This week- How $30 Million Can Protect $186 Billion: The Case for Investing in the Census; Trump’s Election Executive Order Challenged; N.Y.C. Rallies for Census 2030; VRA Preclearance; Blakemen Denied State Funding; Mail-In Voting Challenge Impact on New York; Flateau Voting Data Base Law Goes Into Effect; Assembly Election Law Committee Advances Legislation; Around the Nation from @RedistrictNet

CENSUS FUNDING

$30 Million to Protect $186 Billion: The Case for Investing in Census Accuracy in New York State

As state budget negotiations continue on Albany where up to $30 million is being discussed to support census outreach efforts, the Immigration Research Initiative is helping make the case for funding. From a new report by Shamier Settle of the Institute:

Every year the federal government allocates money to states for Medicaid and Medicare, education, infrastructure, housing, and more. In many cases, the funding is set by formulas that rely, in part, on a population count. To determine how much each state gets, the federal government uses Census data. It is critically important that each state get an accurate count of the number of residents: when people are not counted accurately, federal programs that flow to states would not receive the funds they’re entitled to, and some New Yorkers will not get the federal dollars they deserve.

New York State received approximately $186 billion in federal funding across 371 census-guided programs in Fiscal Year 2023, according to a recent report from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO).

Federal funding is hardly the only reason it’s important to get an accurate count. Census data is critical to political representation, school planning, business decisions, and research on who lives and works in the state.

But the money at stake is one more reason it is important for the state to allocate funds needed to pave the way for a full and proper count in the 2030 census. The first step is the Local Update of Census Addresses, or LUCA, which is how the Census Bureau identifies the places people live. Once the registry of dwellings is set, that is what is used in 2030. If a dwelling is not on the list, the people who live there are not counted. LUCA gets underway in 2027 but planning and preparation takes place in 2026.

That’s why this year’s state budget should invest $30 million to do three things:

Set up a New York State government census support office.
Provide funding to county governments and community-based organizations, to support their field and door-to-door efforts during LUCA field operations.
Establish a New York Counts Commission of experienced census experts.

This level of preparation will lay the groundwork for an accurate count in New York.

The 2030 Census is fast approaching, and it is critical that New Yorkers are prepared for the count, from rural communities to the largest city in the country.

Even small miscounts can cost New York money and misdirect funds, depending on the program and exactly who is miscounted. One challenge is that every state has significant populations of people who have been historically and persistently undercounted by the census, including people of color, young children, renters, and those in low-income households.

Getting the count right is fundamental to the state’s economy, political representation, and understanding of ourselves.

WHERE $186 BILLION OF CENSUS-GUIDED FEDERAL FUNDING WENT IN FY 20232

$131 Billion for Medicaid and Medicare

Providing millions of Americans with health insurance and assistance in paying for medical services, prescription drugs, surgeries, hospital stays and more.

$28 Billion for Health Spending (excluding Medicaid and Medicare)

Assisting households with medical costs, providing nutritional support, social services, community health centers, and more.

$7 Billion for Infrastructure

Allocating funds for roads, bridges, energy production, broadband, water treatment, and other community infrastructure projects.

$10 Billion for Education

Supporting primary education, special education, higher education, as well as training and education of community members on important issues.

$3 Billion for Economic Development

Providing loans for business expansions, small business assistance, employment services, and more, to improve the economic well-being of communities.

$10 Billion for Housing

Assisting homeowners and renters with housing costs, investing in public housing, and helping veterans, older Americans, people with disabilities, and others find affordable housing.

ELECTIONS

Trump’s Executive Order on “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections” Challenged

On Tuesday, March 31, President Trump issued an Executive Order “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” This executive order (EO) directs federal agencies like the Social Security Administration to compile lists of U.S. citizens and verified eligible voters, directs the U.S. Postal Service to create a list of “approved” mail voters, and instructs USPS to refuse to deliver ballots from voters not on that federally created list. To note, the USPS is not under the direct control of the President and is an independent federal agency.

First, on Wednesday, April 1, Democratic party leaders filed a lawsuit arguing that the Executive Order is an unconstitutional interference with the power of states to regulate elections. Party leaders included in this complaint are Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Governors Association.

