New York Law School’s Digital Commons@NYLS

Wice, Jeffrey M.

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 1-8-2024 January 8 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice New York Law School, jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates Recommended Citation Wice, Jeffrey M., "January 8 Roundtable Update" (2024). Redistricting Roundtable Updates. 127. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/127 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the NY Census and Redistricting Institute at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Redistricting Roundtable Updates by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu.                N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE  REDISTRICTING   Groups Ask Redistricting Commission to Hold Hearings   A group of good government groups asked the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission to prioritize transparency and public participation in the congressional map drawing process. Their letter follows: Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned organizations, write to urge you to prioritize transparency and public participation as you resume drawing New York’s congressional map in the coming weeks. Our organizations represent a broad range of groups and communities that remain deeply invested in an equitable and transparent process that includes substantive input from New Yorkers around the state. We firmly believe that an open redistricting process is critical for ensuring that the voices of all New Yorkers are heard. New Yorkers deserve the opportunity to weigh in on district lines before they are finalized despite the challenges presented by the procedurally set timeline for the creation and submission of the new map. The adherence to a strict timeline should not be achieved at the expense of the interests of everyday New Yorkers. Notwithstanding the position expressed by some commissioners in their December 15 statement, we note that several commissioners are newly appointed and do not have the benefit of having heard directly from New Yorkers at the hearings held in 2021 and early 2022. Moreover, prior hearings held were not in response to current congressional maps drawn by the Special Master. The Commission should solicit feedback from New Yorkers by holding hybrid hearings at different locations in the state. The Commission should also allow the public to submit written testimony that the   Commission is required to share with all commissioners. Such hearings and written testimony are required to ensure that any new map reflects the diversity of New York’s population and upholds the principles of the Voting Rights Act. To ensure fair representation for all New Yorkers, we urge you to protect communities of interest and minority voices throughout the state. Finally, the Commission should make it clear that its duty is to the public, not elected officials or political parties. Holding mapping deliberations in public will significantly help the Commission achieve this goal. It is our hope that the Commission collaborates and prioritizes reaching a consensus on the new map. New Yorkers deserve a redistricting process free of gridlock, and we ask that the Commissioners do everything in their power to reach an agreement. • The lack of public trust in New York’s redistricting process is pronounced and voters are weary of everchanging district lines and the attendant uncertainty it brings right before a consequential election cycle. We urge the Commission to make every attempt at collaboration, meaningful public input, openness and transparency before submitting any new congressional map plan to the Legislature. Sincerely, APA VOICE Redistricting Task Force Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund (AALDEF) Citizens Union Common Cause/NY Empire State Indivisible League of Women Voters New York New York Civic Engagement Table (NYCET)  New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC)  New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG)  Reinvent Albany   Broome County Executive to Hold Redistricting Hearing   Broome County Executive Jason Garnar will hold a public hearing on a new county legislative district map adopted by the county legislature. The hearing will take place on Thursday, January 11th at 5:00 PM in the Crawford Building   at 60 Hawley Street in Binghamton. The county executive is required to hold a public hearing before taking action on the map. The legislature’s map was created in response to a lawsuit that invalidated a prior map based on violations of the state’s Municipal Home Rule Law.  ELECTION LAW LEGISLATION   Common Cause/NY Announces 2024 Albany Legislative Priorities Common Cause/NY announced their priorities for 2024. Those issues include: expanding voting rights and investing in our elections, protecting our democracy, and strengthening campaign finance laws. The full list is below and here. PRIORITIES: *Note, some issues lack a bill number because they haven't been assigned yet for the 2024 cycle.* Expand voting rights and invest in our elections: • Allow New Yorkers to provide water and snacks to voters at poll sites or while in line to vote. (S616 Myrie/A1346 Simon) • Guarantees the use of voter verifiable paper ballots in elections. (A5934B Cunningham/S6169A Cleare) • New York should join the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization of states that share voter roll data to maintain more accurate voter rolls. (S6173A Skoufis/A7052B Silitti) • Remind voters they can now vote by mail. • Move New York City's municipal elections to even years. New York's local elections suffer from low turnout during a very off year election. Moving local elections to an even year, either during congressional or presidential elections, would increase voter participation. • New York is one of the few states that does not provide consistent nor significant state funding for election administration. An annual dedicated budget line should be created to support local Boards of Elections efforts to smoothly hold elections. • Uniform procedures for voting while in jail. Citizens who are in jail have the right to vote, but are often prevented from voting because the local jurisdiction in control of the jail has no procedures in place. Protect democracy: • New York must move quickly to repeal our Article V Resolutions. Article V resolutions are aged legislative resolutions calling for a federal constitutional convention. These old resolutions do not by their terms have any expiration date. Extremist entities seeking to call a constitutional convention to hobble the federal government argue that these old resolutions should be counted and include New York in the total count of states calling for a constitutional convention bringing the total above the needed 34 states. (B477 Krueger/K137 Zebrowski)   • Increase candidate disclosures. Voters deserve to have elected officials who tell the truth. Candidates will have to disclose their military service, recent employment history, education and confirm their in-district residence. (A5358-A Sillitti/S5884-A Liu) • Protect against Deep Fake campaign ads. Voters are entitled to honest campaign ads and materials. Placing clear, enforceable disclosures on campaign materials with altered images, video or audio warns voters to be wary of the altered material, protecting voters and candidates • Allow for nonpartisan poll monitors during in-person voting. (A2408-A Paulin/S5193-A Skoufis). Nonpartisan monitors will assist voters and help problem solve. This will increase confidence in the integrity and transparency of our elections. • Board of Elections reform. Professionalizing and reducing partisanship in election administration is an essential component to improving our elections. • Reduce legislators' outside income. The State Legislature must enact a ban on income earned through certain professions and a cap of up to 15% on certain permissible outside income from select professions. Bolster campaign finance laws: • Reduce the corrosiveness of money in politics and enhance public trust in our government by passing: o S2362 Rivera/A6542 Carroll: which would increase employer disclosure requirements for campaign contributions o S6247 Myrie/A7179 McDonald: which would prohibit campaign contributions from individuals or organizations while bidding on state contracts.  IN MEMORIUM APA Voice Redistricting Task Force Mourns the Loss of Dr. John Flateau The Task Force issued the following statement: “The sudden and unexpected passing of Dr. John Flateau is a huge loss to the civil rights community, locally and nationally. An ardent and unwavering supporter of the Voting Rights Act, Dr. Flateau’s lifelong service has been devoted to educating and empowering the marginalized, particularly the African American community, to be civically engaged and represented. We are honored to have worked with him toward a vision of an equal and participatory democracy. Our sincere condolences to his family.” Dr. Flateau’s funeral will take place on Wednesday, January 10th at 10:00 AM at the Bridge Street AWME Church, 277 Stuyvesant Avenue, in Brooklyn. More details (including a ZOOM link to view) are attached. 

