NY Elections, Census and Redistricting Update Week of 10/27/25

This week- New Congressional Map Challenge; Board of Elections litigation, Stefanik Poll Challenged by Democrats; Register Now for the November 14 Statewide Census Organizing Conference; VRA Preclearance; Newburgh Litigation Explored; Around the Nation: North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana

REDISTRICTING & LITIGATION

Breaking News- New Congressional Lawsuit Challenge Filed Today: Williams et al v. State Board of Elections et al

A complaint was filed in New York County State Supreme Court today asking that the state legislature create a minority influence district that would include Staten Island and parts of lower Manhattan. The lawsuit is based on the state constitutional requirement that districts respect minority voting rights coupled with the argument that the state Voting Rights Act’s criteria for creating districts be used to bolster the need for a new minority influence district. While the state VRA does not apply to congressional districts, the plaintiffs in this new challenge argue that the VRA’s standards should apply to congressional redistricting. The challenge argues that Black and Latino residents of Staten Island and Manhattan should all be included in one district.

This challenge comes at the same time the federal Voting Rights Act is being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court and the state Voting Rights Act is being challenged before the State Court of Appeals;

We will have more details on this case next week.

United States v. New York State Board of Elections

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sent a letter to the New York State Board of Elections requesting a current copy of the statewide voter registration list and documentation of the state’s compliance with voter list maintenance procedures. On August 29, the New York State Board provided the public version of the voter registration list, maintaining that state and federal privacy laws prevent sharing the unredacted list.

On September 25, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against New York, the State Board of Elections and election officials for refusing to provide an unredacted copy of the state’s voter registration list and related voter lists maintenance records. The DOJ claims that New York’s refusal violates federal laws – including the National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, and Civil Rights Act of 1960 – and is asking the court to compel the state to release full voter data, including voters’ dates of birth, addresses, and other personal information.

This lawsuit is part of a broader DOJ campaign targeting multiple states including California, Michigan, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Main for similar refusals to provide full voter data.

On October 1, 2025, the NAACP and NAACP of New York State Conference filed a motion to intervene as defendants. In support of their motion to intervene, the NAACP argues that their sensitive personal information is placed in jeopardy by DOJ’s demands and has significant interest in protecting their personal information from improper disclosure to the DOJ.

As a whole, the NAACP argues that federal law has long made voter list maintenance a state responsibility, consistent with the constitutional separation of powers. They also argue that the DOJ has embarked on an unprecedented nationwide campaign to collect personal voter registration data held by the state.

NY Citizens Audit Civic Fund Challenge to Voter Rolls

New York Citizens Audit Civic Fund (NYCA) has filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Letitia James for alleged inaccuracies in the state’s voter rolls and alleging that state officials violated constitutional and civil rights laws by downplaying efforts to make alleged election irregularities more public. The complaint argues that New York’s failure to maintain accurate voter lists and reconcile votes before certifying the 2024 election violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to free speech and petition, constituting voter intimidation under federal law, and denying due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. NYCA also is asking the federal district court for the northern district for an order preventing the certification of future election results until an independent audit is conducted of the state’s voting system.

ELECTIONS

New York Democrats Allege Stefanik Poll Disclosure Violation

U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik has rebuffed an allegation made by Democratic State Party Chair Jay Jacobs that she has not disclosed the full details of a recent poll. While there is a great expectation that she will challenge Governor Kathy Hochul next year, she has not announced her candidacy yet and argues that her poll results are not subject to disclosure with the State Board of Elections.

Jacobs had filed a complaint with the state Board of Elections arguing that an October poll taken by Stefanik’s campaign should have been disclosed per the state’s Fair Campaign Code that requires candidates, parties and committees to make public poll results within 48 hours. The internal poll, paid for by Stefanik’s federal political action committee, showed that Hochul held a 5% lead over Stefanik — compared to a 25% lead found by a Siena College-based poll last month.

According to coverage in the Albany Times Union, the complaint “also alleges that Stefanik violated state campaign finance laws by using federal campaign funds for a state race and failing to report payments for the poll to the state.”

