of 2020, at least one new state has enacted a State VRA to protect the right to vote. Recently, State VRAs have been passed in 11 states, including New Jersey and Delaware, which both passed State VRAs on June 30.

Following the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the American Association of Law Schools (“AALS”) Section on Election Law recently put out a call for papers requesting scholarship on, among other things, the blanket question of whether State Voting Rights Acts are now unconstitutional. As scholars engage with that question, it is important to recognize the breadth and diversity of modern State VRAs—a subject Adam Harper and I explore in our recent Minnesota Law Review article, State VRAs and the State of the VRA. As that scholarly conversation develops, it is necessary to be precise and nuanced when discussing the implications of Callais for State VRAs.

While every State VRA includes protections against racial vote dilution, the issue at the center of the Callais decision, modern State VRAs contain many other protections and are generally carefully tailored to the particularized needs of the state. For instance, many offer protections against voter suppression/vote denial, establish state-level preclearance programs, expand language-access requirements, establish statewide election databases, provide civil prohibitions on voter intimidation, deception, and obstruction, expand protections for voters with disabilities, and codify the Democracy Canon into state law, among other things. Any discussion of constitutional risk following Callais should acknowledge that modern State VRAs include a broad set of provisions, including many that have no bearing on redistricting or race.

The problem of overgeneralization is not merely theoretical. The trial court decision in the New York Voting Rights Act (“NYVRA”) case Clarke v. Newburgh—which was quickly reversed—suggested that the NYVRA as a whole was unconstitutional, even though the case only pertained to the vote dilution provisions.

Even as to vote dilution provisions, any constitutional questions are likely to vary considerably across states and statutory frameworks. State VRA vote dilution frameworks differ substantially from Section 2 of the federal VRA and vary widely across states, making generalized constitutional assessments particularly inapposite. Most State VRAs apply only at the local level and offer race-blind remedies (such as proportional ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, and limited voting) that can address violations without requiring race-conscious districting. Liability standards also vary considerably: Some require plaintiffs to identify specific benchmarks, akin to the Gingles I requirement; some permit claims to be established through a totality-of-circumstances inquiry; others offer intent-based dilution claims. Such doctrinal distinctions are important and must be considered in context.

As State VRAs continue to be advanced through legislatures across the country, clarity and precision about which provisions may face constitutional challenge become increasingly important. Nuanced commentary about particular provisions could help policymakers thoughtfully navigate this doctrinal landscape as they design protections. On the other hand, overbroad claims about constitutional risk may prompt certain policymakers to abandon the State VRA endeavor altogether.

The AALS call for papers reflects the importance and timeliness of scholarship about the post-Callais landscape. But as scholars continue to evaluate the constitutional implications of Callais for State VRAs, one point is clear: These statutes are too broad and too varied to be treated as a single constitutional category. State VRAs remain an important and viable safeguard to protecting the right to vote. Constitutional analysis will be most useful when focused on specific provisions under specific laws and the specific legal questions they present.

ELECTIONS

New York Republican State Committee v. State of New York

On October 30, 2025, the New York Republican State Committee filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the state of New York and Governor Kathy Hochul challenging the state’s Even Year Election Law (EYEL). The plaintiffs are comprised of individuals from Nassau County, Suffolk County, and Orange County.

On August 6, Judge Gary R. Brown granted defendants’ motion asking the court to hold a preliminary conference before formally filling a motion to dismiss. Judge Brown agreed to hold this hearing in person on October 7 at 10:30am where both parties will address defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.

Onondaga County Term Limits Goes to Court

In an effort to compromise with county legislative Democrats who believe that County Executive Ryan McMahon’s approval of a term limits ballot question was a final action (despite McMahon’s effort to clawback his approval), the county executive is offering to move forward with two competing term limit laws, one for three terms and another for four terms. According to a state precedent, if two competing ballot questions are placed before the voters, the one with the most votes would win. However, the ballot question sponsors would have to clearly indicate the purpose and sponsors of the measures.

The Democrats have not agreed to McMahon’s offer. County Elections Commissioner Dustin Czarny, a Democrat, was quoted in Syracuse.com saying that “This supposed path forward will only kick the legal ball to next year and we could potentially confuse voters and still be in court,” Czarny said on Wednesday. “None of this is affecting my decision about whether to go to court to enforce the resolution already given to me by the legislature.”

Czarny’s complaint filed a request for an Order to Show Cause asking the New York State Supreme Court to rule on whether the proposed term-limits resolution for the County Executive and Comptroller should be placed on the upcoming Czarny’s complaint is focused on seeking clarity on the Board of Elections’ role, rather than the merits of term limits. The Onondaga County Legislature’s clerk sent the county Board of Elections a local law that would place term limits for the county’s executive and clerk of the legislature clerk of the Onondaga County Legislature on the ballot in November despite a veto signed by current County Executive Ryan McMahon.

While Democratic elections commission Dustin Czarny was prepared for executing the law, Republican Commissioner Kevin Ryan disagreed. While the county executive meant to add a veto message to the legislative law, he did not get to submit it until after the original approved law was sent to the elections board.

On August 5, Czarny filed a request for an Order to Show Cause asking the New York State Supreme Court to rule on whether the proposed term-limits resolution for the County Executive and Comptroller should be placed on the upcoming November ballot.

The filing is focused on seeking clarity on the Board of Elections’ role, rather than the merits of term limits.

Czarny contends that the Board of Elections’ duties are strictly administrative, thus evaluating the underlying legal validity of the resolution rests with the courts, not election commissioners. Further, Czarny asserts that an individual election commissioner to block a resolution based on legal validity sets out a concerning precedent for Boards of Elections across the state. Czarny also acknowledged that court intervention is the only remaining mechanism to resolve the administrative dispute before election deadlines pass.

CENSUS & POPULATION

Learn About the Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program

The DuBois Bunche Center at Medgar Evers College, in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau, invites you to join an upcoming virtual webinar:

– Thursday, August 20, 2026

– 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM (ET) Via ZOOM

– Guest Speaker: James Whitehorne, U.S. Census Bureau

This session will introduce the U.S. Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program and its role in supporting fair representation through the 2030 Census. Participants will learn about the program’s mission, key initiatives, and collaboration with states to meet redistricting needs.

Topics include:

Block Boundary Suggestion Project
Voting District Project
Phased delivery of 2030 Census redistricting data
This webinar is ideal for community leaders, educators, students, researchers, public officials, and anyone interested in the intersection of Census data, voting rights, and redistricting.

Registration is free. Please register by using this registration link:

https://forms.gle/hJHV32cV46b682ka7

LEGISLATION

Controversial Election Proposals Likely to be Considered by Albany Legislators in 2027

By: Joseph T. Burns

While New York’s 2027 state legislative session is still more than four months away, it already appears that some contentious election-related proposals may come before the members of the State Senate and Assembly elected in this November’s elections. These proposals will not only come in the form of bills but also as amendments to the New York State Constitution and will likely touch on everything from altering the state’s redistricting process to more mundane election administration matters.

One constitutional amendment likely to get a close look from legislators is the proposal to raise the mandatory retirement age for most state judges. Currently, the state constitution requires most state court judges, including Supreme Court justices and Family Court judges, to retire on December 31 in the year in which the judge turns 70 years old (Supreme Court justices may receive extensions and continue their service). Under the proposed amendment, the mandatory retirement age would be raised to 76.

While this amendment was not voted on by either house of the state legislature in 2026, there may be renewed interest in it given the outcome of a recent state court challenge to the mandatory retirement age for judges. In that case, state court judges challenged this age limit and argued that it was repealed by implication when the voters adopted the Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution in 2024. The New York State Court of Appeals rejected this argument and preserved the current mandatory retirement age of 70.

Another amendment to the state constitution that is likely to be considered by the state legislature in 2027 is the proposal to radically alter the state’s redistricting process. This amendment received first passage in each house of the state legislature near the end of the 2026 session and came after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an effort by New York Democrats to redraw the boundaries of the only Republican-held Congressional seat in the City of New York.

The amendment would enable the state legislature to undertake a mid-decade redistricting of the state’s Congressional seats when another state conducts a mid-decade redistricting. Maybe more significantly, the amendment would undo the state constitution’s prohibition on partisan gerrymandering.

Should the state legislature elected in 2026 provide second passage of this amendment in 2027, it could go before the voters of New York at the 2027 General Election. Should the voters approve it at the 2027 General Election, New Yorkers could see redrawn Congressional seats for the 2028 election.

The legislature may also take up a number of proposals that only passed a single house of the state legislature in 2026 or previous years.

One such bill would impose minimum qualification requirements on commissioners of local boards of elections. This bill mandates that the New York State Board of Elections establish minimum qualifications for local BOE commissioners and requires that these qualifications be met by commissioners appointed or reappointed after the adoption of these standards. While this bill passed the Senate in 2025 and 2026, it did not come before the Assembly for a vote in either of these years.

Another bill that passed only the Senate in 2025 and 2026 is one that would make the terms of all local commissioners of elections four years. Currently, local BOE commissioners serve terms of either two or four years. This proposal, which has long been a priority of the state’s Election Commissioners Association, would standardize this by making the terms of all commissioners four years. Like the election commissioner minimum qualifications bill, there is a good chance that the state legislature takes a close look at this proposal in 2027.

Changes to the state’s ballot access process can often be controversial. One major change that, in 2025, appeared to be poised for passage may find itself back from the legislative wilderness in 2027. That bill, a proposal to eliminate the ability of judicial candidates to run in the primary of a party of which they are not enrolled, may find itself the object of renewed interest when the legislature returns in 2027.