English

January 8 Roundtable Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 1-2-2024 January 2 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice New York Law School, jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates Recommended Citation Wice, Jeffrey M., "January 2 Roundtable Update" (2024). Redistricting Roundtable Updates. 128. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/128 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the NY Census and Redistricting Institute at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Redistricting Roundtable Updates by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu.      N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE       This Week’s Update Is Dedicated In Memory of Dr. John L. Flateau                                             (see remembrance below)   REAPPORTIONMENT   New York Projected to Lose Three Congressional Districts After 2030   Based on new state population estimates released by the Census Bureau on December 19, New York is on the path to lose three congressional districts after the 2030 census is taken. Using the new estimates, a new congressional reapportionment this year would result in one additional district to Arizona, Florida, and Idaho. New York, Illinois, Minnesota would each lose an additional district and California would lose two more districts from what they lost when the official reapportionment was announced on  April 26, 2021.    These new numbers reflect 2023 population estimates and are NOT projected forward to 2030.   New York would lose an additional district if the 2023 population estimates were used for the apportionment last year in 2022.  New York lost only one district in the official reapportionment, going from 27 seats to 26 districts, losing that one district by just 89 people. The new population estimates drop the state to 25 seats, with the final district (#437) being missed by 118,581 people.    However, projects based on trends leading to 2030 indicate that New York is trending toward a three-district loss after 2030. In all, thirteen districts would change states by the end of the decade, with eight states gaining and and seven states losing districts.   States gaining districts include: Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah (+1 each), Florida (+3), Texas (+4)  and state losing districts include: California (-4), Illinois (-2), Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island (-1 each), Illinois (-2), and New York (-3).   These estimates were prepared by Election Data Services, Inc. To read the full report, see: https://bit.ly/3RA8mOG     New York last lost three districts after the 1990 census. In 2000 and 2010, New York last two districts each decade and only one district after 2020. After 1980, New York lost a national record of five districts. During the 1940s, the state had 45 districts. It is now down to the number of districts held during the 1920s at 26 districts.   Commentary by Jim Brennan: Democrats Can Avoid a Second Debacle and Win on the Existing Lines   From former Assemblyman Jim Brennan: “Changing the Congressional district lines again to gain partisan advantage might sound appealing, but the Democrats would be smart to just stand their ground and fight it out on the existing lines, rather than risk what happened in 2022 happening again.   “In fact, the Democrats have strong chances to win back these districts and avoid the political and legal thicket associated with the Legislature drawing lines to favor the Democrats, even if Congressional primaries get delayed until August. The Democrats could just decide to stand their ground on the existing Congressional lines and just go all out to win the districts. An analysis of the vote in the 2022 midterms in the competitive districts in New York…showed poor turnout among Democrats to be a major factor in their losses “   Read the entire column here: bit.ly/3vnOmYb LITIGATION  N.Y. Early Voting Law Challenge: Stefanik v. Hochul – GOP Request for Preliminary Injunction Denied  In September 2023, a group of Republican plaintiffs (including organizations and elected officials) filed suit in Albany County State Supreme Court seeking to invalidate the New York Early Mail Voter Act (EMVA) as unconstitutional and seeking to block the implementation of the law.  On December 26, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the defendants and intervenors that the plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite irreparable harm and that the balance of the equities weigh in their favor.  The plaintiffs had asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction so that the EMVA would be temporarily prevented from being implemented until the court makes its final decision. As the court wrote in its December 26 decision, to secure a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must show “(1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an   injunction and (3) a balance of equities in [their] favor.” The court further explained that the second element is only established where plaintiffs successfully show a danger of “‘injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.’”  On the second element, irreparable harm, the plaintiffs argued “in conclusory fashion” that early voting by mail will result in more votes cast for the defendants than for the plaintiffs. The court held that this belief is insufficient to grant a preliminary injunction, and that the plaintiffs fail to establish this element because they cannot show that they will suffer electoral disadvantages based on the EMVA.  On element three, the court found that because the EMVA has yet to be declared unconstitutional, the balances do not tip in the plaintiffs’ favor as enjoining the EMVA at this point would harm NY voters.  The plaintiffs immediately appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. STATE ELECTION LAW    State Senators Ask State Elections Board to Ban Trump From Ballot   A group of state senators recently asked the New York State Board of Elections to remove Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot for the same reason he was removed in Colorado and Maine. Click here to read the letter.   Governor Approves Bill to Align Local Elections to Even Years   Govenor Hochul approved legislation to move most local elections (outside New York City)  from odd years to even years, aligning them with other federal and state election cycles. The legislation was enacted in an effort to increase voter turnout and to  save taxpayer money. Local government groups opposed the measure, arguing that it would focus less attention on local issues. Republicans opposed the legislation because they saw it as an attempt to bolster Democratic candidates in even year elections when Democratic turnout is higher for Presidential and other major races. The Governor also indicated her support for a constitutional amendment to align all local elections to the even year cycle.   The new law does not apply to elections for mayor, district attorneys, judges, local school boards, and fire districts.      Governor Vetoes Campaign Finance Bill   Governor Hochul vetoed legislation that would have expanded campaign contributions that would be eligible for public matching funds beginning in the 2024 elections. The rejected legislation would have permitted the first $250 of campaign contributions to be matched by the state. Current law only allows matching funds for donors who contributed no more than $250 in any one election cycle. The legislation would have permitted larger contributions from wealthy donors.    CENSUS NEWS  Lawmakers Propose Commission to Study Population Migration Losses   In response to New York’s population decline estimates two state legislators want the state to look into why the state is losing so many people. this trend. New York, among eight states experiencing a drop in population, lost over 101,000 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Senator Jim Tedisco (R) and Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara (D) are introducing legislation to create a state commission to look into the causes of out-migration. The proposed commission would include 13 members appointed by various state leaders and conduct public hearings across the state. IN MEMORIUM John Flateau: Election and Redistricting Pioneer Passes  New York and the nation lost a voting rights pioneer and leader last week. Dr. John L. Flatueau, a professor at CUNY’s Medgar Evers College, passed away suddenly on December 30th. He had a long and distinguished career in New York’s academic, government, and political worlds. Dr. Flateau chaired CUNY’s Medgar Evers College Public Administration department, directed the Dubois Bunche Center for Public Policy, and served for a period as dean of the college’s School of Business and Office of External Relations  Perhaps most notably, Dr. Flateau was the lead plaintiff in a landmark 1982 federal court case that successfully challenged New York’s delay in redistricting the state legislature. As a result of the 1980 Census, New York State had lost five congressional districts. In Flateau v. Anderson, John and a group of plaitiffs charged that the state legislative lines enacted in the 1970s needed to be redrawn before the 1982 elections (and not six years later, as the then Republican state senate leadership insisted was permissible under state law). In Flateau, the court ordered the state legislature to redraw both   the state’s congressional and state legislative district lines in a timely manner in 1982.   Dr. Flateau continued to provide key leadership on census and redistricting issues.  He was a member of the New York City Districting Commission in 2002-2003 and then its Executive Director in 2022-2023.  Most recently, Flateau was a member of New York State’s Independent Redistricting Commission. He participated in a Commission meeting just last Thursday. Over his career, Dr. Flateau served in numerous other government positions. Among his roles, he was a member of the New York City Board of Elections, State Senate Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations, Chief of Staff to Mayor David N. Dinkins, Senior Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer for the NYS Empire State Development Corporation, and Executive Director of the NYS Black and Puerto Rican Legislative Caucus. He was active in local politics and managed several campaigns. Dr. Flateau was a graduate of New York University (BA) and the CUNY Graduate Center (MA and Phd). John is survived by his wife Lorraine sons Marcus and Jonathan. John Flateau was a prolific leader, mentor, and dedicated public servant. His mentorship of so many students and government workers became legend. Dedicated to a complete census count and fair redistricting,  John’s imprint on New York will endure. And he will be missed by so many. As a memorial notice by Medgar Evers College read, “May Dr. Flateau forever rest in power.” ------------------------------------------------- Funeral services will be held at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, January 10th at the Bridge St. AWME Church, 277 Stuyvesant Avenue in Brooklyn, NY. 

