![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/book-binders-Elections-Institute-newsletters-e1717609709577.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This week: Brooklyn Democrats\u2019 Rules Change Goes Back to Court; Good Government Groups Affirm Commitment to Election Integrity; State Board of Elections Adopts Rules for Ballot Drop Boxes; N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board Releases Post-2025 Election Report; Onondaga County Legislature Approves Term Limits Compromise; Free CLE on Voting Rights Tonight; Attorney General\u2019s Preclearance Activity; Census Bureau Removes Bar Against Partisan Influence; Around the Nation (From Redistricting Network); Maryland Court Permits New Redistricting Amendment for A Vote<\/p>\n
ELECTIONS<\/p>\n
Brooklyn Democrats Change Rules and Go Back to Court<\/p>\n
Julio Pena III et al v. Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn et al<\/p>\n
As a continuation of last week\u2019s update on the legal challenge to Kings County Democratic Chair Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn\u2019s effort to change party rules adding dozens of additional voting members to the executive committee following primary election victories by progressive reformers led by the New Kings Democrats and the \u201cBrooklyn Can\u2019t Wait\u201d coalition gaining a majority to elect longtime district leader Julio Pe\u00f1a as the new chair this fall; the county party respondents filed their memo of law in opposition on September 2, arguing the following:<\/p>\n
1) Petitioners bear a heightened burden for the drastic, mandatory relief they seek because they are asking the Court to strip effect from amendments already adopted and filed and to dictate who may vote going forward, which is a mandatory injunction that is rarely granted.<\/p>\n
2) Election Law \u00a7 2-112(1)(B) grants the existing County Committee all legal authority through the organizational meeting because the new committee assumes authority only \u201cupon conclusion\u201d of that meeting. Further the election law explicitly lists making and changing rules as one of the main powers given to \u201cthe committee.\u201d Also, respondent points out that in 2019 the New York legislature amended the Election Law to state explicitly that the old committee keeps \u201call legal authority\u201d until the new committee officially organizes.<\/p>\n
3) There is settled New York case law allowing a political party\u2019s full county committee to delegate its powers to its executive committee, specifically authority to amend rules by majority vote whenever the full County Committee is not in session, provided five days notice is given. The petitioners bear the burden of proving that the full County Committee was \u201cactually in session\u201d at the time, and if not, the Executive Committee\u2019s actions are legally valid.<\/p>\n
4) Generally, courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of a political party, absent inconsistent statutory directives.<\/p>\n
5) Petitioners cannot manufacture an actual controversy by staying silent before the Committee, when the Committee might well have agreed and declined to adopt the amendment, and instead asking Court to resolve it in the first instance.<\/p>\n
At their originally scheduled order to show cause on September 2, Brooklyn Democratic Party Law Chair Anthony Genovesi Jr. on behalf of the defendants, asked the judge to grant three individuals named in the suit, Anthony Beckford, Arleny Alvardo-McCall, and Heriberto Mateo, additional time to obtain counsel.<\/p>\n
The parties were given an additional day; however, the hearing was postponed again for procedural reasons.<\/p>\n
The order to show cause was moved to and will be held in Brooklyn Supreme Court on September 8th<\/p>\n
Good Government Groups Affirm Commitment to Election Integrity<\/p>\n
Voting news has been dominating the airwaves this week. Several courts are considering challenges to President Trumps\u2019 effort to have the U.S. Postal Service screen mail-in ballots based on information provided by election officials.<\/p>\n
This follows news from Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal\u2019s announcement that the Post Office is drafting plans that could disenfranchise thousands of voters. CNN also reports that the Department of Homeland Security will looking into voter fraud in several states, including New York.<\/p>\n
In New York, groups including Citizens Union, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, NYPIRG, ReInvent Albany and the New York City Bar Association have released a statement urging candidates for federal and state office to affirm the importance and integrity of the state\u2019s upcoming elections progress. The statement reads:<\/p>\n
We urge New York\u2019s candidates for federal and state office to join in a bipartisan effort affirming the importance and the integrity of the outcome of the state\u2019s upcoming elections. Every elected official swears to support and defend the federal and state Constitutions. That promise hinges on a commitment to abide by the certified results of elections, without regard to party or power. Comments by candidates for office that echo assertions \u2013 without evidence \u2013 that previous elections have been \u201cstolen,\u201d or otherwise raise such concerns, undermine that commitment.<\/p>\n