Currently, the Election Law mandates that candidates not enrolled in a political party receive an authorization – or Wilson-Pakula – from that party in order to enter that party’s primary. Exempted from this requirement, however, are candidates nominated by a newly recognized party, candidates nominated by a party caucus, and candidates for judicial offices. This bill eliminates that exemption for judicial candidates.

While the bill passed the Assembly in 2025, it did not come before the full Senate for a vote that year, and in 2026, neither house of the state legislature voted on the bill. Interest in this change to the ballot access process for judicial candidate may have waned in 2026, but it is quite possible that in 2027 the newly elected state legislature finds this proposal appealing.

Baseball legend and American cultural icon Yogi Berra once said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” And while it is far from certain that all or any of these bills and amendments will be considered by the Senate and Assembly in 2027, there is a high likelihood that New Yorkers see some heated debates over these proposals when the state legislature convenes for next year’s session.

Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the Holtzman Vogel law firm’s New York office. Eitan Genger is a Summer Law Intern at the firm.

https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns

AROUND THE NATION

From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)

August 4: Missouri Secretary of State Hoskins has deemed the Missouri Redistricting Referendum as insufficient due to it being unconstitutional. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

August 4: The Maryland Redistricting Amendment has passed both the MD House and MD Senate.

It will now go before voters during the November 2026 general election. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

August 4: People Not Politicians Missouri has filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in Cole County Circuit Court.

The filing asks the court to reverse Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ rejection of their redistricting referendum, declare the referendum sufficient, and bar the state from further implementing or using the congressional districts in HB 1. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

August 5: The Mississippi Legislative Committee on Reapportionment will hold 8 hearings to discuss how to redraw the state’s electoral maps.

The public hearings will be held at 6 pm on their respective days and are scheduled from August through September 2026 . — @RedistrictNet [from X]

August 6: A federal three-judge panel has ruled for Florida, finding race did not predominate in drawing state House Districts 115, 118, and 119.

The challenge to the prior Congressional District 26 is held in abeyance pending state-court litigation over Florida’s new map. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

August 7: Governor Matt Meyer has signed the Delaware John Lewis Voting Rights Act.. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

August 7: Maryland Republicans have filed a lawsuit challenging the Democrats’ congressional redistricting ballot question.

The suit argues Democrats missed a July deadline to put the question on the November ballot and that the question fails the state’s plain-language requirement. — @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 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 & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.

New York Election News 7/27/26

July 27, 2026New York Election Law News This week:-Adams’Charter Revision Commission Rejected by State Court-U.S. Appeals Challenge Seeking NY Voter Lists-Election Disriptions Bil Awaits Action by Governor Hochul-Onondaga County Term Limits Fight Headed to Court-Around The NationLITIGATIONN.Y.C. Open Primaries Challenge Moves Ahead in State Courts  Former Mayor Eric Adams appointed the so-called “zombie” NYC Charter Revision Commission on his final day in office, with its main agenda item focused on creating open primaries for city elections. On May 27, Mayor Mamdani disbanded the Commission, using new authority included in the state budget. On Monday June 29, members of the Commission and Republican City Council Member Vickie Paladino, former Governor David Paterson, and Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, filed suit against the governor, mayor, the NYC Board of Elections, and the city clerk in Richmond County Supreme Court seeking to keep the commission alive. Simultaneously on June 30, the commission filed a petition for preclearance required by the state voting rights act, in New York County Supreme Court, to institute open primary local elections, which the Commission approved for placement on the November 2026 General Election ballot for NYC voters to decide. On July 16, after a hearing for the plaintiffs to show cause about the issues of a joint trial and disqualifying pro bono commission counsel Randy Mastro and Dechert LLP as counsel, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled to  1) not join the Richmond County case with the New York County case,  2) not disqualify Mastro as counsel for the Commission, and 3) vacate the stay against any actions. As reported by PoliticoNY, the Manhattan Supreme Court “passed along the issue to the Staten Island Court.” On Wednesday July 22, the Staten Island Supreme Court released their decision holding that  1) Governor Hochul and the state legislature acted appropriately in giving Mayor Mamdani the power to disband the Commission,  2) Paterson, Fossella, and Paladino do not have standing because they do not have a present injury that is distinct from the general public and their personal opinions have no bearing on their status as litigants, and  3) there is no due process violation because the Commission met in donated space and legal services were pro bono, so there are no “expenses” before the court. Also reported by PoliticoNY, the Staten Island Supreme Court found that Mayor Mamdani’s action was reasonable because “the commission was formed with only hours remaining in [former Mayor] Adams’ term,” however, the court declined to disqualify Mastro as counsel for the Commission. The NYC Corporation Counsel is filing an appeal to the Manhattan Supreme Court’s decision. The next hearing on the merits will be held today. Voter Rolls: United States v. New York State Board of Elections In June 2025, the U.S. Justice Department requested New York’s compliance in turning over sensitive voter information, including dates of birth, partial Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. On July 10, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit finding that  1) the DOJ stated no basis or purpose for ascertaining the voter rolls and lacked any relation to the purpose for the enactment of Title III of the Civil Rights Act, and  2) Congress did not intend that statewide voter lists be public, but rather to disclose the process by which they maintain their voter lists. On July 23, the U.S. DOJ filed an appeal of the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.ELECTIONSOnondaga County Term Limits Fight Headed to Court The Onondaga County Legislature’s clerk sent the county Board of Elections a local law that would place term limits for the county’s executive and clerk of the legislature clerk of the Onondaga County Legislature on the ballot in November despite a veto signed by current County Executive Ryan McMahon. While Democratic elections commission Dustin Czarny was prepared for executing the law, Republican Commissioner Kevin Ryan disagreed. While the county executive meant to add a veto message to the legislative law, he did not get to submit it until after the original approved law was sent to the elections board. This leaves a disagreement among the two elections commissioners who will need to take separate legal measures to determine next steps. GOP Commissioner Ryan was quoted as saying that“I’m not going to agree this goes on the ballot absent a court order.” The County Executive’s office is blaming a technical clerical error for the incident and admits the mistake. According to Syracuse.com, “Speaking to reporters Thursday, McMahon put the blame on the county’s top attorney, Robert Durr. He likened a bill-signing to a real estate closing: piles of papers to sign, one after another. He said his lawyer handed him the wrong document. “You have multiple hard copies normally when you’re signing a local law or a veto,” McMahon said. “I came in, saw the veto, read the veto, signed it, asked my attorney if the other copies were vetoes. He said ‘yes,’ I signed it.”Syracuse.com adds a comment from Democratic Commissioner Czarny: “Czarny said that the county has assigned separate lawyers to him and Ryan, his Republican counterpart. “He said that he could bring a lawsuit against Ryan, or the county legislature could take the Board of Elections to court. “I don’t believe the Board of Elections should insert its own opinions into this,” Czarny said. “We should follow the law as put forward and let the legislature and county exec fight it out in court.”For more, go to Syracuse.com: https://bit.ly/4vKAZdWREDISTRICTINGMid-decade Re­dis­tricting Could Be Linked To A Chal­lenging 2030 Census In Spectrum News’ New York “State of Politics,” Susan Arbetter discusses the upcoming 2030 census and how it could impact New York’s congressional delegation and the impetus to redraw congressional districts before the 2028 elections.  Arbetter writes about Trump Administration efforts to change census residence rules, decennial census questions, a citizenship question, and how to categorize race and ethnicity. These changes could result in depressing New York’ census count more than anticipated. Current projections estimate New York losing two congressional districts after 2030, but the loss could be greater. New York lost only one seat after 2030, two after 2000 and 2010, three after 1990 and a record number of five losses in 1980. She adds that “experts are also expecting to see a corresponding push by New York Democrats to find every possible seat using mid-decade redistricting, if a constitutional amendment allowing it is passed by voters.“ In an interview with New York Law School Professor Jeff Wice, she wrote that Wice thinks that “the midterm elections will determine how much of a driving force redistricting will be in New York state.”  Wice added that “In 2028, we need to see who controls the White House after Donald Trump leaves and would a new president bring the Census process back to the way it’s been conducted in recent decades or will the next president be stuck with a completely challenging process, probably the hardest census to take in American history,” he said.  Read Arbetter’s entire “State of Politics” column here: https://bit.ly/4fsL0Xa In a separate article appearing in “The Beast,” Josh Fiallo writes that “it is “widely expected” the Trump administration will “try to recategorize millions of immigrants (both unauthorized and legal) as not actually living here in the United States” in the next Census.” “If successful, that would mean a massive shift in the number of congressional representatives each state gets, how districts are drawn, how federal dollars are doled out, and how many votes each state has in the Electoral College process in presidential elections.” Fiallo adds that this comes “as a little-noticed “stealth” action by the administration that went unreported when a regulatory filing was issued in late June. Now, those familiar with the administration’s alleged plans are frantically warning of what will come next.”ment is a god idea, while 44% think it’s noLEGISLATIONElection Disruptions Bill Awaits Action by Governor Hochul By: Joseph T. Burns and Claire Woynerowski Before ending their 2026 legislative session, the New York State Assembly and Senate approved bill A5846/S4602, a proposal to establish remedies in the event of disruptions in voting during an election. The bill greatly expands the options available for disruptions in voting from what currently exists in the New York State Election Law. At present, the Election Law allows local and state boards of elections to schedule an additional day of voting in the event of a “fire, earthquake, tornado, explosion, power failure, act of sabotage, enemy attack or other disaster” and less than 25% of registered voters cast a ballot. Outside of those specifically designated events, poll site disruptions must be litigated, generally after the election has already passed. The bill passed by the legislature is intended to eliminate slow-moving judicial intervention where possible, requiring instead that state and local boards of elections extend voting hours proportionally by the amount of time of any voting disruption exceeding an hour. According to the sponsor’s memo of the bill, its primary purpose is to provide a “rapid response solution to address natural or human-caused incidents that interrupt voting at poll sites.” Considering that “disruption” is defined in the proposed bill as “an obstruction or interruption at a polling place” that causes voting to stop for more than an hour, the law would provide a remedy to a both vague and expansive category of interruptions. According to the sponsor’s memo, the section of the Election Law that currently allows for voting extensions in the case of emergencies, Election Law § 3-108, only authorizes boards to remedy these disruptions by providing another day of voting, “failing to contemplate shorter disruptions that do not warrant an additional day but nonetheless suppress turnout.” With the new law in place, boards would be required to extend the hours of voting at the end of the disrupted day or, if that is not feasible, extend the voting hours on another day. The law does stipulate that if the extensions to voting must take place on another day, they shall not be “later than election day.” In other words, though election officials would have discretion to extend voting hours on another day if there was a disruption during early voting, this bill could not be used to create additional days to vote after election day.The failure of polling officials to notify the boards of elections of a voting disruption exceeding one hour would also presume a violation of Election Law § 17-212, allowing remedies to injured parties in the form of “additional time to cast a ballot” and by making the parties that failed to enforce this act liable for damages. The proposed legislation would also require that, in the case of extending voting hours due to a disruption, the board would have to notify voters by conspicuously publishing the details of the extension. The law states that the state and local boards of elections must notify “the bipartisan co-executive directors of the state board of elections; the civil rights bureau of the office of the attorney general; and any candidate or committee with candidates or questions appearing on a ballot to be voted upon in any such polling place impacted.” Additionally, the bill requires that “best efforts” be made to inform local media, and that boards of elections are authorized to contact and notify non-partisan civic organizations, including those serving primarily “language-minority communities.” Finally, this law would prevent any votes cast during these extended time periods from being segregated from other ballots or from being subject “to challenge or judicial review on the basis that such ballots were untimely cast.”Should it be signed by Governor Hochul, this bill would take effect immediately. It may, therefore, be in effect for the 2026 General Election if delivered to and signed by the Governor before Election Day. Joseph T. Burns is a partner in the Holtzman Vogel law firm’s New York office. Claire Woynerowski is a summer legal intern. https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burnsAROUND THE NATIONFrom The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) NEW FEATURE! July 11: Daily District is a new project from Prof. Jonathan Cervas (CMU) and @Redistrictnet. Name all 435 U.S. House districts from their shape. Dropping imminently! — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 20: Gov. Mike Braun directed more than $750K to help defeat Republican state senators who defied President Donald Trump on congressional redistricting. Three Indiana U.S. House members and the new state commerce secretary also contributed. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 20: The Maryland Senate President and Speaker of the House have informed colleagues that the August special session will only consider legislation on congressional redistricting. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 21: U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields (D) will not seek re-election in Louisiana’s 6th congressional district; instead he will run to fill the unexpired term for the state Senate in the 14th district. The move comes after the Louisiana legislature redrew the state’s congressional map last month. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 23: Federal court REFUSES to block Tennessee’s new congressional map that carves Memphis into 3 districts and erases the state’s only majority-Black seat. Judges say politics — not race — explains the map. Preliminary injunction DENIED. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 25: Mississippi House Speaker Jason White has named his appointees to the Standing Joint Committee on Reapportionment and Redistricting, a first step toward redrawing the state’s legislative and congressional maps. — @RedistrictNet [from X]INSTITUTE RESOURCESThe 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 pagehere: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/ Archived Updates can be accessedhere: 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.eduThe 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.