January 2 Roundtable Update

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/library_annual_reports/1020/thumbnail.jp

Library, Mendik

Academic Year: 2022-2023

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 1-22-2024 January 22 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates      N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE  N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT  New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA): Office of the New York State Attorney General’s preliminary guidance on the entities and practices covered by preclearance.  On December 19, the Office of the New York Attorney General (OAG) released guidance on the NYVRA’s “preclearance” requirement. The NYVRA requires certain local jurisdictions and local boards of elections (BOEs) that are covered under the statute’s preclearance coverage formula (“covered entities”) to submit voting and election changes for review before those changes can take effect. The guidance notes that OAG’s Civil Rights Bureau (the CRB) has preliminarily identified the jurisdictions and BOEs that will be subject to preclearance which will take effect on September 22, 2024. The CRB has also preliminarily identified a non-exhaustive list of voting- and election-related changes that would be considered “covered policies,” meaning they are subject to preclearance.  The guidance explains that covered entities that make changes to a covered policy (one that concerns any of the topic areas listed in the NYVRA’s preclearance section) on or after September 22, 2024, must submit the change to the CRB or a designated court for review before that change can be implemented. Furthermore, if a covered entity makes a change in a covered policy without seeking preclearance, the CRB or any party with standing may bring a lawsuit to prevent the change from taking effect.   The guidance also emphasizes that the identification of covered entities and covered policies is preliminary and subject to change prior to September 22, 2024. Additionally, the guidance invites jurisdictions, voters, and other stakeholders to submit questions and feedback to the CRB by emailing preclearancefeedback@ag.ny.gov. Feedback will be accepted until February 20, 2024, at which point the CRB will “publish all applicable comments, respond to relevant issues and, where necessary, reconsider its analysis.”  The guidance includes the following: 1. Step-by-step breakdowns of the preclearance review processes for covered entities to either submit policy changes to the CRB or to a designated court for review.   2. A detailed explanation of the NYVRA’s coverage formula and the CRB’s process and analysis used in its preliminary identification of covered entities.  3. A list of the NYVRA’s covered policy topics and examples of policy changes related to each topic that would constitute covered policies under the VRA.  OAG also invites the public to visit their Voting Rights pages for individuals (https://ag.ny.gov/resources/individuals/civil-rights/voting-rights) and local jurisdictions (https://ag.ny.gov/resources/organizations/elections) on their website, where they will provide updates. LEGISLATION   State Senate Passes Election Reform Bills              For the sixth year in a row, the State Senate has opened the legislative session by passing election laws intended to reform current measures and counteract disenfranchisement. The new nine bills include:   1. S.263: “Deceptive Practices and Voter Suppression Prevention Act,”  creates a new electoral crime of voter suppression and/or forcing others to vote for or against a particular candidate. Under new § 17-151, knowingly spreading deceptive information aimed at interfering with others’ right to vote is a misdemeanor offense.  a. Any individual convicted of the misdemeanor of deceptive practices a second time will be guilty of a class E felony, and any subsequent convictions of the same crime will result in a class D felony.   2. S.371: “Democracy Preservation Act,” would ban political spending by foreign-influenced business entities in N.Y.’s local and state elections through election law § 14-116(a). Business entities that make political expenditures or contributions must file with the N.Y.S. Board of Elections certifying that they are not a foreign-influenced business entity as per the date the expenditure or contribution was made. a. Copies of the statement of certification must also be provided to any campaign or committee to which they contribute upon request.  b. This bill takes effect 180 days after it is signed into law.   3. S.616: This bill amends election law § 17-140, which prohibits any individual connected to an election from providing items during voting hours on a general, special, or primary election day to voters. Under   the bill, polling places will be able to provide items that have nominal value, such as water or snacks, to voters waiting in line.   4. S.657A: Enacts the “Doctor John L. Flateau Voting and Elections Database and Academic Center of New York Act,” which will regulate public data maintained by county and city boards of elections through a statewide database. This database and the academic center will compile N.Y.’s election and voting data and use it for research and to provide election operation. N.Y. will also provide specialized assistance to localities and the public with this data. a. This bill takes effect on April 1, 2026.   5. S.6675: Amends the election law to require that public-facing websites paid for, hosted, and/or operated by political committees include a disclaimer that identifies the political committee responsible for the website. This disclaimer must be clearly displayed on each navigable page of the website.    6. S.610: Authorizes local Boards of Elections to establish absentee ballot drop-off locations. Absentee ballot envelopes can be deposited in absentee ballot drop boxes established by the local Boards of Elections. Any absentee ballots received by a local Board of Elections will be counted if it is deposited in an absentee ballot drop box before the close of polls on election day. Local Boards of Elections must close absentee ballot dropboxes at the close of polls and collect ballots deposited therein.   7. S.242: Allows counties the option to establish 2 or more locations for portable polling places for early voting, which must be operative for no fewer than 3 consecutive days and that will not replace or decrease the mandated number of regular early voting polling places. The locations must be determined no more than 14 days prior to the election and must be part of the communication plans developed by the local Boards of Elections.   8. S.5943: Creates a standard order for candidates to appear on the ballot. Executive candidates will be listed first, such as President of the United States and Governor. Other federal and state offices will follow next. The order of other offices at each level will be listed in descending order according to the size of the electorate. Parisian offices will be listed before non-partisan officers and before judicial candidates. a. This bill takes effect on January 1, 2025.   9. S.6173B: Authorizes the New York State Board of Elections to join a multistate voter list maintenance organization, such as the Electronic   Registration Information Center (ERIC), and share relevant information with this organization. a. This bill takes effect immediately. New York State must complete its registration to this organization on or before July 31, 2025.   Unless noted otherwise, all bills would become effective upon approval by the Governor.   REDISTRICTING   Maloney Indicates Another Congressional Run?   In today’s New York Post, Carl Campanile informs readers that former Congress Member Carolyn Maloney would be interested in running for Congress again if a new map presents her with a favorable district to run in. For that to happen, she would have to run against another incumbent Member, another Member would have to retire and create a vacancy. Maloney’s old district, merged with that of Rep. Jerry Nadler (who defeated her in a primary) is bordered mostly by minority districts.   REDISTRICTING AROUND THE NATION   Louisiana: the state legislature passed a new congressional map with two majority-Black districts. The map would increase the Black population of Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District from 23% to 54% and would span more than 200 miles. The Louisiana legislature was ordered to redraw state maps with a second majority-Black district in June 2022 due to the previous maps violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision had been paused for a year until June 2023, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently set January 30, 2024, as the deadline for a new map.   Michigan: On January 18th the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) voted to appeal a federal decision to redraw 13 state House and Senate districts in Detroit. A panel of 3 federal judges found on December 21, 2023, that the MICRC diluted Black voting power in Detroit with 2021 state redistricting maps and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The MICRC vote to appeal the decision was 8-1. If the ruling stands, the MICRC faces an aggressive timeline before the filing deadline (April 23, 2024) for the 2024 election. The MICRC will hold its next meeting in the Detroit area in mid-January or early February.   North Dakota: On January 8th, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ordered fair maps into place that will end the illegal dilution of Native American votes. In November 2023, the court found that 2021 North Dakota Legislative District maps dilute Native American voters in violation of Section   2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also denied the legislature’s latest attempts to delay implementation of new state legislative maps. These attempts also caused the legislature to miss the deadline to propose a remedial plan of its own. The redistricting plan proposed by North Dakota Tribes will now be instituted for the 2024 election.    Washington: Last August, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in Palmer v. Hobbs that the state redistricting map for the 15th Legislative District violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Latino votes. The court will lead an alternative process to prepare a map for the 2024 election because the legislature did not reconvene the redistricting commission. The plaintiffs submitted 5 proposed maps by the deadline. The court aims to adopt a new redistricting map by March 25, 2024.  Republican intervenors plan to appeal the court’s decision on a new redistricting plan and consolidate it with their appeal of the Palmer ruling. Intervenors also have an appeal of Palmer before the U.S. Supreme Court. A separate request for a related case, Garcia v. Hobbs, was also appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices are expected to consider both requests when they decide which cases to review this Friday.    CENSUS   New York City Census Count Increases   As a result of the NYC Planning Department’s submission of a Post Census Group Quarters Review request (PCGQR, New York City’s population has increased by 1,090 people over the initial 2020 decennial count. According to the Associated Press, “City officials estimated the adjustment by comparing changes in numbers that are released annually with population estimates from the Census Bureau, said officials in the city's Department of City Planning. “New York City officials believed hundreds of inmates and students at Hunter College, Pace University and Wagner College were missed in its 2020 count. The issue is moot at this point since apportionment is off the table when it comes to adjusting the numbers, but New York State wouldn't have lost a congressional seat if an additional 89 people had been counted during the 2020 census.”   Census Bureau Begins Posting Public Comments on Proposed Changes to 2025 American Community Survey   From the Census Bureau “The U.S. Census Bureau has begun posting the public’s feedback on proposed changes to the 2025 American Community Survey (ACS) and Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) to regulations.gov. In October, the Census Bureau published a Federal Register notice inviting the public to comment on proposed changes to the survey covering several topics, including household roster, educational attainment, health insurance coverage, disability, and labor force questions. Read More  The Census Bureau received more than 12,000 comments. The majority of the comments cited concerns with changing the disability questions to a set based on the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning. The Census Bureau is currently reviewing and considering the public’s feedback as part of the process for making changes to the ACS. The Census Bureau, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget and the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy Subcommittee on the ACS, will decide on what 2025 ACS content will be submitted to OMB for final approval, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Census Bureau will keep the public informed throughout the process.”   EVENTS APA Voice Redistricting Task Force The Task Force will be discussing the state Independent Redistricting Commission and  additional public input into the congressional line drawing process in an online event on Tuesday, January 30 from 6:00 to 7:30 PM. RSVP at bit.ly/apavoice-2024-democracy 

