|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Republicans Rely On Violations Of Voting Rights Act In Opposition To Switch To Even-Year Voting For Local Elections
On the heels of losing their case at New York’s Court of Appeals (its highest court), a group of about thirty plaintiffs (including multiple Republican party organizations, three counties, numerous municipalities, a county executive, and more than a dozen individual candidates for office), are hoping to convince a federal court judge in the Eastern District of New York that New York’s switch to even-year voting is illegal.
Having lost in state court on their “home rule” arguments – that the state exceeded its authority over local governments when it changed the timing of local elections from odd to even years – the plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the change infringed on their First Amendment rights and was also violative of the Voting Rights Act.
Several counties, including Rockland County, had filed petitions in state court in April of 2024 challenging the law, and won a short-term victory when a Supreme Court Justice in Onandaga County declared the law unconstitutional (under state law). That opinion was reversed in the Appellate Division, and that reversal was affirmed by the New York State Court of Appeals in October of 2025.
The losing counties and various organizations including the New York State Republican Committee and the New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways filed a lawsuit in federal court, this time making claims that the switch to even years violated the United State Constitution. The Plaintiffs include Nassau, Suffolk and Orange Counties, all helmed by Republican County Executives.
Rockland County is not a party to the federal litigation, even though Rockland County Executive Ed Day claims to be. He is fundraising to support the litigation. In an email invitation titled, “Building Tomorrow, Still Fighting Today” Day says: “Now, I and others are in court defending our beloved County’s electoral process as the future of Rockland’s election process stands to be compromised by Albany power brokers so they get to put their thumb on the scale of justice. We need to fundraiser (sic) has been reinvigorated and is moving forward and I need YOUR support to help us achieve our goal of an even better Rockland County.”
Day’s fundraiser in support of the federal litigation was held at the Pearl River Hilton on Tuesday.
The change to even-year voting was originally sponsored by State Senator James Skoufis (D-Cornwall) who referred to the federal litigation and said, taxpayers “should be outraged” by the filing. “Coming off their obviously baseless, no-shot lawsuit in state court – where the fiscally irresponsible county lawmakers lit their taxpayer money on fire – it comes as no surprise that they want to advance an even more meritless Hail Mary lawsuit in federal court.”
The lawsuit’s First Amendment Claim is based on the notion that local candidates having to compete for the attention of voters in the same year as state and federal contests effectively dilutes their ability to convey their messages to voters over larger state and federal election campaigns and issues.
The Voting Rights Act argument says that the change to even years increases racial polarization and erodes democracy. It claims that: “In communities already marked by racial polarization, it will amplify disparities in political participation and exacerbate racially polarized voting.” Plaintiffs are concerned that, “[C]onsolidating local elections into even-year cycles brings into the electorate a larger share of voters who are less informed about local issues and more likely to vote along partisan and racial lines.”
On March 9, the parties will meet in person in Central Islip for a conference to discuss New York State’s motion to dismiss the case. Arguing for the state, Assistant Attorney General Helena Lynch told the court in a letter that most of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata – a doctrine that precludes an issue that’s already been decided from being re-litigated. Lynch says the First Amendment arguments (free speech and free association) were already litigated in the Appellate Division and that the decision was affirmed in all respects by the Court of Appeals.
Lynch also argues that “claim preclusion” – a doctrine that prevents the losing party in past litigation from raising issues in new litigation that it could have raised before but didn’t. She says that the plaintiffs either raised or could have raised their First Amendment and Voting Rights claims in state court, and are now “precluded” from raising them in federal court.
The AG’s office also argues that the claims are barred by the 11th Amendment. The 11th Amendment grants states sovereign immunity, generally prohibiting federal courts from hearing lawsuits brought by private citizens against states, state agencies, or state officials in their official capacity without the state’s consent. It acts as a jurisdictional bar to federal, not state, courts. The AG says that as New York has not waived immunity in this case, the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Other challenges, including challenges to standing and lack of capacity are also raised. The law generally precludes municipalities and other local government entities and their officers from bringing constitutional challenges to state legislation in federal court.
And, the AG challenges the notion that the change to even years has the impacts plaintiffs claim on voters and minorities and that the burdens charged are conclusory. Impacts on voters, it says, are reasonable and non-discriminatory. The State also says that the concerns raised by the Plaintiffs about being outspent and being drowned out by state and federal election campaigns “do not implicate the First Amendment” as the “First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s financial ability to engage in public discussion.”
Plaintiffs are represented by William A. Brewer, who says, “Local candidates will be forced to run again on shortened timelines, local elections will be buried under federal races, and voters will be deprived of meaningful choice. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit government officials to implement a system designed to silence local democracy.”
The New York’s Court of Appeals disagreed, and has already ruled in favor of the change to even year elections. It is now up to the federal court to say whether Brewer is right or wrong.