New York Election Law News

July 20, 2026

This week:-N.Y.C. Open Primaries Challenge Moves Ahead in State Court-US Loses Challenge Seeking NY Voter Lists-New Law Gives New York State Legislature the Ability to Write Ballot Language for Referenda on Constitutional Amendments-Citizens Budget Commission Looks at New York’s Population-Around The Nation

LITIGATION

N.Y.C. Open Primaries Challenge Moves Ahead in State Courts Former Mayor Eric Adams appointed the so-called “zombie” NYC Charter Revision Commission on his final day in office, with its main agenda focused on open primaries. On May 27, Mayor Mamdani disbanded the Commission, using new authority included in the state budget. On Monday June 29, members of the Commission and Republican City Council Member Vickie Paladino, former Governor David Paterson, and Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, filed suit against the governor, mayor, the NYC Board of Elections, and the city clerk in Richmond County Supreme Court. On July 13, respondent-defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint and Article 78 petition. They argued that 1) the rights of the Commissioners were not violated by the nullification of the Commission because they do not have a property interest in their former offices and Mayor Mamdani disbanding the Commission nullified the appointments and the open primary ballot proposal, 2) the Commissioners lack standing because their claims of economic harm are too speculative, and 3) the non-Commissioner plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are based on personal views.Only July 15, plaintiffs filed a memo of law in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argued that 1) the provision used to the nullify the Commission was a special law that was targeted to impact New York’s home rule rights, specifically written to target one commission, and was not subject to any State interest exception, 2) the Commissioners have a right to reimbursement for costs associated with their service, and 3) the non-Commissioner plaintiffs have standing to challenge an action made by the legislature themselves. Simultaneously on June 30, the commission filed a petition for preclearance as required by the state voting rights act, in New York County Supreme Court seeking to determine that the open primary proposal did not dilute minority voting strength so the proposal could be placed on the November 2026 General Election ballot for NYC voters to decide. On July 9, New York City Corporation Counsel Steven Banks filed a memo of law on behalf of the city, mayor, city clerk, and NYC Board of Elections, arguing that 1) the Court should hold a joint trial in New York County because it is the only venue where the preclearance petition can be heard, thus there are special circumstances, 2) Mastro should be disqualified because Rule 1.11 of the Professional Code prohibits him from representing the plaintiffs because he was involved in the formation of the commission, and 3) the Court should stay the proceedings in the matter until a determination on the motions are made. On July 15, plaintiffs filed a memo in opposition to the City’s arguments, claiming that 1) a joint trial of both the New York County and Richmond County cases is improper because they deal with different facts & legal issues, and would cause unnecessary delay, 2) Mastro should not be disqualified because he sought and received advice from the City’s Conflicts of Interest Board who confirmed there was no conflict. On July 16, after a hearing for the plaintiffs to show cause about the issues of a joint trial and disqualifying Mastro and Dechert LLP as counsel, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled to 1) not join the Richmond County case with the New York County case because there are significant differences between the parties, underlying facts, and legal issue, and the issue is timely because the Commission’s ballot proposal must be transmitted by August 3 to the City Board of Elections to appear on the ballot in November, 2) not disqualify Mastro as counsel for the Commission because the City did not demonstrate that Mastro “received specific confidential information substantially related to the present litigation”, and 3) vacate the stay against any actions.As reported by PoliticoNY, the Manhattan Supreme Court temporarily blocked the effort to disqualify Mastro, however the judge “passed along the issue to the Staten Island Court, where a judge is expected to issue a conclusive ruling on that particular matter later this week.” The NYC Corporation Counsel is filing an appeal to the Manhattan Supreme Court’s decision. The next hearing on the merits will be held on July 27.

ELECTION LITIGATION

Voter Rolls: United States vs. New York Board of Elections In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice requested New York’s compliance in turning over sensitive voter information, including dates of birth, partial Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. New York was one of 30 states that the DOJ filed suit against for refusing to turn over their voter rolls. On July 10, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit finding that 1) the DOJ stated no basis or purpose for ascertaining the voter rolls and lacked any relation to the purpose for the enactment of Title III of the Civil Rights Act, and 2) Congress did not intend that statewide voter lists be public, but rather to disclose the process by which they maintain their voter lists.On July 17, a federal judge in Connecticut became the 16th judge to rule against the DOJ’s nationwide campaign to obtain sensitive voter registration data.

REDISTRICTING

Guest Column New Law Gives New York State Legislature the Ability to Write Ballot Language for Referenda on Constitutional Amendments By Joseph T. Burns and Sophia Moses On June 5, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed bill A11557/S10639 into law. This measure vests the state legislature with the authority to determine the final form in which proposed constitutional amendments are presented to voters on the ballot. Previously, this responsibility was delegated to the bipartisan New York State Board of Elections. Under this longstanding practice, constitutional amendments to be voted on in a referendum were sent to the state attorney general, who would make language recommendations to the State Board of Elections. A mandated public comment period followed, after which the bipartisan NYSBOE commissioners would review and consider all recommendations before making a final determination on the ballot measure’s form and language. This structure was designed to ensure that ballot descriptions provided a neutral and accurate assessment of the constitutional amendment voters were asked to ratify. However, this new measure reallocates this responsibility to the legislature, allowing it to both adopt the amendment and choose how it is explained to voters. In a July 6, 2026, letter to Governor Hochul’s office, the two Republican commissioners of the State Board of Elections criticized this change by saying it “allows the state legislature to undermine the bipartisan nature of election administration” in New York. The commissioners emphasized that allowing the partisan body that proposed the constitutional amendment to determine how it is presented to voters creates a clear conflict of interest. They predicted that this change would “lead to slanted language attempting to push New Yorkers into voting a certain way rather than allowing voters to make an informed choice based on balanced information.”In their letter, the commissioners indicated that this effect was, in fact, the intended outcome. Referring to a statement given to Politico on June 2, they highlighted that the bill’s Senate sponsor, Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris, said: “The voters of this state have elected Democrats to overwhelming majorities in both houses. Why should the Republican party have 50 percent of the say in what legislative proposals look like on the ballot?” Under this change, the legislature is required to use “best efforts” to ensure that both the form of submission and the abstract of the proposed constitutional amendment conform to its plain language. Moreover, the legislature must use “best efforts” to ensure that each submission and abstract scores at or below an eighth grade reading level. After the legislature makes these determinations, the State Board of Elections must place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot without any alteration.This direct handoff eliminates the usual public comment period. What is noteworthy about this change is that noteworthy constitutional amendments are expected to be presented to New York voters in the near future. For instance, in 2027, voters may be asked to approve a constitutional amendment that would remove the anti-partisan gerrymandering provisions of the state constitution. The law making this change took effect immediately upon its signing on June 5. As a result, all future constitutional amendments sent to the voters for approval will be subject to this new provision. Joseph T. Burns is a partner in Holtzman Vogel’s New York Office. https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burnsSophia Moses is a summer law clark at the firm.