January 22 Roundtable Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 2-12-2024 February 12 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates    N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE REDISTRICTING N.Y. Commission To Act on Congressional Map on Thursday The NYS Independent Redistricting Commission will meet on Thursday, February 15h at 2:00 PM  in the Roosevelt Hearing Room C, Legislative Office Building in Albany. The commission will vote on a final congressional map proposal and to send the map(s) to the state legislature for approval or rejection.  The meeting can be viewed live at www.nyirc.gov The commission must vote on the map(s) without amendment. If the map(s) is rejected, the legislature can then vote on a map of its own. The Governor must approve any final map before it can be used for the 2024 elections.  Meanwhile, a group of GOP and Conservative Party leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Robert Ortt, have urged that the 2022 state court-ordered map stay in place through 2030. Senator Ortt has two appointees on the IRC.  LITIGATION  New NYVRA Lawsuit: New York Communities for Change v. County of Nassau  On February 7, in Nassau County State Supreme Court, non-profit community organization, New York Communities for Change (“NYCC”), and several Nassau County residents filed a challenge to the county’s legislative redistricting map.  NYCC alleges that the new districts violate the protections against racial vote dilution established in the New York Voting Rights Act by discriminating against the county’s Black, Latino, and Asian voters. NYCC contends that the legislature, in adopting this plan, unnecessarily split up (“cracked”) and “packed” communities of color, thereby hindering their ability to exercise political power, and that the legislature did so with discriminatory intent.  NYCC also asserts that the map was adopted with the purpose of favoring Republican candidates (i.e., a partisan gerrymander), and that it violates the rank-ordered redistricting requirements in Section 34 of the Municipal Home Rule Law prohibiting racial vote dilution and partisan gerrymandering.    As the complaint asserts, Nassau County has a long history of discrimination including racially discriminatory housing practices that “accumulated over time to make Nassau County the most segregated county in its population class in the United States today.” The complaint also contends that the Nassau County government fails to respond to the needs of communities of color at a disproportionate rate.  NYCC argues that the map unjustifiably puts large Black, Latino, and Asian communities in Lakeview, South Valley Stream, Inwood, Freeport, and New Hyde Park into predominantly white districts. This practice is often termed “cracking” as minority communities are “cracked” or split up among majority white districts. In addition, NYCC asserts that the map impermissibly “packs” communities of color into districts 2 and 3.  While the map contains only four districts, out of nineteen, in which Black, Latino, and/or Asian voters constitute a majority, NYCC argues that a lawfully drawn plan would include six such districts. NYCC asks the court to declare the map unlawful, prohibit the county from using the map in elections, and to appoint a special master to recommend a remedial plan.  Lawmakers File Objection to Remove Trump from Presidential Ballot: Brad Hoylman-Sigal v. New York State Board of Elections and Donald J. Trump  On February 6, in Albany County State Supreme Court, New York State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, along with New York City Council Member Shekar Krishnan and voter Gertrude Fitelson, filed a petition contesting the designation of Donald J. Trump as a candidate for President of the United States in the New York Republican Presidential Primary Election.  They argue that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “No person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof…”  They allege that Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6th constituted engagement in insurrection and giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies Trump from the presidential ballot.  In addition, they allege that Article IV of the Constitution requires New York’s state courts to “give full faith and credit” to the proceedings in Colorado.   Therefore, they assert, the Board of Elections is required to adopt Colorado Supreme Court’s judgment that Trump is ineligible to serve as president.  N.Y. Early Voting Law Challenge: Stefanik v. Hochul  On February 5, the Supreme Court, Albany County Judge Christina L. Ryba, denied the Republican plaintiffs’ challenge, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Early Mail Voter Act is unconstitutional under the state constitution. On February 6, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department.  AROUND THE NATION Louisiana: A federal judge has struck down Louisiana’s state House and Senate maps for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In March 2022, black voters and civil rights groups filed this lawsuit arguing that the state’s legislative districts dilute the voting powers of black voters. The court will give Louisiana a “reasonable period of time” to draw maps that remedy the Section 2 violations. Louisiana recently redrew the state’s congressional maps to include an additional majority Black district as a result of a separate lawsuit.   Georgia: Georgia’s Secretary of State filed a brief in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals claiming that voters cannot sue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit was filed in 2021 on behalf of Georgia voters, which challenged the state’s new congressional map enacted after the release of 2020 census data. In October, a federal judge ordered the legislature to redraw the map for the 2024 election cycle. The new map was approved. The plaintiffs have appealed the judge’s order approving the remedial map to the 11th Circuit.    Michigan: Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) has released 10 redistricting maps after being ordered to do so. In December,13 state House and Senate districts were struck down for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by racial gerrymandering. The court imposed a deadline of last Friday to release draft proposals for 9 Detroit state House seats. A final House map must be adopted by March. If the final map is insufficient to address the gerrymandering, a map proposed by a court-appointed expert could be used instead. The court has not set a timeline for the redrawing of the 6 Senate districts.    EVENTS     People’s Redistricting Hearing: New York voting and civil rights groups are hosting a People’s Hearing on redistricting on Thursday, February 15 from 6 pm to 8 ppm. Hear from members of the public and organizations representing stakeholder groups across the state on the current state of redistricting, why redistricting is important to them, and how new congressional lines will impact their communities over the next decade.  In addition to the oral testimony from the panelists, written comments from the public will be shared with the IRC and LATFOR, the legislative committee charged with approving or redrawing the commission’s map. If you wish to provide written comments (pdf, docx, doc files), please submit them by emailing nyoffice@commoncause.org.  The public will be scheduled to  testify as time permits. To request time to provide oral testimony, please sign up here. Here is a  a registration link for those who wish to attend, but not testify – please share widely: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_DXcD4azISn69Eyz45PitiA#/registration 