The primary premise of the DSCC complaint is that the Executive Branch lacks authority to regulate federal elections as the Elections Clause reserves this right exclusively to state legislatures and, as a backstop, Congress. Further, the complaint alleges that the EO forces federal agencies to act in ways that violate their governing statutes including the Postal Reorganization Act and Privacy Act of 1974. DSCC also argues that the EO violates the individual rights of voters, including the First and Fifth Amendments, and is a state-sponsored voter intimidation tactic.

Second, on Thursday, April 2, a coalition of voting rights organizations filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

The complaint shares a similar “separation of powers” foundation and statutory framework with the DSCC case but also leans heavily on the Tenth Amendment. The core premise of the complaint is that the EO unconstitutionally “commandeers” state and local election officials by threatening to withhold mail delivery unless states adopt a federal “approved mail voter” list, especially when many states have already codified mail voting.

Further, the complaint argues that federal databases are notoriously outdated with a potential for “false positives” on these lists that have their ballots rejected without any notice or chance to appeal, violating procedural due process. The complaint also alleges that there will be voter confusion as a result.

Third, on Friday, April 3, New York Attorney General Letitia James and a coalition of 22 other attorneys general filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts focused on the sovereign power of states to manage their own elections. The complaint argues that many of the plaintiff states like California and Washington have state constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to vote by mail, so the EO forces state officials to choose between violating their own state constitutions or defying a federal mandate. Further, the complaint argues that the EO uses “unconstitutional conditions” on federal grants, as established by precedent that the federal government cannot force states into a new regulatory scheme by threatening to revoke existing, unrelated funding. Also, the complaint argues the administration provided no evidence of the “legendary cheating” cited in the EO and bypassed “notice and comment” periods required for major policy shifts.

CENSUS

N.Y.C. Council Speker Menin & Census Advocates Rally at City Hall

New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin, Council Members, and civic engagement leaders held a press conference on National Census Day to push back against the Trump administration’s efforts to include a citizenship question in the 2030 Census and to call for proactive investment and planning ahead of the next count.

The rally at the rotunda at City Hall highlighted the importance of an accurate Census count to ensure New York receives an appropriate share of federal funding and Congressional representation. It also brought attention to the Trump administration’s latest plan to include a citizenship question in the testing phase of the 2030 Census, which, if inserted into the Census, would discourage participation from New York City’s diverse communities and undermine efforts to count every New Yorker.

In addition to Speaker Menin, others who spoke at the event included New York Law School Professor Jeff Wice, N.Y. United Way President Grace Bonilla, Brooklyn Public Library President and CEO Linda Johnson, CUNY Graduate Center Mapping Center Director Steven Romalewski and MinKwon Center advisor and APA VOICE coordinator Liz OuYang.

The rally was held on the same day that Speaker Menin and New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a joint letter to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick expressing their strong opposition to the inclusion of the citizenship question in census field tests, a likely precursor to including them in the 2030 Census.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT

N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance

1202 Onondaga County Board of Elections- poll site location- under review

1221 Onondaga County Board of Elections – poll site location- under review

1162 Monroe County Board of Elections- poll site location- under review

1001 Mt. Vernon School Board (Westchester)- poll site location- grantee

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

ELECTIONS

Blakeman Denied Campaign Finance Funding

On Tuesday, March 31 the New York Public Campaign Finance Board voted in a 4-3 decision along party lines to deny Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman, public campaign matching funds in his race because Blakeman’s running mate, Madison County sheriff Todd Hood, did not submit the required paperwork by the deadline.

The regulatory requirement is that gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidates must jointly apply and certify for public financing. This requirement was adopted in late December 2025 and was said to be poorly communicated and not fully implemented, however, the Board’s position is that allowing correction after the deadline would undermine uniform enforcement and integrity of public funds distribution.

The public campaign matching funds program started in the 2024 elections and means political campaigns can match low-dollar donations with public money, ultimately reducing reliance on large contributions. This is the first gubernatorial cycle using New York’s public matching system.

The Blakeman campaign has the opportunity to appeal the board’s decision. Key claims could be lack of notice or fair warning, and arbitrary and capricious review.