CENSUS

Citizens Budget Commission Looks at New York’s Population The Citizens Budget Commission has released a tool to help track and review population trends in New York.From the report (published with permission), available at: https://cbcny.org/research/competitive-nys “Competitive NYS: Value Proposition Tracker provides a comprehensive look at New York’s population, economy, public finances, and education. By comparing New York over time, across regions and counties, and against peer states and the nation, the dashboard highlights where the State is thriving, where it faces long-standing challenges, and where policy choices matter most. It is intended to be a resource for the public, policymakers, advocates, and researchers—a statistical guide to better understand the issues facing New York, raise questions where deeper understanding is needed, and to inform policy that can help New Yorkers across the state thrive. By making objective data more easily accessible in one place, it can empower all New Yorkers to better understand the state’s competitive position and the opportunities and challenges that will shape its future. New York remains one of the nation’s largest economic engines, with one of the country’s most productive and dynamic economies, a high-earning and highly educated population, accessible higher educational institutions that attract students from other states, and long life expectancies.  The data reveal much of this strength is driven by the State’s growth corridor—New York City and its surrounding communities, up the Hudson Valley to the Capital Region and out to Long Island. They also reveal strength in upstate urbanized employment centers, particularly surrounding Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse.  Outside that corridor and those cities, many communities continue to face longstanding challenges, some exacerbated by the pandemic—communities that are shrinking and getting older, with slower job growth and lower incomes.International immigration has helped offset domestic outmigration in parts of the State, but demographic headwinds remain a challenge for much of New York, with many regions reporting fewer births than deaths. As federal immigration policy slows migration from abroad, reducing domestic outmigration takes on increased importance.  New York State and its localities also collect more from taxpayers than any other state and spend the third most per capita in the country. While this delivers the nation’s highest average per-student spending, it produces middling performance. The State’s broad and deep social safety net has been critical to supporting economic opportunity, but outcomes have not always kept pace with spending. Competitive NYS highlights four themes critical to the State’s economic vibrancy and the value proposition it offers to residents, businesses, and visitors:Growth has been strong downstate and near urbanized employment centers, but is increasingly concentrated. Population, jobs, and GDP are strongest in the growth corridor—New York City, its suburbs, and the Capital Region.Large regions of the state continue to face longstanding challenges, population decline, and loss of jobs. This creates long-term fiscal and economic challenges.New York makes unusually large public investments. Taxes, spending, healthcare coverage, and education funding all rank near the top nationally.High spending does not always translate into leading outcomes. Despite spending growth that outpaces inflation, New York lags on outcomes such as reading and math performance and job growth. Population and Migration Population change demonstrates how well New York State is attracting and retaining residents. Migration patterns reveal residents’ location choices, indicating where they may see relatively higher value propositions. While the State’s population has grown overall, trajectories vary regionally and are reshaping where New Yorkers live and where future economic growth is likely to occur. While people continue to move to New York from abroad, federal policy is slowing international immigration. Retaining residents is paramount for the State’s long-term competitiveness. New York’s population growth has been slower than the nation—the State remains about 200,000 (1 percent) residents below its 2019 peak, while the US is up 11.5 million (3.5 percent). Population loss in New York City drove the State’s significant pandemic-era population decline. Still, longer-term population gains are concentrated in New York City, its suburbs, and the Capital Region, while many northern and western regions continue to shrink.

AROUND THE NATION

From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) NEW FEATURE! July 11: Daily District is a new project from Prof. Jonathan Cervas (CMU) and @Redistrictnet. Name all 435 U.S. House districts from their shape. Dropping imminently! — @RedistrictNet [from X] June 29: The Colorado Supreme Court has blocked all attempts to redraw congressional district boundaries for the 2028 election from reaching the ballot, concluding that each of the proposed ballot measures violates the constitutional single-subject requirement. — @RedistrictNet [from X] June 29: Wisconsin Supreme Court sets oral arguments for Sept. 16 in a pair of congressional redistricting lawsuits that seek to redraw the state’s boundaries. Two separate three-judge panels dismissed the lawsuits. The appeals attempt to revive them for potential trials. — @RedistrictNet [from X] June 1: The Problem Solvers Caucus has unveiled a bipartisan Gerrymandering Reform Framework to address congressional redistricting nationally. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 6: NJ Gov. Mikie Sherrill (@GovSherrillNJ) has signed the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act of New Jersey. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 7: Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk today announced that the Maryland General Assembly will convene in a special session from August 3-5, 2026 to consider legislation proposing a constitutional amendment regarding congressional redistricting. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 8: The Eighth Circuit has vacated the district court’s ruling on North Dakota’s legislative map. The case is remanded for further proceedings in light of Callais, which overhauled the Gingles framework used to assess Section 2 vote-dilution claims. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 9: The Utah Supreme Court will hear arguments in September 2026 over whether the Republican Legislature’s creation of a three-judge panel to hear the Utah congressional redistricting lawsuit is unconstitutional. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 14: Galveston County asks a federal judge to dismiss the Petteway redistricting case as moot after adopting a new commissioners court map. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 15: Protect AR Rights has submitted 108,837 signatures for a proposal to preserve and strengthen Arkansas’s ballot initiative and referendum process. Arkansas officials are now reviewing those signatures to determine whether the measure will qualify for the November ballot. — @RedistrictNet [from X] July 16: On Aug 4, Missouri voters will decide whether future citizen-led constitutional amendments must pass in all eight congressional districts, not just statewide. Amendments referred by the legislature would still need only a simple majority. — @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 pagehere: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/ Archived Updates can be accessedhere: 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.eduThe 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.

NY Elections, Census and Redistricting Update – 7/13/26

July 13, 2026

This week: N.Y.C. Open Primaries Supported by Adams Charter Commission; Unite NY Submits Open Primaries Question for 2027 N.Y.C. Ballot; Buffalo Commission Rejects Election Reform Efforts; N.Y.’s Challenging Redistricting Amendment; Maryland Legislature to Meet in August on Congressional Redistricting; Federal Court Reverses Voting Rights Act Decision; Around The Nation

LITIGATION

N.Y.C. Open Primaries Supported by Adams’ Charter Review Commission

Former Mayor Eric Adams convened the “zombie” NYC Charter Revision Commission on his final day in office, with its main agenda item being open primaries. On May 27, Mayor Mamdani disbanded the Commission, using new authority included in the state budget.

On Monday June 29, members of the Commission and Republican New York City City Council Member Vickie Paladino, former Governor David Paterson, and Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, filed suit against the governor, mayor, the NYC Board of Elections, and the city clerk in Richmond County Supreme Court.

The lawsuit alleges that the mayor unlawfully asked Governor Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers to enact a provision used to dismantle the commission and stall the proposal for open primary elections. The plaintiffs contend that this action was unlawful because the state legislature needs formal permission from the mayor and City Council to pass the provision since it was a “special law targeting only the affairs of New York City government.”

Further, the plaintiffs argue the provision qualifies as a special law because it diminishes the power of local government, thus it would need to be passed twice in two different calendar years before going into effect.

Also, the plaintiffs allege that the mayor disbanded the commission after it was formed, depriving members of the Commission the right to serve their terms and have open primaries proposal considered by voters.

On June 30, the judge in Richmond County Supreme Court ordered respondents to show cause on July 16th.

Simultaneously on June 30, the commission filed a petition for preclearance, in New York County Supreme Court, to institute open primary local elections, which the Commission approved for placement on the November 2026 General Election ballot for NYC voters to decide. The New York State Voting Rights Act requires that all New York City election-related laws be precleared (or pre-approved) by either the state Attorney General or a state court.

On July 9, New York City Corporation Counsel Steven Banks filed a memo of law on behalf of the city, mayor, city clerk, and NYC Board of Elections, in support of

1) a joint trial consolidating the Richmond County Supreme Court lawsuit and commission’s petition for preclearance,

2) disqualification of Randy Mastro, former First Deputy Mayor and partner at Dechert LLP, as counsel for the Commission, and

3) temporary stay of deadlines.

The memo argues that

1) the Court should hold a joint trial in New York County because it is the only venue where the preclearance petition can be heard, thus there are special circumstances,

2) Mastro should be disqualified because Rule 1.11 of the Professional Code prohibits him from representing the plaintiffs because he was involved in the formation of the commission, and

3) the Court should stay the proceedings in the matter until a determination on the motions are made.