February 12 Roundtable Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 1-29-2024 January 29 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates          N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE  REDISTRICTING   Dennis Walcott Appointed to State Independent Redistricting Commission   Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart Cousins has appointed Queens Public Library President & CEO Dennis Walcott to serve on the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC), succeeding Dr. John Flateau who passed away last month. Walcott chaired the 2022-2023 New York City Districting Commission and was widely praised in his role  leading  the commission through its process to develop a new 51 district  city council map.   Why Aren’t State Senate Districts Being Redrawn?  While a new congressional map is expected fo this year’s congressional elections (and to be used through the 2030 elections), it’s often asked why the state senate map isn’t also being redrawn. Last year, the Nichols Assembly challenge resulted in a commission drawn map largely approved by the legislature.    However, the state senate map drawn by the state court in the Steuben County-based Harkenrider case remains in place. There is no litigation pending seeking to have the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) draw a new Senate map to submit to the legislature.   The original petition in Hoffmann v. Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) sought to compel the IRC to submit to the legislature a second plan (or set of plans) for the congressional districts and the state legislative districts (State Senate and State Assembly). However, less than a month later, the petitioners asked the court to allow them to amend their petition to remove the state legislative districts. In their request, the Hoffman plaintiffs explained that in addition to having a particular interest in their congressional districts, they also understood that the Nichols v. Hochul Assembly remapping litigation was underway and could result in an order requiring the IRC to comply with its constitutional redistricting duties as to the State Assembly districts. Theyreasoned that removing the state legislative districts from their petition would “avoid the possibility of duplicative and conflicting proceedings in different courts.”     Last month, the state Court of Appeals held in the Hoffmann appeal that “because the 2014 constitutional amendments limited court-ordered districts to only what is required to remedy a violation of law, Harkenrider cannot be read to hold that courts may create decade-long redistrictings or that we ordered Supreme Court to do so. Accordingly, the existing judicially drawn congressional districts (were)  limited to the 2022 election.” The court subsequently directed the IRC a new congressional map by February 2ith to  comply with its constitutional mandate.   As things stand now, we can expect congressional and assembly elections to be run on maps enacted by the legislature and the senate election based on the court drawn map used in 2022. Unless the IRC takes the unlikely step to redraw the senate map on its own, a new lawsuit would need to be filed to compel the IRC and legislature to draw a new senate map. Since petitioning for senate (and all other offices) is set to begin on February 27, it is unlikely any new senate remapping would go into effect until the 2026 election cycle.   LITIGATION   Nassau County Legislative Map Challenge   Coads et al v. Nassau County- Attorneys for Nassau County have asked the court to stay (or suspend) discovery until the court can rule on a motion to dismiss the challenge to the county’s legislative map. In their filing, county attorneys argue that “(per) the parties’ stipulation entered on January 19, 2024, the deadline for the County and Legislature’s response to Plaintiffs’ discovery demands is February 2, 2024. Failing to temporarily stay discovery may cause discovery to come due during briefing of the motion, thus mooting the motion.   AROUND THE NATION   Wisconsin: the Wisconsin Supreme Court found the state’s redistricting maps as unconstitutional and set a February 1st deadline to draw and pass new maps. Governor Tony Evers promised to veto a redistricting map proposal that the Assembly passed last Wednesday because this map would reduce the number of GOP incumbents who would be paired. The vote on the remedial maps was 63-35, with all Republicans in support and all Democrats against. This veto will pass the power to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to install new redistricting maps. The Court will now review six submitted maps, of which Democrats would fare better than with the Assembly’s maps. Republicans currently have a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate and a 64-35 majority in the Assembly under maps drawn in 2011.   Florida: On January 24th , the Florida Supreme Court voted 6-0 to take up a challenge to the constitutionality of a congressional redistricting plan. The   case centers on a North Florida district, Congressional District 5 (CD-5), which was overhauled during an April 2022 special legislative session. The plaintiffs argue the overhaul violated the 2010 Fair Districts Amendment, which barred drawing districts that would “diminish” the ability of minorities to “elect representatives of their choice.”    A Leon County circuit judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the 1st District Court of Appeals overturned that decision and ruled in favor of the state. The plaintiffs argued that the court’s decision violated Supreme Court precedents in redistricting cases, including a case that led to the former design of CD-5. A separate challenge to the redistricting plan is pending in federal court and involves federal constitutional issues. The state case will likely not be resolved before candidate-qualifying deadlines and could remain in effect for the November congressional elections.   Michigan: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request from the state’s Redistricting Commission to overrule an order to redraw 13 Detroit-area seats in the legislature. The commission challenged a December ruling by a federal appeals court panel that found Michigan’s 2021 redistricting maps were illegally influenced by race. Although nearly 80% of Detroit residents are black, the black voting population in the 13 districts range from 35% to 45%, with one district being as low as 19%. The 2022 midterms—the first election after the new redistricting maps—left Detroit without black representation in Congress for the first time since the early 1950s.   The panel ordered Michigan to redraw 7 state House districts for the 2024 election, with a later deadline for 6 state Senate districts because the senators’ terms do not expire until 2026. A drafted state House map is due by February 2, and the final deadline is March 29th. 

January 29 Roundtable Update

Leonard, Arthur S.

DigitalCommons@NYLS Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-2-2024 Federal Court Blocks Parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law Arthur S. Leonard arthur.leonard@nyls.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs Recommended Citation Leonard, Arthur S., "Federal Court Blocks Parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law" (2024). Other Publications. 931. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs/931 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu. 1/22/24, 12:04 PM Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ lawhttps://gaycitynews.com/court-blocks-anti-lgbtq-iowa-dont-say-gay/ 1/4Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s‘Don’t Say Gay’ lawBy Arthur S. Leonard Posted on January 2, 2024US District Judge Stephen H. Locher ruled against several parts of a recently-enacted anti-LGBTQ state law in Iowa.US SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Sign up for our Gay City News email newsletter to get news, updates, and local insightsdelivered straight to your inbox!US District Judge Stephen H. Locher issued a preliminary injunction againstIowa officials on Dec. 29 blocking enforcement of several parts of a recently-enacted law, Senate File 496, from going into effect. Signed into law on May 26,2023, the statute is slated to require removal of books and other materials fromschool libraries if they include descriptions of “sex acts” and to ban any“programs, promotion and instruction relating to gender identity and sexualorientation” for students in grades K-6.  volcloseRELATED NEWS: - Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t …1/22/24, 12:04 PM Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ lawhttps://gaycitynews.com/court-blocks-anti-lgbtq-iowa-dont-say-gay/ 2/4Anticipating the law’s effective date of Jan. 1, 2024, some Iowa school districtshad already begun removing hundreds of books from library shelves, andelementary school teachers were preparing to alter curriculums and classdecorations accordingly. Teachers who maintain library collections in theirclassrooms were also removing books that they believed would be covered by thelaw, since violations could subject them to criminal prosecution and penalties,and they were anticipating changes in their subject matter coverage and even inthe way they would address students in their classes.However, the court abstained from ruling on the constitutionality of a provisionof the law that would require schools to notify parents if their children requestedany “accommodation” relating to gender identity, such as asking to use differentpronouns or names than those in school registration records.Judge Locher found that the interpretation of the library and curricularprovisions varied drastically across the state due to ambiguities in the statutorylanguage and misinterpretations of the actual language of the statute, as well asstatutory wording that was so vague and inconsistent with the stated purposes ofthe law as to defy the requirements of the 14th Amendment’s Due ProcessClause. The problems with the law were compounded by guidance published bystate agencies. At a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminaryinjunction, attorneys for the state struggled to challenge the broad interpretationof the law suggested by the plaintiffs, but the judge found that the state’ssuggested interpretations were inconsistent with the statutory language and withrecent US Supreme Court decisions purporting to rely on “textualism” as moreimportant than “legislative intent” when interpreting statutes.Judge Locher described the restriction on library content, based on the factsalleged by the plaintiffs, as “incredibly broad” and commented that it “hasresulted in the removal of hundreds of books from school libraries” inanticipation of the law going into effect, “including, among others, nonfictionhistory books, classic works of fiction, Pulitzer Prize winning contemporarynovels, books that regularly appear on Advanced Placement exams, and evenbooks designed to help students avoid being victimized by sexual assault.” Heasserted that the “sweeping restrictions in Senate File 496 are unlikely to satisfythe First Amendment under any standard of scrutiny and thus may not beenforced while the case is pending.” The judge remarked that he has been unableto locate “a single case upholding the constitutionality of a school library restricteven remotely similar to Senate File 496.”Addressing the curricular provision of the law, he pointed out that “thereappears to be a severe misunderstanding — in two different ways — by some ofcloseRELATED NEWS: - Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t …1/22/24, 12:04 PM Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ lawhttps://gaycitynews.com/court-blocks-anti-lgbtq-iowa-dont-say-gay/ 3/4the parties about what Senate File 496 says,” due in part to vagueness of thestatutory language and to overly generalized statements by legislators and in themedia.  First of all, the curricular restrictions only apply to grades K-6. He pointed outthat the law does not restrict the freedom of school districts to allow gay-straightalliances for students in grades 7-12, or to provide “resources and support forLGBTQ+ students” in those grades. Teachers and other licensed schoolpersonnel can continue to serve as faculty advisors for such groups, can displayrainbow flags, and can provide instruction on LGBTQ history and rights. But, asnoted above, the school libraries, and arguably, book collections maintained byteachers in the classrooms, may not include books on these subjects if theydescribe “sex acts.”The second misunderstanding relates to the court’s “textualist” interpretation ofthe curricular provisions as they related to grades K-6. “The law forbidsprograms, promotion, and instruction to students in those grades relating to‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation,’ but those terms are defined in aneutral way that makes no distinction between cisgender or transgender identityor gay or straight relationships,” wrote Judge Locher. “Meaning,” he concluded,“on its face, the law forbids any programs, promotion or instruction recognizingthat anyone is male or female or in a relationship of any sort (gay or straight).The statute is therefore content-neutral but so wildly overbroad that everyschool district and elementary school teacher in the State has likely beenviolating it since the day the school year started.” This makes it “void forvagueness” under the Due Process Clause.The court didn’t address the merits of the provision requiring parentalnotification because it found that none of the transgender plaintiffs in the casehad standing to contest it, as all of the individual transgender plaintiffs arealready “out” to their parents and families and so are not personally affected bythat provision. Thus, he concluded, as none of the trans plaintiffs in the case arepersonally affected, none of them have an actionable injury if that provision goesinto effect, so they don’t have “standing” to challenge the provision in court. Thismeans that a separate lawsuit brought by closeted trans students seeking topreserve their anonymity by suing under pseudonyms would be required tochallenge that requirement, at least in Judge Locher’s court.If the state files an appeal to stay or reverse the court’s preliminary injunction,its chances of succeeding at this may be quite high, because all but one of theactive judges on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals are appointees ofRepublican presidents: four by President Trump, five by President George W.Bush, and one by President George H.W. Bush. The sole exception is a judgecloseRELATED NEWS: - Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t …1/22/24, 12:04 PM Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ lawhttps://gaycitynews.com/court-blocks-anti-lgbtq-iowa-dont-say-gay/ 4/4appointed by President Barack Obama. Even if an appeal goes to a three-judgepanel that includes senior circuit judges or a judge from outside the EighthCircuit appointed to sit by “designation,” the three senior Eighth Circuit judgeswho remain active to sit on appellate panels are all Republican appointees. Thus,any Eighth Circuit panel that gets the application of a stay or an appeal will havea majority of Republican-appointed judges. Judge Locher, by contrast, wasappointed to the US District Court in Iowa by President Biden. Judge Locher was actually ruling on motions for preliminary injunctions in twoseparate cases which he considered together because they both attack SenateFile 496. One broader case was filed by an organization called “GLBT Youth inIowa Schools Task Force” together with a handful of transgender students andtheir parents. The other case, focused mainly on the library issues, was filed by apublishing company, Penguin Random House LLC, and a collection of authors,students, parents, and the state’s teachers’ union.The defendants, sued in their official capacities, are the governor of Iowa,president of the Iowa State Board of Education, the Director of the IowaDepartment of Education, the chair of the Iowa State Board of EducationalExaminers, and two local boards of education that have already been directingremoval of books from their school libraries anticipating application of thestatute.closeRELATED NEWS: - Federal court blocks parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t …