New York has a robust election security system that allows challenges to election results and contains mechanisms for the audits of results and recounts. For example, many of our groups fought for and won a requirement in state law that election integrity be underpinned by paper ballots that can be counted in the event of a challenge.<\/p>\n
Thus, we urge that candidates for New York office safeguard the integrity of the state elections by:<\/p>\n
\u25cf providing poll workers and election officials the space to do their jobs while conducting monitoring of polls and processes consistent with the requirements in state election law;<\/p>\n
\u25cf defending the process of state certification;<\/p>\n
\u25cf recognizing the election winners certified under New York\u2019s law;<\/p>\n
\u25cf opposing efforts to undermine elections or override those outcomes; and<\/p>\n
\u25cf serving as a responsible voice affirming the integrity of New York\u2019s election results and challenging those seeking to undermine those results. Since the beginning of the nation, New York\u2019s electeds have honored the decisions by voters regardless of who prevails. New York\u2019s candidates for office must commit to that principle ahead of the 2026 elections \u2014 defending state certification, recognizing certified winners, and opposing any effort to cast doubt on the integrity of New York\u2019s system.<\/p>\n
State Board of Elections Adopts Regulations On Ballot Drop Boxes<\/p>\n
The State Board of Elections adopted regulations last week to permit local election. boards to provide unstaffed ballot drop boxes to make voting more efficient if certain requirements are met, including requirements that ballots can be collected daily and on election night by a by a bipartisan team of bipartisan officials and that ballot drop boxes can be placed indoors out outside and under video surveillance.<\/p>\n
The new policy will not apply to this year\u2019s elections.<\/p>\n
N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board Releases 2025 Post-Election Report<\/p>\n
The New York City Campaign Finance Board released its 2025 Post-Election Report last week.<\/p>\n
According to the Board, \u201cAs turnout surged in the 2025 New York City municipal elections, candidates had more small-dollar contributors supporting them on average than in past years, and the median contribution size was just $50 \u2013 all while independent spenders poured a record-breaking $83.2 million into the field, more than double the amount from 2021. While the mayoral election result proved small-dollar contributions in publicly financed elections can stand up against historic levels of big money, New York City could still update campaign finance laws to reflect fundraising in the digital age and ensure adequate disclosure and accountability of independent spenders and their activity.<\/p>\n
These new data, analysis, and recommendations come from the New York City Campaign Finance Board\u2019s Post-Election Report, which examines how money animated the 2025 city elections \u2013 including everyday New Yorkers making small contributions, the city\u2019s public matching funds program, campaign spending, and the major corporations and wealthy individuals who contributed to historic independent spending.\u201d<\/p>\n
From the report:<\/p>\n
Program participation<\/p>\n
Candidate participation in the matching funds program has remained high over recent election cycles. 82.9% of candidates who qualified for the ballot participated in the program in 2025, including all mayoral and comptroller candidates. 80.7% of candidates reported that public funds were important to their decision to run, underscoring the critical role that the program plays in enabling candidates to run competitive campaigns even if they lack access to wealthy contributors, party leaders, lobbyists, or special interest groups.<\/p>\n
Individual contributions<\/p>\n
In the 2025 election cycle, campaigns received 244,401 individual contributions totaling $41.1 million. Small-dollar contributions remained the foundation of candidate fundraising accounting for 88.2% of all contributions, and the median contribution was $50. 78.2% of all individual contributions came from New York City residents. The average New York City contribution amount was $150, though this varied across the city. These contributions demonstrate the continued importance of small donors in financing city elections and reflect the role of the matching funds program in encouraging candidates to seek broad-based support from New York City residents.<\/p>\n
Public funds<\/p>\n
The CFB distributed $86.8 million in public funds to 131 candidates in 2025. Mayoral candidates received $50.2 million, or 57.8% of all public funds distributed, reflecting both the full participation of qualified mayoral candidates in the program and the higher public funds cap for that office. City council candidates received the second-largest share, at $18.6 million.<\/p>\n