On the point of lack of notice or fair warning, Alex Camarda, a senior policy advisor at Reinvent Albany, said the Board had the opportunity and responsibility to inform Blakeman of the missing aspect even after Blakeman updated other parts of his filing. They could have informed him that his application was incomplete because there was no lieutenant governor provided and that his registration needed to be supplemented.

Citizens Union Executive Director Grace Rauh urged the Campaign Finance Board to ensure that all campaigns affected by the new emergency rules – which includes about six other candidates who applied for matching funds – “have a meaningful opportunity to comply.”

In a letter to the Board, the Brennan Center argued that Blakeman had “substantially complied” with the requirement to jointly register by announcing his running mate and forming a single committee for both candidates before the deadline to apply for matching funds.

Mail-In Voting: How Watson v. Republican National Committee Could Impact New York

Though states had offered absentee voting for decades, the rapid increase in absentee voting in 2020, driven by the COVID pandemic, placed U.S. absentee voting practices under a microscope. In the aftermath of the 2020 presential election and the pandemic, concerns about election security and the then-current, non-restrictive absentee voting policies were a major topic of conversation in the media. However, absentee voting policies themselves were largely unaffected by the pandemic. Between 2020 and 2022, no states placed new restrictions on absentee voting eligibility. In 14 of the 16 states that required voters to provide an excuse to vote absentee in 2020, only one retained that new policy after the election; the other states reverted to their pre-COVID policies.

In 2020, eight states and the District of Columbia temporarily extended deadlines for receiving absentee ballots, and in 2021 and 2022, three of these states had made the extensions permanent. Additionally, 27 states and D.C. allowed absentee ballot processing to begin prior to Election Day, a number that increased to 40 states and D.C. after 2022. Early in-person voting also expanded: pre-2020, eight states did not have it, but by November 2022, five of those states had adopted early in-person voting.

New York, particularly, has seen an expansion of voting methods in recent years. In January 2019, a new law authorized early voting and mandated that polls be open on certain days starting ten days prior to Election Day. In 2021, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a state law streamlining the way election officials count absentee ballots and preventing legal challenges to absentee ballots that have been cast. In 2023, the New York State Legislature enacted the New York Early Mail Voter Act, allowing voters to vote early by mail in any election in which they are eligible to vote. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Act in 2024, holding that the Constitution does not prevent the legislature “from enacting universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting in a manner that overcomes the strong presumption of constitutionality…” of the Act.

This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case challenging absentee and mail-in voting processes in Mississippi, where ballots postmarked on or before Election Day may be counted if received up to five days after. The Republican National Committee argued that federal law requires all ballots be received by Election Day, pointing to past historical practices where voting was conducted in person and completed on Election Day. Mississippi responded, first, that the federal statute in its text does not explicitly require receipt of ballots by Election Day, only that the election be held on that day. Second, Mississippi emphasized that modern voting methods have expanded the definition of “Election Day,” citing to past instances where Congress has accepted ballots arriving after Election Day. The Fifth Circuit invalidated Mississippi’s law, and Mississippi petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court must decide whether to affirm the circuit court’s decision and strike down the law, or to uphold it.

A negative decision limiting or prohibiting the receipt of ballots after Election Day may completely disrupt the voting process in New York. For the upcoming Federal and State Primary elections, registration and ballot requests must be received by June 13, and returning ballots received by June 23; for the General Election, registration and ballot requests must be received by October 24, and returning ballots received by November 3. New York also provides a grace period: primary election ballots may be received up until seven days after the election and general election ballots may be received up until 13 days after the election. Disrupting the timeline already set in place might create confusion for voters and lead to discounting of ballots postmarked in accordance with the deadlines but that were delayed due to the mailing process.

If the Supreme Court adopts the Republican National Committee’s definition of “Election Day,” early voting in-person and by-mail could be severely limited or altogether eliminated. In New York, early voting for the 2026 Primary Election was set to run from June 13th through June 21st of 2025, and early voting sites were open in Onondaga County from October 25th through November 2nd, for the General Election. Ballots must have been postmarked by November 4th and received by November 12th. Polls were open on November 4th from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. to vote early. The elimination of the receipt of ballots in New York sent after Election Day would also affect military overseas voters, in conflict with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which ensures that U.S. citizens who are active members of the Uniformed Services, the Merchant Marine, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and their eligible family members and other U.S. citizens residing outside of the U.S., can participate in elections using the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), or in emergencies, the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB).