Federal Court Blocks Parts of Iowa’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 2-5-2024 February 5 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates       N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE  REDISTRICTING  Plattsburgh Delays City Redistricting   Plattsburgh’s Common Council was set to vote on new boundaries for the city’s ward districts on February 1st. Plattsburgh’s city charter mandates the formation of a commission to review and change existing ward districts within 6 months after the publication of the decennial census. This census data was released in 2021 and the city is well behind schedule. The delay has sparked concerns among city leaders about its impact on the upcoming election cycle. The Common Council postponed redistricting until 2025 after receiving approval from Mayor Chris Rosenquest. This request was made due to the tight timeline to pass redistricting plans with a presidential primary coming in April. This decision goes against § C-34 of the city’s Charter and could subject the city to a legal challenge.   VOTING RIGHTS   In First NYVRA Lawsuit, The Town of Mount Pleasant Responds by Challenging Constitutionality of NYVRA: Sergio Serratto et al v. Town of Mount Pleasant et al  On January 29, the attorneys for the Town of Mount Pleasant responded to Hispanic voters’ allegations of vote dilution and presented numerous defenses to the voters’ claims. Most notably, the Town asserts that the claims are invalid because the New York Voting Rights Act “violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Additionally, the Town contends that the federal Voting Rights Act preempts, or supersedes, the NYVRA because the state law compels localities to “engage in race-based” action in situations where the federal VRA does not.   Mt. Pleasant has retained the national law firm Baker Hostetler to defend against the lawsuit, signaling that the town may be prepared to make a major challenge against the state’s Voting Rights Act .              CENSUS   N.Y.’s Puerto Rican Population Declines     From CUNY: “A new study conducted by Center for Latin American, Caribbean and Latino Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center has unveiled notable changes in the demographics of New York City's Puerto Rican and Dominican populations that reflect a significant decrease in the Puerto Rican population in New York City, particularly after 2017. This decline is attributed to factors such as migration to surrounding areas and other states, possibly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges. “The Puerto Rican population of New York City peaked in 1970 at nearly 900,000 and gradually declined thereafter.  A gradual process of suburbanization ensued as Puerto Ricans moved to the northern suburban counties, New Jersey, and Long Island,” said Professor Laird Bergad, the report’s author. Bergad indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated both the population decline in the city and the move to the surrounding suburbs. Between 2017 and 2022, the number of Puerto Ricans living in the five boroughs dropped by almost 20% from about 715,000 to 574,000. The report, based on data from the American Community Survey 1-year sample, shows that the Dominican population of the city had become the largest Latino nationality in about 2015 and continued to expand thereafter. Although there was a slight decline of -0.3% between 2017 and 2022, there were over 745,000 Dominicans living in New York City in 2022. If we examine the entire New York metropolitan region, there were over 1.1 million Puerto Ricans living in the area compared with over 1.2 million Dominicans in 2022.”   EVENTS    New York State Redistricting: On Tuesday, February 6th at 6:00 PM, an update featuring Jeff Wice of New York Law School will be presented by New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. Common Cause NY’s Susan Lerner will update viewers on state election law reform issues. You can pre-register for the event at www.redistricting2024.eventbrite.com or https://bit.ly/49kmYsI   APA VOICE held a webinar last Tuesday, January 30th. The New York Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) has been ordered by the highest court to redraw the congressional lines and to submit the new lines to the State Legislature for approval by February 28th.  You can view this webinar on YouTube to learn about APA VOICE’s priorities on why public input and transparency is critical. View it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQFwFiTcBZE   Hold The Date: a People’s Hearing on the state congressional redistricting process and need for a new map is being planned for Thursday, February 15   at 6:00 PM. The event is being organized by several good government groups. More details in next week’s update.     AROUND THE NATION   North Carolina: On Wednesday, January 31st , North Carolina voters initiated a lawsuit challenging the state’s recently enacted congressional and legislative maps. The redrawing occurred almost 5 months after the NC Supreme Court overturned its prior decisions rejecting maps based on partisan gerrymandering. The most recent ruling prohibited any future partisan gerrymandering challenges to state redistricting maps under the state constitution’s Free Elections Clause.    The plaintiffs contend that the North Carolina General Assembly redistricted in a way that created an unfair partisan advantage for GOP candidates, which in turn violates the state constitution’s right to “frequent” and “free” elections because this advantage is not “fair,” which is arguably guaranteed in frequent and free elections. The lawsuit points to the 6th, 13th, and 14th Congressional Districts, the 7th state Senate District, and the 105th state House District. The plaintiffs ask that the state court prohibit the use of the challenged maps for future elections.   Wisconsin: Dr. Bernard Grofman and Dr. Jonathan Cervas, the redistricting experts hired by the Wisconsin Supreme Court have now evaluated six proposed legislative maps and determined that two Republican-drawn maps are “partisan gerrymanders” and should not be considered. In December, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the state’s legislative maps, ruling that they violated the state constitution’s new contiguity requirements. Last week, Governor Tony Evers vetoed redistricting maps that the Republican-majority legislature had altered and attempted to push through at the last minute. The state court will now decide on the maps out of the six proposals.   The experts approved of Evers’ original maps in their report, along with three others: one from Democratic representatives, one from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professors, and one proposed by the petitioners who sued over the original redistricting maps. The experts did not recommend any specific map, leaving that decision to be made solely by the Court. The new maps must be in place by March 15, 2024. 