Campaign spending<\/p>\n
Campaigns spent $123.5 million across all races in the 2025 election cycle on goods and services such as staff, advertising, voter outreach, and administrative costs. Mayoral campaigns spent $72.2 million, accounting for 58.5% of all campaign spending. Total spending remained high in both the primary and general elections, with candidates spending $68.2 million in the primary and $55.3 million in the general election. The unusually high level of general-election spending distinguished 2025 from prior municipal cycles. In a typical New York City election, spending declines substantially after the primary election. In 2025, however, the competitive mayoral general election sustained spending through November.<\/p>\n
The report can be accessed here: https:\/\/www.nyccfb.info\/media\/reports\/2025-post-election-report\/<\/p>\n
LEGISLATION<\/p>\n
Onondaga County Legislators Approve Term Limit Compromise<\/p>\n
Onondaga County legislators voted to place two term limits options on the November ballot following a standoff between the GOP county executive and the Democratic county legislature. As reported previously, County Executive Ryan McMahon approved a term limits law he later tried to unsuccessfully claw back from being approved. The compromise would allow voters to vote on two different ballot options. One would took the first step toward a proposed compromise to fix a bungled local law establishing term limits for the county\u2019s top elected positions.<\/p>\n
Legislators voted unanimously to put two options for term limits for the county comptroller and county executive on November\u2019s ballot. One would permit the county executive and county comptroller to run for three terms of four years, or a total of 12 years; and another would permit four terms of four years, for 16 years. The compromise legislation now goes back to the county executive to approve the questions after he holds a public hearing on it.<\/p>\n
UPCOMING EVENTS<\/p>\n
Free Voting Rights CLE Session- September 8th at 6:30 PM<\/p>\n
The New York Democratic Lawyers Council (NYDLC) is offering a free CLE session to present a discussion of the Supreme Court\u2019s recent Callais and Watson decisions, the current state of the Rule of Law as applied to voting rights and the Voting Rights Act, and on the future of voting rights. Panelists include: Abha Khanna \u2013 Partner, Elias Law Group \u2013 Arthur Mitchell \u2013 Director of Litigation and Policy, National Redistricting Foundation \u2013 Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky \u2013 Co-Executive Director, New York State Board of Elections \u2013 Jeff Wice \u2013 Distinguished Adjunct Professor & Senior Fellow, NY Law School \u2013 Alejandra Pollak \u2013 Voter Protection Director, New York State Democratic Committee This course is a two (2) hour program offering 2 NYS professional practice CLE Credits to attorneys who attend, and is appropriate for newly-admitted and experienced attorneys.<\/p>\n
Register here: https:\/\/www.mobilize.us\/nyvoterprotection\/event\/990487\/<\/p>\n
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE<\/p>\n
N.Y. Attorney General\u2019s Office Preclearance<\/p>\n
1661 New York City Board of Elections poll site locations- granted<\/p>\n
1722 New York City Board of Elections (Brooklyn)- poll site locations- additional information needed- under review<\/p>\n
1762 Monroe County Board of Elections poll site locations- under review<\/p>\n
1664 Onondaga County Board of Elections- poll site locations- granted<\/p>\n
All submissions can be viewed at: https:\/\/nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov\/<\/p>\n
CENSUS<\/p>\n
Census Bureau Removes Bar Against Partisan Influence<\/p>\n
The stability of the Census Bureau is now being called into question after the Trump administration made an unannounced policy revision that removed language protecting against political interference from the Commerce Department\u2019s scientific integrity policy. According to NPR, a policy revision dated August 19 no longer includes language protecting against \u201cinappropriate influence\u201d in the scientific findings produced by the department\u2019s agencies. Former Census Bureau officials and other data experts worry that the Trump administration is making quiet moves that could undermine the independence of a key statistical agency.<\/p>\n
The Commerce Department\u2019s 2025 policy stated that its mission included \u201censuring scientific findings at its agencies \u2018are not suppressed, delayed, or altered for political purposes and are not subjected to inappropriate influence,\u2019\u201d as well as ensuring \u201cindependent review of facilities, methodologies, and other scientific activities as appropriate to ensure scientific integrity.\u201d According to NPR, that language is now missing from the Trump administration\u2019s revision of the policy.<\/p>\n