Chair Jacobs and Rep. Stephanik disagree over whether the State Board considers Stefanik a candidate at this time. The Times Union article by Esther Sun states that Stefanik informed people she was running for Governor in September when she was quoted as answering a question about her candidacy with the reply  “We are — yes, donate to SaveNewYork.com. We are building the groundwork today to support local candidates this year.”

Stefanik attorney Joseph T. Burns, an attorney for Stefanik argues that the state law does not apply under Federal Election Commission disclosure rules and that Stephanik is a federal official and that the federal rules that apply to Stefanik supercede state laws are not set by said the state’s poll disclosure requirements under the Fair Campaign Code “do not apply to Elise,” citing a 2012 Federal Election Commission opinion stating that federal Election Law supercedes state law in regard to federal candidates.

The Times Union points out that “according to the Board of Elections, a poll released for the purpose of “testing the waters” by a person who has not announced their candidacy is not bound by the state filing requirements, “because the person is not yet seeking the nomination nor is the person a candidate for office.”

Further, the paper informs that “the (state) board may still consider a person a candidate even if they have not formally declared their candidacy, “if the person’s actions show that he or she is in fact a candidate,” and such considerations are “made on a case-by-case basis.”

NOVEMBER 14 N.Y.S. CENSUS KICKOFF CONFERENCE

Friday, November 14, 2025 | 12 – 2 PM | Virtual Event

New York State Census Partnership

The road to Census 2030 starts now. Join a virtual convening that brings together experts, advocates, and partners from across New York to kick off the conversation, share key updates, and begin building the infrastructure absolutely critical for a complete and equitable count.

Register Here Today: https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/nys-census-2030-launch/

Moderated by Sol Marie Alfonso-Jones, Sr. Program Director, The New York Community Trust, this session will include:

·         An overview of what the census is, and why it matters to all New Yorkers.

·         An overview of the New York State Census Partnership (NYSCP) —what we learned from 2020, how we are structuring the work now, our current priorities, what has been achieved to date, and how stakeholders can get involved.

·         Why community involvement in the Census matters with Lurie Daniel Favors, Executive Director, Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College

·         A look at New York’s shifting demographics and what they tell us about who and where we need to reach, with Jan Vink, Cornell University Program on Applied Demographics

·         A deep dive into the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) process—what it is, why it matters, and how to prepare now, with Joe Salvo, Consultant, and Former Chief Demographer for New York City

·         Key updates from the U.S. Census Bureau, presented by Meeta Anand, Leadership Conference

·         A state-level perspective on what’s happening in New York from Jeff Wice, Distinguished Adjunct Professor & Senior Fellow, Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute, New York Law School, with special guests Senator Jeremy Cooney, and Assembly Members Michaelle Solages and Landon Dais.

Whether you’re a veteran of census work or just getting started, this session will equip you with critical information, past efforts, where things stand, and how to get involved as we look toward 2030. It’s not too early—now is the time to begin laying the groundwork for a fair and accurate count. It’s going to take all of us, working together, to ensure every New Yorker is seen, counted, and represented.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT

N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance

862 Westchester County BOE- poll site location- granted

Related to several poll site relocations

921 Nassau County BOE- language assistance- preliminarily granted

Seeking approval for the County Board’s language assistance program

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

VOTING RIGHTS LAW

Newburgh Files Amicus (Friend-of-the-Court) Brief Linking New York’s Voting Law to a Major U.S. Supreme Court Case

The Town of Newburgh, a small Hudson Valley community of just over 30,000 residents, has unexpectedly found itself at the center of a national fight over voting rights. What started as a local dispute over how the town elects its board members has grown into a constitutional question now linked to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more than 150 years, Newburgh has elected its officials through at-large elections, a system used by most towns in New York. But under the state’s new John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act (NYVRA), passed in 2022, the town could be required to change that system if its elections show signs of “racially polarized voting” or if minority groups are found to have less “influence” in outcomes. The town argues that the law goes too far, pressuring local governments to redesign their elections around race even without any evidence of discrimination.