February 5 Roundtable Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 1-16-2024 January 16 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice New York Law School, jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates Recommended Citation Wice, Jeffrey M., "January 16 Roundtable Update" (2024). Redistricting Roundtable Updates. 126. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/126 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the NY Census and Redistricting Institute at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Redistricting Roundtable Updates by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu.      N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE  LITIGATION  In First NYVRA Lawsuit, Hispanic Voters Challenge Town’s At-Large Election System: Sergio Serratto et al v. Town of Mount Pleasant et al  On January 9, in Westchester County State Supreme Court, five members of the Town of Mount Pleasant’s Hispanic community filed a lawsuit under the NYVRA. They seek to remedy the “situation in which they are unable to elect candidates of their choice and denied an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice compared to the white majority because voting in the Town is racially polarized, preventing Hispanic candidates from being elected to the Town Board.”  They assert that the Town’s use of an at-large method of election, where all voters elect the Town Supervisor and all four Town Board members, violates the NYVRA’s prohibition against vote dilution and voter suppression based on a totality of the circumstances analysis and by reason of racially polarized voting.  This legal action follows a process outlined in the NYVRA where prospective plaintiffs must first notify the town or other political subdivision of a potential NYVRA violation. According to the complaint, in accordance with the NYVRA’s requirements, before commencing this action, the challengers sent a notification letter to the clerk of the Town, asserting that the Town may be in violation of the NYVRA. The Town then resolved to “proactively review its current at-large system” and hired experts Jeffrey M. Wice and Dr. Lisa Handley to investigate the claim and assist the Town in complying with the law. Wice and Handley reported findings of racially polarized voting, and the challengers contend that these findings are ”highly probative evidence of impermissible vote dilution.” The Town then held public hearings to consider procedures for remedying the violation. The complaint notes that at the hearings, many of the Town’s white residents expressed their opposition to taking any remedial action, encouraged the Town to “fight the claims,” and “often made racially charged comments.” Because more than 90 days have elapsed since the Town passed its resolution, and no remedy has been enacted or implemented, the challengers assert they are now permitted to commence this action under the NYVRA.  The complaint alleges three causes of action in violation of the NYVRA: (1)   voter suppression; (2) vote dilution by reason of racially polarized voting; and (3) vote dilution under the totality of the circumstances.  They maintain that the Town’s at-large election system violates the NYVRA because for many years the system has “prevented members of the Town’s minority Hispanic community from electing any candidates of their choice to the Mount Pleasant Town Board, thus denying the members of that community their most basic rights.” The complaint notes that the Town’s population has risen drastically in recent decades, largely attributed to the rapidly expanding Hispanic community. The Hispanic community now constitutes about 19% of the Town’s overall population, most notably in the Village of Sleepy Hollow with 47% Hispanic population.  Despite this, the complaint notes, every person ever elected to the Town Board has been white. The challengers contend that this reality is due to the Town’s at-large election system combined with the Town’s racial and ethnic polarization where Hispanic voters and white voters consistently support different candidates and those supported by white voters usually win because white voters make up a majority of the electorate. This system prevents Hispanic voters from having the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The challengers also note that there has not been a candidate of color for Town Board since 2003 “because the at-large election system has created an environment in which the Hispanic community has lost hope that it will ever have a voice in Town government.”  Moreover, the complaint emphasizes that because this community lacks representation on the Town Board, they have been “demoted to second class citizens.” They point to several issues to demonstrate this point, including the Town Board frequently neglecting the community’s interests, opposing affordable housing projects, and declaring a state of emergency to prevent Hispanic migrants from taking asylum in the Town.  The challengers contend that the NYVRA requires the Town’s at-large election system be swiftly changed to remedy this unequal treatment of the Hispanic community in Mount Pleasant. They assert that there are several effective remedies, including drawing single-member districts or instituting a modified at-large system. They ask the court to declare that this use of an at-large system violates the NYVRA and to order the Town to implement a new method of election “that includes either a districting plan or an alternative method of election for the 2025 Town election that remedies the Town’s violation of NYVRA.”  ELECTION LAW LEGISLATION  Doctor John L. Flateau Voting and Elections Database and   Academic Center of New York Act (S657A, Myrie)  On January 8, The New York State Senate passed a bill intended to regulate public data maintained by county and city boards of elections and establish the New York voting and elections academic center to maintain a statewide database of voting and election data. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Zellnor Myrie (D-Kings) renamed the bill in memory of Dr. John L. Flateau, a veteran voting rights and redistricting expert. Dr. Flateau passed away on December 30th.  The New York Voting and Elections Database  The database would serve as a central repository of certain elections and voting data available to the public from an election authority in the state. The state board of elections (BOE) would be required to collect, host, and maintain these electronic records for at least 12 years.  After every election in the state, each election authority would be required to transmit to the state BOE copies of: 1. Election results at the election district level for every statewide election and every election in every political subdivision (city, town, etc.) 2. Voter registration lists 3. Voter history files 4. Maps or other documentation of the configuration of districts 5. Tabulations of the number of valid and invalid affidavit ballots, the reason for which the ballots were invalid, and the quantity and disposition of ballots subject to the cure procedure 6. Lists of election day poll sites and early voting sites and maps or other documentation of the configuration of districts 7. Adopted districting or redistricting plans 8. Any other publicly available data as requested by the state BOE The bill would require the database to post the above records to its public facing website (except individual voter registration records which would only be made available to the public upon request free of charge).  The New York Voting and Elections Academic Center would be given full access to the database.  The New York Voting and Elections Academic Center  The act would also establish the New York Voting and Elections Academic Center jointly within the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City   University of New York (CUNY) “to foster, pursue, and sponsor research on existing laws and best practices in voting and elections.”  The Center would be required to provide a center for research, and research methodologies for election and demographic data and would be empowered to: 1. Conduct classes 2. Organize interdisciplinary groups of scholars to research voting and elections in the state 3. Conduct seminars involving voting and elections 4. Assist in the dissemination of data from the database to the public 5. Publish such books and periodicals as it shall deem appropriate on voting and elections in the state 6. Provide nonpartisan technical assistance to political subdivisions, scholars, and the general public seeking to use the resources of the database The Center would also be required to maintain the following electronic data and records and make them available to the public at no cost: 1. Estimates of the total population, voting age population, and citizen voting age population by race, color, and language-minority group, broken down to the election district level for every political subdivision in the state… 2. Estimates of voter turnout by race or Hispanic origin… 3. Estimates of citizens of voting age who speak a language other than English and are limited English proficient… 4. Any other estimates or analytical data that a director deems advisable. 5. Any other estimates requested by the state BOE or office of the attorney general. The co-directors of the Center would also be required to publish a list of each board of elections or political subdivision that is required to provide language-related assistance in voting and elections along with which languages they must provide. The bill states that the attorney general would then adopt each such list and provide the information to each relevant board of elections or political subdivision. Much of the redistricting related material has already been collected by New York  Law School’s N.Y. Census & Redistricting Institute. The Institute hopes to collaborate with the new Center if the legislation is enacted into the law. REDISTRICTING Revised Broome County Legislative Map Approved   Broome County Executive James Garnar approved county legislation that revised the county’s 2021 county legislative map. The previous map had been invalidated by the state courts for violations of the state’s new Municipal Home Rule Act provisions limiting town splits. The map was approved despite major public criticism of the map at a public hearing last week over the map’s alleged partisan favoritism and lack of compact districts. 