Most of the public may not be familiar with the Commerce Department\u2019s scientific integrity policy to begin with. However, NPR interviewed Nancy Potok, a former deputy director at the Census Bureau, who sees the removal of this language as \u201ca major change that eliminates the guardrails against political interference in the statistical and scientific data products of the department.\u201d She also stated that \u201cthe fact that there is a conscious effort to revise the department administrative orders [. . .] instead of going in the other direction, is definitely troubling and needs some explanation.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is not the first effort by the Trump administration that has raised concerns about the integrity of the Census Bureau. In June 2026, the administration banned the bureau from using a data privacy protection technique that the agency had used for decades to keep track of local areas, small populations, and rural communities. Because of this ban, estimates from the American Community Survey may be affected, and the amount of statistical information the bureau can release about rural communities could be reduced.<\/p>\n
AROUND THE NATION<\/p>\n
From The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet)<\/p>\n
August 31: A conservative ballot initiative to shore up the Colorado congressional redistricting commission and add language on mid-decade redistricting has been placed on the November ballot. \u2014 @RedistrictNet [from X]<\/p>\n
September 3: The Missouri Supreme Court ruled the state constitution permits a referendum on a congressional redistricting map passed by the legislature.<\/p>\n
The 2022 congressional map governs the November 2026 election. HB 1 takes effect only if voters approve it. \u2014 @RedistrictNet [from X]<\/p>\n
September 3: Maryland\u2019s Supreme Court just ruled Question 3, the state\u2019s redistricting amendment, stays on the November ballot, but ordered the state to scrap the ballot language and swap in the amendment\u2019s official purpose text. \u2014 @RedistrictNet [from X]<\/p>\n
September 3: MO Attorney General Catherine Hanaway says the state will immediately appeal the Missouri redistricting referendum decision to the US Supreme Court. \u2014 @RedistrictNet [from X]<\/p>\n
Maryland Supreme Court Permits Congressional Redistricting Amendment To Move Forward<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled on September 3 that a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting will appear on the November ballot, reversing two circuit courts that had blocked it. The amendment would supersede a 2022 circuit court ruling by Judge Lynne Battaglia that applied the Maryland Constitution\u2019s compactness and contiguity requirements to congressional districts for the first time, standards previously understood to govern only state legislative districts. Senate President Bill Ferguson cited that ruling when he declined to have a Senate vote on a House-passed congressional map in February. The amendment (HB 2100) is intended to remove the legal obstacle from the 2022 ruling.<\/p>\n
The General Assembly passed House Bill 2100 during the August special session, with Democratic supermajorities in both chambers approving it along party lines. Days later, Republican legislators filed two challenges, one in Annapolis and one in Cambridge. In fast-tracked rulings in late August, judges in Anne Arundel and Dorchester counties found legal deficiencies in the legislature\u2019s process and missed statutory deadlines, and identified violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Both courts enjoined the question from the ballot, and both rulings were immediately appealed.<\/p>\n
The Maryland high court agreed with the lower courts on the central point but disagreed on the remedy. In an eight-page order for the majority, Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader concluded that the ballot question as written by the General Assembly \u201cis misleading and therefore violates due process requirements,\u201d faulting in particular its reference to \u201capplicable federal laws\u201d as the criteria for determining congressional boundaries. But the majority held that the circuit judges were wrong to enjoin the question and instead rewrote it. The revised Question 3 tells voters the amendment would clarify that certain requirements apply only to state Senate and House of Delegates districts, authorize the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over congressional districting plans, and provide \u201cthat nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.\u201d The majority also rejected the lower courts\u2019 findings that the legislature missed a legal deadline and improperly combined two subjects in one question. The court majority and a dissenting judge both indicated fuller opinions would follow. The amendment will be on the November 3 ballot for voter approval.<\/p>\n
INSTITUTE RESOURCES<\/p>\n
The New York Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute has archived many resources for the public to view on our Digital Commons Page.<\/p>\n
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\/<\/p>\n
Archived Updates can be accessed here: https:\/\/digitalcommons.nyls.edu\/redistricting_roundtable_updates\/<\/p>\n