Newburgh’s lawyers say they’re caught between two unconstitutional choices: discriminate or face financial penalties. “We’re being told to discriminate to prove we’re not discriminating,” a town brief essentially argues. They claim the NYVRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by forcing race-based decision-making in elections.

Here’s where it gets more complicated. While Newburgh’s own case, Clarke v. Town of Newburgh, is before the New York Court of Appeals, the town has also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a completely separate case, Louisiana v. Callais, now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Louisiana case asks whether the federal Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which governs how racial fairness is measured in elections, can survive under the Court’s modern equal-protection rulings. Newburgh joined that national case to make a point: if even the federal Voting Rights Act is constitutionally questionable, then New York’s version, which goes further, must be on shakier ground.

So far, New York’s courts have rejected the town’s challenge. The Appellate Division ruled earlier this year that the NYVRA doesn’t require “strict scrutiny” because it protects all racial groups, not just minorities, and offers several possible remedies such as ranked-choice or cumulative voting. The town’s attorneys argue those explanations miss the mark, saying that any law using race as a deciding factor, no matter who benefits, should face the toughest constitutional review.

Beyond Newburgh, the issue has national significance. Other states, including California, Washington, Connecticut.  and Colorado, have enacted their own state-level voting rights acts. Supporters say these laws give local communities new tools to fight discrimination in elections. Critics warn they risk replacing one kind of inequality with another by turning election design into a racial numbers game.

As the Supreme Court weighs Louisiana v. Callais and New York’s Court of Appeals considers a decision in Clarke v. Town of Newburgh, a small Hudson Valley town has become an unlikely symbol of a much larger question: how far can states go to guarantee fair representation without crossing the constitutional line?

AROUND THE NATION

North Carolina has enacted a mid-decade congressional map that analysts say will shift the state’s delegation from 10 – 4 to 11 Republicans and 3 Democrats. GOP lawmakers pushed the plan through both chambers on Wednesday, October 22.

Because the North Carolina constitution exempts redistricting bills from the governor’s veto, the map became law the moment the House vote concluded. Local coverage notes the new lines overhaul the coastal 1st District, trimming its Black voting-age share below 40 percent and adding Republican-leaning counties, while shoring up neighboring GOP seats. View a PDF of the map.

The mid-cycle redraw comes after President Donald Trump’s call for Republican controlled states to redraw congressional maps to maximize Republican representation in Congress. Texas became the first state to oblige in August, and Missouri followed in September. Note that Utah recently passed a congressional map in October, but that was in response to a court order, and not a voluntary mid-decade redraw.

Litigation quickly followed the map’s enactment. Plaintiffs in the federal racial gerrymandering case, Williams v. Hall, amended their complaint to challenge the new plan, alleging the dilution of Black voting strength in the redesigned 1st District. A three-judge panel will likely determine whether a preliminary injunction is warranted. The State Board of Elections has requested that the court resolve the issue by December 1st so county officials can program precincts before candidate filing opens on the 8th.

If the court allows the plan to stand, North Carolinians will vote under the 11 – 3 map in the March 2026 primary. An injunction could force lawmakers to draw yet another map, North Carolina’s fourth since the 2020 census. The outcome will be closely watched nationally, as the balance of power in the U.S. House may hinge on a handful of seats.

Virginia: Virginia Democrats have announced a plan to redraw the state’s congressional delegation in order to eliminate Republican districts. While no details have been made available, the legislature will need to advance a constitutional amendment to permit the legislature to bypass a commission system. A redistricting commission enacted before the 2020 process failed to develop a congressional map, leaving the job to a federal court special masters.

Indiana: The Hoosier State’s governor has called for a special session of the state legislature beginning on November 3rd to redraw the states congressional map, targeting one or two Democrats for elimination.

INSTITUTE RESOURCES

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

Our Redistricting Resources page contains resources on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. You can access the page

here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/

Archived Updates can be accessed

here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/

Please share this weekly update with your colleagues. To be added to the mailing list, please contact Jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu

The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund, the Mellon Foundation,  and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice, Esha Shah, Daniel Bonaventura, and MIchelle Davis (from Redistrictingonline.org).