January 16 Roundtable Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 10-9-2023 October 9 Roundtable Update Jeffrey M. Wice New York Law School, jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates Recommended Citation Wice, Jeffrey M., "October 9 Roundtable Update" (2023). Redistricting Roundtable Updates. 117. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/117 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the NY Census and Redistricting Institute at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Redistricting Roundtable Updates by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu.     N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE  LITIGATION  Congressional: Democratic IRC Commissioners Invite Public Input in Advance of Court of Appeals Decision  On October 2, following the Court of Appeals order holding that the stay (against the Appellate Division decision)  does not prohibit the IRC from taking any actions, New York Independent Redistricting Commission Chair Kenneth Jenkins, and Commissioners Collado, Cuevas-Molina, Flateau, and Frazier issued a statement inviting public input while awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals on congressional districting by the Commission:  The public is invited to submit input by emailing submissions@nyirc.gov or by sending mail to Attention: Submissions, Independent Redistricting Commission, 250 Broadway, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10007. All submissions will be made available to all Commissioners and staff.  Nassau County Legislature: Coads et al v. Nassau County et al  County’s Reply Memo in Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint  Main issue: Is the Doctrine of Laches grounds for dismissal?  Laches Defined: Laches refers to the principle that if plaintiffs wait too long to assert their rights (file a case), they may forfeit their ability to do so, especially if their delay causes prejudice to others.  On October 3, in Nassau County State Supreme Court, Defendants Nassau County and the Nassau County Legislature filed a memo responding to the plaintiffs’ arguments against dismissal.  To recap, on September 20, the plaintiffs filed a memo arguing that (1) the doctrine of laches does not apply to continuing violations like unlawful redistricting maps and (2) even if the doctrine did apply, the county could not establish all of the elements.  In their October 3 memo, the county defendants reiterate their argument that   the doctrine of laches bars this lawsuit as the plaintiffs waited close to five months to bring the challenge, and allowing the case to proceed would prejudice the public and the County by potentially compelling the county to conduct mid-decade redistricting in back-to-back election cycles and causing confusion to voters, candidates, and election officials.  In response to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the county asserts that:  1. The continuing-wrong doctrine argument fails because it only applies to continuing unlawful acts, and the complaint alleges only a single claimed wrong: the Legislature’s adoption of the challenged map.  2. The argument that the county was on notice due to threats to challenge the map immediately upon its adoption did not constitute sufficient notice of a five-month-delayed action. They also assert that lack of notice is not an essential element of a laches defense.   3. The argument that the case will likely hinge on expert testimony is unhelpful to the plaintiffs because all of the allegations in the complaint pre-date the Legislature’s adoption of the map. And plaintiffs have not provided anything tying their delay to the need for developing expert evidence.  4. The argument that allowing the case to move forward would not prejudice the county and public is incorrect as courts have regularly held that voters would be confused and disenfranchised by mid-decade redistricting, candidates have likely acted in reliance on the current maps, and even if the plaintiffs’ suit were meritorious, the county would not have had to incur expenses to hold a special election if the plaintiffs had not delayed in bringing the case.  In conclusion, the county asserts that the “Court should not entertain Plaintiffs’ extraordinary request for back-to-back redistricting, with back-to-back elections on different maps, because Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay warrants dismissal under the equitable doctrine of laches.”  N.Y. Early Voting Law Challenged: Stefanik v. Hochul  On September 29, proposed Intervenor-Defendants Democratic Congressional. Campaign Committee (DCCC), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Representatives Yvette Clarke, Grace Meng, Joseph Morelle, and Ritchie Torres, and New York voters Janice Strauss, Geoff Strauss, Rima Liscum, Barbara Walsh, Michael Colombo, and Yvette Vasquez (Proposed Intervenors) asked the court to allow them to intervene in the case as defendants. They argue that they have a direct and substantial interest in the litigation that is not adequately represented by the existing parties.    On October 6, Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James filed a memo opposing the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction. They argue that:  (1) plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence as Governor Hochul is entitled to legislative immunity and the New York Early Mail Voter Act (EMVA) is constitutional; (2) plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm; and (3) a balancing of equities does not tip in plaintiffs’ favor and injunctive relief is not in the pubic interest.  N.Y. Absentee Voting Challenge: Amedure et al v. State of New York et al  On August 31, in Saratoga County State Supreme Court, the New York Republican Party and other conservative plaintiffs filed a challenge to a state absentee voting law. The law allows review of absentee ballots on a rolling basis, requires voters who request absentee ballots but decide to vote in person to vote using a provisional ballot, and prevents legal challenges to ballots that were already cast. The plaintiffs allege that the law violates the state constitution for nine reasons, including that the law limits voters’ ability to change their mind if they request an absentee ballot but decide to vote in person; violates voters’ right to a secret ballot; impairs poll watchers’ ability to challenge ballots; and prevents election workers from following state law.   On September 18, the Defendants NYS Senate and Senate Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore Robert Ortt filed a memo opposing the petition and arguing for dismissal. They argue that the case is barred by laches and compare this action to one brought last September with same claims that was dismissed as untimely by the Appellate Division. The defendants argue that by the time this case is decided, County Boards will be in the middle of canvassing ballots under the disputed statute. They also assert that each of the causes of action are meritless, and they point to several overarching legal principles that support their arguments:  (1) acts of the legislature are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. (2) the legislature is always free to amend its own laws; and (3) fellow statutes are equal enactments under the law, a NY state statute cannot violate another statute.   CONGRESSIONAL LITIGATION   Alabama Has a New Congressional Map                On October 5, a federal court selected Alabama's new congressional map. The plan includes two districts, the 2nd and 7th Congressional Districts, where Black voters will have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. This map gives greater electoral power to the state’s Black voters (as under the previous map there was only one majority-Black district). One majority-Black district was repeatedly deemed to be in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by courts, as Black residents comprise over a quarter of Alabama's population and tend to vote as a bloc. The court's selection of a new map closes out roughly two years of litigation and delaying tactics to prevent or delay the implementation of a fair and legal congressional map.               The new map will be used for the upcoming 2024 election, although Alabama has vowed to fight the map for future cycles.   New Mexico Republicans Lose Congressional Map Challenge Contest   On October 6, a New Mexico state court judge ruled against a Republican challenge to the state's new congressional boundaries. The court found that although there was evidence that Democratic lawmakers intentionally tried to dilute the votes of the state Republican Party by moving conservative voters out of the 2nd Congressional district, the map did not reach the level of an "egregious gerrymander" needed in order to have the map thrown out. The court noted that the map would have to have been drawn to entrench Democrats in the district, making it so Democrats would always win, for the map to violate New Mexico law and reach the "egregious gerrymander" standard. New Mexico's 2nd District, the district that was the focus of this case, was redrawn to exclude part of the state's eastern border with Texas, a conservative-leaning area, to add a heavily Democratic part of Albuquerque.    The Republicans are planning to appeal the decision to the state’s Supreme Court.   STATE LEGISLATIVE LITIGATION   Washington State Map Will Likely be Left to the Courts   It has grown increasingly likely that the drawing of Washington State's new legislative lines will be done by the courts. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik ruled in Soto Palmer v. Hobbs on August 10 that the lines drawn by the state redistricting commission for the Yakima Valley diluted the Latino vote in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Following this decision, the court gave the state the opportunity to adopt revised maps that cured the Section 2 violation. These lines would be drawn and enacted pursuant to the process mandated by state law, which would involve reconvening the state's   redistricting commission. The court ordered that if the parties fail to enact new lines by February 7, 2024, the drawing of the map would become the responsibility of the court.              The state's legislature, controlled by a Democratic majority, has declined to reconvene the bipartisan redistricting commission. On October 4, Judge Lasnik reiterated that if the legislature is able to adopt a revised map in a timely manner, then the court would not get involved. However, the court acknowledged that this situation is unlikely to be settled by the legislature. Thus, the court ordered that if the parties failed to come to an agreement, the parties would confer to discuss potential nominees to act as special master to assist the court when it draws the new lines and ordered the parties to file alternative remedial proposals and nominations. The court provided a timeline for the parties to jointly submit recommendations for a special master and remedial proposals, accelerating the timeline by making both due on December 1. 

New York Law School

Not a member yet