On behalf of the Commission, Mastro argues first that the cases should not be consolidated because they deal with different parties and legal issues, and material events relating to the June 29 litigation took place in Richmond County.

Second, the plaintiffs argue Mastro should not be disqualified because he sought and received advice from the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, is pro bono counsel to the Commission, has been representing the Commission for several months since he left City Hall, and is not in possession of confidential information related to the Commission.

Third, the plaintiffs argue that the issue is timely because the Commission’s ballot proposal must be transmitted by August 3 to the City Board of Elections to appear on the ballot in November.

On July 10, the judge in New York County Supreme Court set a hearing for the plaintiffs to show cause on July 16th about the issues of a joint trial and disqualifying Mastro and Dechert LLP as counsel.

ELECTIONS

Unite NY Submits N.Y.C. Open Primary Ballot Question for 2027 Voter Approval

Unite NY recently submitted over 45,000 petition signatures to the city clerk’s office to place a ballot question before voters that would give voters the choice open New York’s closed primary system for city elections. Under current law, only voters registered in a party holding a primary are allowed to participate.

Under the proposal, candidates for city office would run in a June primary where all registered voters would be able to rank up to five candidates in order of preference. The top three candidates would advance to the November general election that also uses ranked-choice voting.

The ballot question needs to be approved by the City Council or Unite NY would need to obtain additional signatures.

An open primary system would permit over 1.1 million city voters who are not registered with any party — including many young voters and people of color to participate in primaries.

In the open primary, voters would be able to rank up to five candidates and the top three finishers would advance to the general election.

In an article by Brigid Bergin in The Gothamist, Unite NY’s Anthony Thomas said that “ We think that particularly when you look at what’s happening around the country with voter disenfranchisement, it’s a fundamental civil rights issue,” adding that “we pursued this through a good old-fashioned canvas and organizing effort because we wanted to go directly to New Yorkers.”

The petition process permits supporters to avoid the Charter Revision Commission process. Former Mayor Eric Adams appointed a charter commission on the last afternoon in his term of office on December 31st, 2025. That commission, referred to as the “Zombie” Commission, has also met and is submitting another open primaries ballot proposal to the city clerk. The Adams commission was terminated by Mayor Zohran Mamdani pursuant to a newly enacted state law giving him the power to do so.

While the Unite NY proposal moves forward, the Adams Commission is under attack for acting as a city entity without authority. The Adams commissioners have asked the State Supreme Court in Richmond County to permit it to move forward and is asking a Manhattan State Supreme Court judge to provide preclearance for the measure as required by state’s Voting Rights Act. More detail on the litigation matters follows below.

In the meantime, Mayor Mamdani has come out in opposition to a change to open primaries, arguing that ““I am quite content with the system of primaries that we have thus far,” Mamdani said. “I think that we’ve seen it’s a system that’s been in effect for quite some time, and it’s also a system that doesn’t preclude greater participation.”

For more background on how charter revision commissions work see this “explainer” provided by Citizens Union: https://bit.ly/3TbsR8L

Buffalo Charter Revision Commission Rejects Election Reform Effort

A Buffalo Charter Revision Commission has rejected a proposal that would have permitted voters to consider semi-open primaries, ranked choice voting, and expanded November ballot access. In Buffalo, Unite NY submitted around 500 petition signatures asking Mayor Sean Ryan and the city’s Common Council to have the commission advance the proposals that eventually failed to move forward.

According to Unite NY polling data:

80% of Buffalo voters support a ballot question to permit voters to decide whether to adopt election reforms.

67% of voters support open primaries

67% support reducing the number of signatures needed to independent candidates to get on the city ballot, and

50% of voters support ranked choice voting

REDISTRICTING

New York’s Challenging 2027 Redistricting Amendment

Writing in Politico NY, Bill Mahoney says that “There might be more voters in the upstate city of Utica than in the sprawling borough of Manhattan,” adding that “There will be almost nothing else on the ballot next year driving turnout in New York City. The state’s top races will be county executive contests in places like Erie, Onondaga and Suffolk. These purple counties will not give Democrats the built-in turnout advantage they usually enjoy in the blue state.”

Mahoney looks at how there will be few local races up for election in 2027 following the state’s move to electing local officials in even years. Democrats will need to convince voters that it is worth their effort to go out and vote in an election where few candidates will also be appearing on the ballot.

Democratic Party leaders will need to convince voters to support a mid-decade redistricting effort (along with other redistricting reforms), leading Assembly Carl Heastie to tell Mahoney that “o you think what they did in Texas was fair and fine?’ I think they’d be alarmed,” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said about the recent Siena poll. “And if you follow up the question and say ‘Do you think New York should also be in a position to respond to what is happening so that one party doesn’t just take over the country for forever?’ … That’s how you have to start to inform voters as to why it’s important.”

Mahoney’s article can be read here: https://bit.ly/3RdT6ee

Depending on the outcome of efforts this year to place an open primary question on the ballot in New York City, the open primary question could also face city voters in 2027, providing more impetus for voters to turn out in what might be otherwise a slow election season.

Maryland Officials Announce Special Session on Redistricting in August

Maryland became the latest state following New York to consider a measure to permit mid-decade congressional redistricting in 2028.

On Wednesday, July 8, House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk and Senate President Bill Ferguson jointly announced that the Maryland General Assembly will convene for a special session August 3rd through 5th to consider placing a constitutional amendment regarding congressional redistricting on the November ballot. This marks a significant reversal for Ferguson, who earlier this year refused to allow a Senate vote on the House-passed redistricting map that would have eliminated the state’s sole Republican-held congressional seat. Ferguson said this time the approach is different: “After recent court decisions weakened the federal Voting Rights Act and created new uncertainty around congressional redistricting, Maryland needs a clear legal path forward.”

The special session will debate a proposed ballot question to establish redistricting standards in the state constitution. If approved by a three-fifths vote in both chambers, the referendum will appear on the November ballot. The announcement did not provide details on the specific language of the ballot question. If voters approve the amendment in November, a new map could take effect for 2028.

8th Circuit Reverses Its Ruling on Native American Minority District Post Callais

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Tuesday, July 7, to reverse a 2023 legal victory by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Nation, in which a federal district court judge had concluded that North Dakota’s state legislative map unlawfully diluted Native American voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The case has a long procedural history. In 2023, the U.S. District Court sided with the tribes and ordered a remedial map, which was used in the 2024 elections, resulting in three tribal members being elected to the state legislature from District 9 for the first time in over 30 years. The Eighth Circuit then ruled that private plaintiffs cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA at all, a sweeping holding that would have applied across all seven states in the circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota). The Supreme Court blocked that ruling in July 2025 and, on May 18, 2026, vacated the Eighth Circuit’s decision, sending it back for reconsideration in light of Callais.

On remand, the Eighth Circuit applied the new Callais standard and reversed the tribes’ victory, finding that the district court’s original findings no longer hold under the heightened evidentiary standard established by Callais. Justice Jackson, the lone dissenter in the May 18 SCOTUS order, had warned this would happen, writing that she saw “no basis for vacating” the Eighth Circuit’s ruling because Callais did not address the private right-of-action question that was central to the case.

This is significant for two reasons. First, it affects state legislative maps, not congressional districts. Second, the practical consequence is significant: the three tribal members elected in 2024 under the remedial map could lose their seats if the original gerrymandered map is restored for 2026. The case is Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Jaeger, and will now return to the district court.

N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE

N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance

No preclearance activity was posted last week by the Attorney General’s office.

All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/

AROUND THE NATION

From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)

June 29: The Colorado Supreme Court has blocked all attempts to redraw congressional district boundaries for the 2028 election from reaching the ballot, concluding that each of the proposed ballot measures violates the constitutional single-subject requirement. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

June 29: Wisconsin Supreme Court sets oral arguments for Sept. 16 in a pair of congressional redistricting lawsuits that seek to redraw the state’s boundaries.

Two separate three-judge panels dismissed the lawsuits. The appeals attempt to revive them for potential trials. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

June 1: The Problem Solvers Caucus has unveiled a bipartisan Gerrymandering Reform Framework to address congressional redistricting nationally. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

July 6: NJ Gov. Mikie Sherrill (@GovSherrillNJ) has signed the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act of New Jersey. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

July 7: Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk today announced that the Maryland General Assembly will convene in a special session from August 3-5, 2026 to consider legislation proposing a constitutional amendment regarding congressional redistricting. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

July 8: The Eighth Circuit has vacated the district court’s ruling on North Dakota’s legislative map.

The case is remanded for further proceedings in light of Callais, which overhauled the Gingles framework used to assess Section 2 vote-dilution claims. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

July 9: The Utah Supreme Court will hear arguments in September 2026 over whether the Republican Legislature’s creation of a three-judge panel to hear the Utah congressional redistricting lawsuit is unconstitutional. — @RedistrictNet [from X]

July 11: Daily District is a new project from Prof. Jonathan Cervas (CMU) and @Redistrictnet. Name all 435 U.S. House districts from their shape. Dropping imminently! — @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 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 & Michelle Davis of Redistricting Online & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.