For New York and the United States as a whole, the Supreme Court’s holding in Watson v. Republican National carries profound implications. A negative decision limiting or prohibiting the receipt of ballots after Election Day threatens established absentee and early voting practices, risks disenfranchising voters, and undermines federal protections for citizens serving our country overseas.

Dr. John L. Flateau Voting & Elections Data Base Goes Into Effect

On April 1, the state’s new election data base law went into effect. Here are highlights of what is covered:

From the N.Y. State Board of Elections:

Pursuant to state Election Law Section 30112, upon certification of election results and the completion of the voter history file after every election, each election authority shall, by January 1st after such election, or within ten (10) business days, whichever is later, transmit to the New York State Board of Elections, if such election authority is able to maintain the record, copies of:

election results at the election district level for every statewide election and every election in every political subdivision;
contemporaneous voter registration lists;
voter history files;
maps or other documentation of the configuration of districts in any format or formats as specified by the New York State Board of Elections;
tabulations of the number of valid and invalid affidavit ballots, the reasons for which affidavit ballots were invalid, and the quantity and disposition of affidavit ballots subject to the cure procedure prescribed by Election Law § 9-209(3);
tabulations of the number of valid and invalid absentee ballots, the reasons for which absentee ballots were invalid and the quantity of absentee ballots invalid for each such reason, and the quantity and disposition of absentee ballots subject to the cure procedure prescribed by Election Law § 9-209(3);
lists of election day poll sites and early voting sites and maps or other documentation of the configuration of districts in any format or formats as specified by the New York State Board of Elections of the election districts assigned to each election day poll site or early voting site;
adopted districting or redistricting plans for every election in every political subdivision; and
any other publicly available data as requested by the New York State Board of Elections.

Nothing in the act requires an election authority to create or otherwise provide a record it is not capable of collecting.

The statute applies to all elections. The New York State Board of Elections is authorized to adopt necessary regulations before the effective date so the database can be implemented fully.

State Assembly Election Law Committee Advances Two Bills

Sponsors Vanel, Walker

To Amend §14-106, Election Law

Prohibits distribution or publishing any political communication that was produced by or includes materially deceptive media.- Referred to the Codes Committee

Sponsor- P. Carroll

To Amend §8-416, Election Law

Requires a board of elections to establish at least one ballot drop-off location in its jurisdiction; requires the ballot drop boxes to be placed 45 days before the election. – Referred to Ways & Means

AROUND THE NATION

From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)

March 23: A Cole County judge has rewritten the ballot summary for the potential referendum on Missouri’s new redistricting plan. https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2036111480077082723

March 23: A preliminary report from the MO Sec. of State shows that Missouri Redistricting Referendum has met the signature threshold to qualify for the ballot. MO SoS Hoskins says the report is for informational purposes and is not a final determination. https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2036176159365288040

March 24: The Missouri Supreme Court rules 4–3 that Missouri lawmakers can redraw congressional maps mid-decade. https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2036511661507424449

March 24: Both cases challenging the compactness of Missouri’s new congressional map, Wise v. State and Healey v. State, are now on appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2036583561633870292

March 26: Utah Republicans petition to repeal independent redistricting and anti-gerrymandering protections has fallen below the signature threshold. The petition no longer has enough signatures to make the November ballot. https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2037164446158561410

March 27: The NJ Voting Rights Act has passed the New Jersey Assembly. It now heads to the New Jersey Senate. https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2037560167433179218

INSTITUTE RESOURCES

The New York Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute has archived many resources for the public to view on our Digital Commons Page.

Our Redistricting Resources page contains resources on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. You can access the page here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/

Archived Updates can be accessed here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/

Please share this weekly update with your colleagues. To be added to the mailing list, please contact [email protected]

The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund, the Mellon Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice, Esha Shah, Corinne Gumpman & Jason Fierman of @RedistrictNet.