Share this:

N.Y. Election News Update 06/22/2026

June 22, 2026New York Election Law News This week:-Early Voting Law Challenge Proceeds in Federal Court-State Redistricting Commission Meets to Approve Budget; ChairsComment on New Redistricting Amendment-Wice on New Redistricting Amendment (NY Daily News)-Census Watchdog Flags Risks to 2030 Census-Voting Rights Act Preclearance-Around the NationLITIGATIONEarly Voting Law Challenge:New York Republican State Committee v. State of New York The New York Republican State Committee filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York last year against the state of New York and Governor Kathy Hochul challenging the state’s Even Year Election Law (EYEL). The plaintiffs include individuals from Nassau County, Suffolk County, and Orange County. Enacted in December 2023, the EYEL moves many local elections to even-numbered years to coincide with state and federal contests. This lawsuit follows a New York Court of Appeals ruling in October 2025, which upheld the law, allowing the election schedule to shift to proceed. Plaintiffs contend that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), by undermining local control and diluting the influence of certain voters. The use of Section 2 of the VRA and the court’s scrutiny of whether consolidated ballots actually create discriminatory “voter drop-off” for minority voters presents a unique legal issue. The plaintiffs argue that the EYEL imposes significant burdens on political speech by reducing the visibility of local messages and increasing the cost of spreading those messages. Plaintiffs also assert that information and content from national elections will have residual effects on the voters’ decision-making in local races. According to the plaintiffs, consolidating local elections into even-year cycles expands the electorate to include a larger share of voters who are less informed about local issues and more inclined to vote along partisan and racial lines. In one of their causes of action, plaintiffs further allege that the interaction of EYEL and the continuing effects of discrimination on Black New Yorkers will result in diminished opportunities for these voters to participate meaningfully in the political process and to election representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs are asking the court to block the law and let local governments opt out. On June 10th, the State filed its motion to dismiss. The State argues to dismiss on procedural grounds, including standing and failure to state a plausible voting rights claim. In its analysis of the Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee’s factors, the State argues that the plaintiff’s allegations fail to show how the existence of racially polarized voting is relevant to the court’s analysis. Also, the EYEL reflects New York’s compelling interest in increasing voter turnout and reducing voter confusion. Further, the State argues that the plaintiffs fail to allege any of the traditional or updated Gingles preconditions under the new Louisiana v. Callais precedent.On June 10, the plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to the State’s motion to dismiss. On the issue of standing, the plaintiffs argue that at this stage, the legal standard for standing is not to prove their injuries but rather plead them. Also, the party plaintiffs argue they have direct organizational standing because the EYEL materially impairs core electoral activities.Further, the candidate plaintiffs argue they allege concrete and particularized injuries in their amended complaint. Specifically, the candidates each stood for town and county level offices in November 2025 and the EYEL would alter the competitive conditions in which each of them will have to campaign.Further, plaintiffs argue they state a valid First Amendment claim because they assert that the EYEL imposes structural, asymmetric burdens on political speech and association. The plaintiffs also argue that EYEL restructures the electoral architecture in a way that subordinates local political speech to dominate federal and statewide contests. On June 17, the State filed its reply in support of their motion to dismiss.If the federal court agrees with the state’s arguments, the local boards and town positions will share the electoral stage with federal campaigns. However, if the plaintiffs succeed, then local government will likely be granted the right to “opt-out” and maintain odd-year elections. Oral arguments on the State’s motion to dismiss were held on June 18th.REDISTRICTINGState Redistricting Commission Meets in Albany To Approve Budget;Chairs Comment on Constitutional Amendment The state’s “Independent” Redistricting Commission met last Tuesday to approve the commission’s $953,133 budget for the new fiscal year and to hear a presentation by Co-Executive Diretors Karen Blatt and Douglas Breakell on population demographics. While the commissioners didn’t discuss the pending constitutional amendment that would limit the commssion’s powers to analyzing data, holding hearings, and submitting one set of maps to the legislature, the chair and vice chair did comment to reporters afterwards.Democratic Chair Ken Jenkins, who is also the Westchester County executive, indicated that he would “wait and see” more about how the amendment is structured and whether he would support it. He also kept the door open to the Democratic legislative leaders desire to fight back against President Trump’s unprecedented effort to redraw congressional districts across the country and understood their concerns and desire to address the issue. Republican Vice Chair and former Assembly GOP leader Charles Nesbitt told reporters that the commission has “worked the kinks out, so I think any changes are premature. I think anything that takes the power away from the commission takes away from the intent of the creation of the commission,” he said, adding, “The reason for our being is to have representation in our elected officials who represent the population of our state, and the fairest way to do that is through this deliberative process.” In their presentation to the commission on population trends, Blatt and Breakell reported that: -Based on estimates, we are seeing increases in the Hudson Valley, on Long Island, and in the Capitol area and losses in New York City. -In the last year, Western NY, the Finger Lakes, Central NY and the North Country have seen declines. -Rockland County has had the largest percent increase of 5.6% and Suffolk had the larges numerical increase of 20, people. -Schoharie County had the largest percent decrease by 5.4% and Kings County had the largest numerical decrease of 82,328 people. -Orange, Suffolk and Rockland experienced the most growth ince 2020 -Kings, Queens, and the Bronx have all decreased, reversing the 2020 trend -the Mid Hudson Valley; Long Island and NYC experienced net positive natural changes due to births and deaths, but also experienced outmigration to other states -all regions except for the Capitol Area experienced out migration to other states -NYC has had the highest number of births and international immigrants, but also 82% if the outmigration to other state Wice on Redistricting Amendment in NY Daily News On June 16th, New York Law School Professor Jeff Wice commented on the pending constitutional amendment in a New York Daily News column: “If approved by the Legislature again in 2027 and then adopted by voters, the state constitutional amendment would reset the rules of engagement. The amendment would permit mid-decade redistricting; end the state’s ban against partisan gerrymandering; and grant the Legislature more control over the mapping process, allowing the Legislature to step in if the IRC fails to agree on a map or if the Legislature rejects the IRC’s drafts, and allowing the Legislature to adopt new maps by a simple majority vote rather than the currently required supermajorities. If Albany clears the amendment again next year, the final choice rests with the voters. The November 2027 vote is a long way off, and national political winds will undoubtedly shift between now and then. Public sentiment will hinge heavily on which party controls the U.S. House next year, voter satisfaction with Trump’s agenda, and the general appetite for entirely new congressional lines…” Read the column here: https://www.nydailynews.com/2026/06/16/n-y-joins-the-u-s-redistricting-wars/CENSUSCensus Watchdog Flags Risks to the 2030 Count A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) warns that the Census Bureau, having narrowed the scope of its 2026 Census Test, may finalize important parts of the 2030 count’s design before it has evidence that those methods actually work. Released June 4, 2026, the report describes that the Bureau has reduced planned test sites from six to two and 19 planned operational activities to nine, leaving fewer opportunities to evaluate the new approaches the agency hopes to use at the end of the decade. These preparations matter far beyond the test itself, because the once-a-decade count determines how congressional seats are apportioned, how district lines are drawn, and how hundreds of billions of dollars in annual federal funding are distributed to states and communities. The four sites the Bureau dropped from the 2026 test were Colorado Springs, Colorado; Tribal Lands within Arizona; Western North Carolina; and Western Texas. According to the report, these four sites were cut because they were not part of the Bureau’s original U.S. Postal Service pilot, leaving Huntsville, Alabama, and Spartanburg, South Carolina, as the two remaining sites. The four canceled locations included a tribal-lands site and several rural areas, which tend to be among the harder-to-count places, so their removal is likely part of why GAO flagged a loss of useful test data. The 2026 Field Test The 2026 Test is the first of two major field tests on the road to the 2030 count; the second is a dress rehearsal in 2028, and its purpose is to determine whether the new methods, processes, and technologies the Bureau identified in early research perform well enough to carry into the actual census. In practice, the test pairs online self-response with in-person follow-up, and the scaled-down version is built around a pilot that uses U.S. Postal Service staff to conduct that in-person counting at the two remaining sites. Data collection for the revised two-site test runs across the spring and summer of 2026: residents at the Huntsville and Spartanburg sites are asked to respond online from May 1 through August 31, 2026, with census workers following up in person to count households that do not respond from June 1 through August 31, 2026. The Bureau has said it intends to complete the test by September 30, 2026, the close of the federal fiscal year. The Bureau told GAO that it refocused the smaller test on two priorities: piloting the use of U.S. Postal Service workers for in-person counting and refining field infrastructure, staffing, and training at the two remaining sites in Alabama, and South Carolina. Scaling back, however, also pushed the test’s response and field-counting timelines later and cut overall hiring goals by more than 90 percent. GAO’s central concern is that, with fewer methods put to the test, the Bureau could lock in its 2030 design without knowing whether the changes improve or weaken the count, an outcome the watchdog links to potential higher costs, lower data quality, and diminished public confidence. What the Test No Longer Covers Of the 19 operational activities the Bureau originally planned to evaluate in the 2026 Test, 10 were fully or partially set aside. Several of the dropped items go to methods the Bureau hopes will modernize and economize the 2030 count, among them offering an online self-response option to residents of college dormitories, gauging how accurately new administrative-data modeling can count certain nonresponding households without a doorstep visit, and using the same field staff to enumerate both group quarters and ordinary housing units. Leaving these procedures untested matters because the Bureau may still rely on them in 2030 without first knowing how well they work; GAO points to a concrete precedent, noting that the agency ran into trouble submitting group-quarters data electronically during the 2020 Census, a feature for which it had reduced testing during the 2018 Test. The full set of the 10 reduced or removed activities is listed below. Removed EntirelyIn-Office Enumeration Model Input DataIn-Office Enumeration Model AccuracyIn-Office Enumeration Model ResultsNew Methods for Processing Addresses Without an IdentifierGroup Quarters (GQ) Internet Self-Response OptionCombined Field OperationsMulti-Operational Field Staff for Group Quarters and Housing Unit Cases Reduced (scaled-back) Near Real-Time ProcessingAbility to Integrate Multiple Operation ProcessingSegments in Near Real TimeFunctionality of Near Real-Time Data Processing Two further findings speak to how accurate the eventual census count is likely to be. The questionnaire used in the test, adapted from the American Community Survey, takes about 40 minutes to complete compared with roughly 10 minutes for the 2020 form, and GAO points to prior research indicating that longer questionnaires tend to lower response rates. At the same time, total Bureau staffing fell about 16 percent between January and October 2025, and the agency has identified mission-critical skills shortages, including in data science and cybersecurity, even as a workforce assessment meant to size up its 2030 needs sat paused and incomplete as of February 2026. A workforce that is both smaller and short on key skills, GAO cautions, could leave the Bureau without the people or expertise to run an effective enumeration. For local governments in particular, the practical weight of these findings lies in the cost of an inaccurate count. The federal funding that supports local services, the population figures officials use for planning, and the representation a community receives all flow from census data, so quality problems at the national level land squarely on states and localities. Local jurisdictions also work directly with the census, for example, by reviewing address and boundary records and encouraging residents to respond. The GAO report does not examine that local role, but it arguably becomes more important as reduced federal testing and a smaller Bureau workforce increase the chance of errors that the national count might otherwise catch. GAO Recommendations GAO made two recommendations: that the Bureau research and test the activities and design features it removed from the 2026 Test before finalizing the 2030 design, and that it determine its workforce needs in time to close skills gaps, both of which the Department of Commerce accepted. Reporting on the findings, the technology outlet FedScoop noted that a companion GAO report issued the same day concluded that the Bureau’s enterprise IT modernization schedule was unreliable and that Commerce concurred with those recommendations as well. The Bureau has said that discussions about additional small-scale testing ahead of 2030 are ongoing.N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCEN.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance 1301 Westchester County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted 1421 Orange County Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/AROUND THE NATIONFrom The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) June 15: Maryland leaders are preparing for a July special session on redistricting that could send a constitutional amendment to voters in November, Senate President Bill Ferguson’s office confirmed. — @RedistrictNet [from X] June 19: A three-judge panel heard 11th hour arguments yesterday to block Tennessee’s congressional map. — @RedistrictNet [from X] June 19: Maryland Senate president faces primary challenge after he initially snubbed an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map. — @RedistrictNet [from X] June 21: Georgia Republicans nix redistricting plans on first day of special session. — @RedistrictNet [from X]INSTITUTE RESOURCESThe 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 pagehere: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/ Archived Updates can be accessedhere: 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.eduThe 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 & Michelle Davis of Redistricting Online & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.

NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Update – Special Update June 2, 2026

June 3, 2026

REDISTRICTING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

New Redistricting Constitutional Amendment Introduced

What’s Next For New York’s Mid-Decade Redistricting- And Beyond?

Late Monday night on June 1st, Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart Cousins introduced a constitutional amendment (S.10637/A.11553) to amend the state constitution’s redistricting sections. The amendment is expected to be voted on by the Senate and Assembly on Thursday, June 4th before the chambers adjourn the regular 2026 session.

If approved, the new legislature elected in November will have to vote on the same amendment next year. If approved again, the amendment will go to the voters for approval in late 2027.

The amendment’s most significant features permit mid-decade congressional redistricting, provide for simple majority vote map approvals in both chambers, and limits the state Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to holding hearings and produce one set of congressional, senate, and assembly maps to send to the legislature by January 15 in the second year of each decade.

New Redistricting Changes:

– Deadlines: IRC must submit maps by January 15th in the second year of each decade. If no maps are submitted or if legislature fails to approve the maps, the legislature shall draw maps (with implementing legislation) and send them to the governor for approval. No further action by the IRC is provided, eliminating the need for a second set of commission maps for the legislature to consider.

-Majority Votes: the Senate and Assembly can approve maps subject to majority votes, eliminating the need for voting majorities based on divided-party chamber control.

-Mid-decade redistricting: the legislature is provided with the authority to redraw congressional districts at any time during the decade following approval or rejection of the commission’s map.

-Criteria: (minority voting rights) maps shall not be drawn with the purpose of denying racial or language groups with less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice based on the totality of the circumstances, eliminating any “results” test.

-Criteria: (compactness) districts need not be as compact as might be practicable.

-Criteria (removes ban on partisan gerrymandering) districts can be drawn without taking into consideration whether they discourage competition or favoring or disfavoring incumbents, candidates, or political parties.

-Criteria (Senate block-on-border) eliminates state senate “block on border” restrictions (previously removed from Assembly requirements in the 2014 amendment) permitting more flexibility to meet other mapping requirements

-Remedial redistricting: the IRC will not be required to draw new maps after courts order changes based on any legal violations

State Legislative Authority: In the event a state court invalidates a congressional redistricting map, the legislature shall have the power to draw a remedial map. State courts shall not order the drawing of a congressional map unless the legislature fails to do so first.

Note that all maps approved by the legislature are still subject to approval by the Governor.

Unchanged Provisions:

-the IRC shall continue to hold at least12 hearings across the state in designated counties before preparing a map to send to the legislature

-the IRC will continue to have 10 members who are appointed by the legislative leaders (8 members) and 2 selected by the 8 legislative appointees

-the IRC map for the senate and assembly will be voted on by the legislature in one bill that can also include the congressional map.

-the IRC’s internal voting requirements remain intact as well as all other responsibilities assigned to it, including the ability to retain staff.

New York Election News Update

May 26, 2026New York Election Law News This week:-What’s Next For New York’s Mid-Decade Redistricting- And Beyond? -State Public Finance Campaign Board to Hear Blakeman Funding Appeal-Procedural Pitfalls in Election Litigation-Why the 2030 LUCA Program Matters to Redistricting-Attorney General’s Prelearance Activity-Employment Opportunities-Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network) REDISTRICTING & LITIGATION What’s Next For New York’s Mid-Decade Redistricting- And Beyond? With two weeks remaining in the current 2026 state legislative session, action on one or more state constitutional redistricting amendments is expected. Any amendment approved by the legislature this year must be approved again next year and, if successful, go to approval by the voters in 2027. New York Law School’s Jeff Wice offers several ideas that the legislature could consider: Mid-Decade Redistricting State constitutional criteria bans partisan favoritism and maps that dilute minority voting strength (based on a “totality of the circumstances” test). While the recent U.S. Supreme Court Callais decision does not directly impact the state’s redistricting process, it could make it harder to defend congressional districts drawn based on race. Any map seen to favor political parties or candidates can be challenged in court. Voters in California and Virginia approved constitutional amendments waiving state constitutional criteria restrictions for their one-time mid-decade redistricting efforts. Pending state legislation to permit mid-decade redistricting (A.9014/S.8467) would retain the current state criteria for a one-time mid-decade redistricting. An amendment changing the redistricting commission process for 2030 and later decades can delete congressional redistricting and leave the entire congressional mapping to the legislature.  Structural Reforms to the Commission Process Tie Breaking Chair: A New York State law school dean could be considered as an 11th commission member to serve as chair and to prevent future deadlocks. The chair could be selected by the Speaker of the Assembly and President Pro Tempore of the State Senate. Law school deans could be relied on as objective and non-partisan. The chair would serve for a four-year term (to begin in the first year of each decade ending in 0). New chairs would serve the last six years of each decade for three-year terms (providing for turn over). The four-year term at the beginning of the decade would provide for continuity during the preliminary, map drawing, and post-map litigation phases of each decade. Commission and Legislative Voting Approval:  The constitution’s rules for approving maps by the commission and the Legislature should be changed to permit simple state legislative majority approval (as is required to pass regular legislation) and the elimination of complicated voting rules controlled by the political party with a majority in the Assembly and Senate. Voting by the commission should be restructured. The arcane rules establishing the approval process for new maps set out in the 2014 amendment should be scrapped in favor of majority voting by commission members. Ranking Criteria: New York’s constitution currently sets out the redistricting criteria in an unranked order, providing no guidance as to which principles should be prioritized over others. Navigating redistricting criteria is difficult in any scenario as the principles are often in conflict with one another. Without any guidance as to prioritization, it can prove impossible to comply with each criterion simultaneously. To remedy this, criteria should be ranked in priority order, similar to requirements placed on the state’s local government redistricting process in contained in the Municipal Home Rule Law. Prioritized criteria help guide decisions as higher ranked criteria are given greater weight and precedence over lower ranked criteria. Population equality, minority voting rights, adherence to defined “communities of interest,” a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering should be the top-ranked criteria. This kind of prioritization has worked particularly well for New York City Councilmanic redistricting for over 30 years. Capping Size of the State Senate: A permanent cap on the number of state senators should be set, preferably at 63 districts. Without a cap, future commissions and legislatures could manipulate the number of Senate districts for partisan purposes, as had been done in several decades up to the 2012 redistricting.   End Congressional Prison Gerrymandering: An amendment should also make permanent an end to so-called “prison gerrymandering” so that incarcerated individuals can be counted for both congressional and state legislative districts from their homes of record before incarceration. The current state statute providing for state legislative prisoner reallocation only left out reallocation for congressional districts because of legal uncertainties existing in 2010 when the statute was enacted. Federal courts have since permitted reallocation for congressional redistricting in other states.  Clarify Final Legislative Approval: An amendment should make clear that the state legislature has final authority to enact a map and delineate what action, if any, the Commission should retain after submission of a second-round map proposal.  Obsolete Provisions: Obsolete provisions left in the state constitution from 1938 and earlier should be removed. The 2014 amendment left in place outdated and irrelevant language that only serves to confuse people. For example, confusing and hard to understand block-on-border restraints on State Senate districts are no longer relevant and should be eliminated. To the extent possible, a new amendment should be written in clear language to make the redistricting sections understandable to the public. Campaign Finance: Blakeman v. New York State Public Campaign Finance Board A hearing will be held before the Appellate Division, Third Department, on an appeal by the State Campaign Finance Board regarding GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman’s effort to obtain state matching funds. The Albany County state supreme court held that Blakeman was entitled to matching funds and the Board is appealing that decision. All relevant appeal papers have been filed with the court and the hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 27th at 1:00 PM. ELECTION LAW Procedural Pitfalls in Election Litigation: What Can Be Learned from Recent NYS Appellate Division Decisions By: Joseph T. Burns In a little more than a month, New Yorkers will go to the polls to vote in the 2026 primary election. Ballot access litigation over the 2026 primary election candidates has nearly concluded. Election-related litigation in New York has a well-deserved reputation for being notoriously complex. Recent decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department, reaffirm the idea that election-related litigation is full of procedural pitfalls that inexperienced lawyers must learn to navigate. For instance, proceedings to validate or invalidate a candidate’s designating petition must be served on Respondents in a manner directed by the Court as set forth in an Order to Show Cause. Strict compliance with the method of service dictated by the Order to Show Cause is required.  The Second Department reaffirmed this requirement last week in Matter of Grillo v. Speranza and Matter of Nichols v. New York City Board of Elections. In Matter of Grillo, the Order to Show Cause directed that the Respondent-candidate be served by affixing a copy of the Order to Show Cause and supporting papers to the inner or outer door of his residence and by mailing a copy of these documents to his residence via the U.S. Postal Service. The Petitioner, however, sent these documents to the Respondent-candidate via FedEx. The Second Department determined, however, that this seemingly insignificant deviation from the service requirements of the Order to Show Cause was, in fact, a jurisdictional defect and upheld the lower Court’s decision to dismiss the proceeding. In Matter of Nichols, the Second Department addressed a similar issue. The Order to Show Cause in that case directed that the Board of Elections be served by leaving a copy of the Order to Show Cause and supporting papers at the Board’s office. The Board, however, was served via overnight mail. The trial court dismissed the proceeding due to the Petitioner’s failure to strictly comply with the service requirements set forth in the Order to Show Cause. As with the decision in Matter of Grillo, the lower Court decision was unanimously affirmed by the Second Department. Failing to serve Respondents in the manner directed by the Order to Show Cause isn’t the only procedural defect addressed by the Second Department last week. The Court also tackled the issue of timely service in election-related litigation. In Matter of Lemma v. Michos, the Second Department reaffirmed the Election Law’s strict requirement that service on all necessary parties must be completed within the statute of limitations set forth in the Election Law. The statute requires that in proceedings to invalidate a designating petition, service must be completed within fourteen days after the last day to file a designating petition. In Matter of Lemma, the Order to Show Cause and its supporting papers were sent to the Respondent-candidate via UPS on the last day to commence a proceeding to invalidate. They were received the next day by the candidate. As it has repeatedly done in similar cases, the Second Department determined that this was untimely service, reversed the decision of the trial court, and dismissed the proceeding. In Election Law cases, what appears to be an insignificant procedural defect is often something much larger and consequential. Failing to strictly follow service requirements or missing a deadline by a day can mean an otherwise solid case will never be heard on the merits. And because of the Election Law’s short and unforgiving statute of limitations, there is usually no time for a Petitioner to file a new proceeding. Engaging in election-related litigation in New York State is not for hobbyists or the inexperienced. Many candidates, objectors and party chairs have seen their cases dismissed due to easily avoidable procedural missteps. Those who anticipate being involved in election-related litigation would be wise to retain experienced counsel early to ensure that these issues are avoided. Joseph T. Burns is a partner in Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak’s Buffalo officehttps://www.holtzmanvogel.com/professionals/joseph-t-burns CENSUS Why the 2030 Census LUCA Program Matters to Redistricting Most redistricting discussions focus on the maps, who draws them, what criteria they must meet, and how they will hold up in court. But every redistricting map built from 2030 Census data will ultimately rest on a foundation that GIS and redistricting staff rarely talk about: the Census Bureau’s residential address list. The Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) operation is the first to occur in every decennial census cycle, and it gives state, tribal, and local governments their only opportunity to directly help ensure an accurate enumeration by reviewing and submitting updates or corrections to the confidential address list before the census starts. State and local governments use census data to redraw district boundaries for congressional, state legislative, and local bodies, meaning that if the address list undercounts a neighborhood, those residents will be effectively invisible when population totals are tabulated into census blocks, and those census blocks are the building blocks from which every district map is assembled. The connection between address accuracy and redistricting equity is well-documented in the 2020 cycle. In the Castle Hill neighborhood of New York City, the discovery of nearly 250 previously unlisted housing units, mostly basement apartments and subdivided homes, accounted for more than 10 percent of the area’s total housing stock. In Co-op City, an additional review uncovered more than 300 apartment units not listed in the Census Bureau’s file, many of which were known but geocoded incorrectly. In Issaquah, Washington, a city leveraged a locally developed GIS-based address dataset, originally built for city planning, emergency services, and utility management, to identify and submit nearly 600 additional housing units in the Issaquah Highlands neighborhood that were missing from the Census Bureau’s list. In each of these cases, local GIS staff were the ones who identified the discrepancies because they had local data that the Census Bureau did not. The 2030 LUCA program is designed specifically to capture that local knowledge, and GIS professionals at the county and municipal level are the people best positioned to deliver it. LUCA Timeline For GIS and redistricting staff, LUCA preparation that begins now directly serves the redistricting mission in 2031. Although LUCA officially begins in 2027, participating requires groundwork data review, internal planning, and partnership building that local governments can and should start today, including assessing local GIS and data capacity, identifying areas with new development, and understanding which neighborhoods might need corrections. The Census Bureau has made the 2030 LUCA program entirely digital, with web-based tools that eliminate the need to download software, a new address-matching service that allows staff to compare local address files against the Census Bureau’s list, and an extended review window from four to six months. Governments can access Census Address Count Listing Files now, before LUCA officially opens, to begin reviewing how their jurisdiction’s address counts have changed since 2020. For GIS staff who will be doing the heavy lifting on redistricting in 2031, this is one of the highest-value investments they can make in the data quality of the maps they will be asked to defend. N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE 1423 Niagara County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted 1301 Westchester County Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted; more information requested 1321 Albany County Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted 1341 Orange County Board of Elections- poll site locations- additional information requested from county 1342 Albany County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/ EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES N.Y. Attorney General’s Office- Voting Rights Analyst Civil Rights Bureau, Voting Rights SectionReference No. CRB_NYC_VRA_6446Application Deadline is June 12, 2026https://bit.ly/3PEPGAu The Office of the New York State Attorney General (OAG) is seeking a candidate with experience or interest in voting rights for a Voting Rights Analyst (VRA) position in the Voting Rights Section (VRS) of the CivilRights Bureau. The VRS is a recently established section within OAG. The VRS is charged with, among other things, enforcing the newly-enacted New York Voting Rights Act, one of the strongest state voting rights laws in the country, including implementing its state “preclearance” program Director of Voting Rights Litigation- LatinoJustice PRLDEFhttps://bit.ly/4e5A4ze LatinoJustice PRLDEF (LJP) seeks an experienced and dynamic litigator and manager to play a key leadership role in developing and directing LJP’s voting rights litigation during a period when the ability of Latinos to fully participate in our democracy is under attack. The Director of Voting Rights Litigation directs and coordinates LJP’s voting rights litigation docket, identifies and develops new litigation matters based on organizational priorities and ensures effective execution. The Director directly participates in litigation as well, maintaining an active docket and serving as lead counsel in selected cases. AROUND THE NATION From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) May 19: A new lawsuit asks a Cole County judge to force Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to decide whether a referendum challenging Missouri’s new congressional map qualifies for the November ballot before voters cast ballots in the Aug. 4 primary. — @RedistrictNet [from X] May 19: At least seven blue states could redistrict by 2028, says Hakeem Jeffries, speaking at the Center for American Progress. — @RedistrictNet [from X] May 19: All three federal challenges to Tennessee’s new congressional map have been consolidated before the same judge. — @RedistrictNet [from X] May 21: The NC Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit challenging North Carolina legislative and congressional maps, ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions under Harper v. Hall. — @RedistrictNet [from X] May 22: On Thursday, the Louisiana House & Governmental Affairs Committee adopted an amended version of the congressional map in SB 121. The updated redistricting bill is expected to be heard on the House floor next week. View the map in DRA here:  — @RedistrictNet [from X] May 22: Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson, who had previously blocked redistricting efforts, says he would consider a special session this summer to address legal roadblocks to redrawing the state’s congressional map. — @RedistrictNet [from X] May 23: The South Carolina legislature will not be able to pass the proposed congressional map until after early voting begins, leaving in limbo whether the new redistricting plan will be used for the 2026 midterms. — @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 pagehere: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/ Archived Updates can be accessedhere: 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, Michelle Davis of Redistricting Online & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.