You are here: / Election Law
, ,

SIX TOWN OF NEWBURGH VOTERS CHALLENGEDTHE TOWN’S AT-LARGE ELECTION SYSTEM UNDER THE VOTER DILUTION STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS THE DILUTION OF VOTES OF MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS, HERE BLACKS AND HISPANICS; THE TOWN RESPONDED WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE VOTER DILUTION STATUTE; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE TOWN, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY CREATED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, COULD NOT CHALLENGE A STATE STATUTE AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the Town of Newburgh, as a governmental entity created by the state legislature, could not challenge the facial constitutionality of the vote dilution provision of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) (codified at Election Law 17-200 et seq. Six Newburgh voters sued the Town under Election Law 17-206 which prohibits election methods which dilute the votes of members of a protected class. It was alleged that the at-large election system diluted the power of Black and Hispanic residents such that they were not represented on the Town Board. The Town, in response, asserted a facial constitutional challenge to the dilution provision, Election Law 17-206:

… [A] legislative entity’s challenge to a State law must be “examined with a view towards the relief sought” … . Newburgh seeks invalidation of the entire vote-dilution provision under Election Law § 17-206. For a facial constitutional challenge, principles of “judicial restraint” … counsel strongly against permitting subordinate units of state government from using the judiciary to second-guess the wisdom of enacted legislation. A municipality’s authority to raise a challenge to a State law is at its lowest ebb when that challenge is a facial constitutional challenge, seeking to invalidate a statute in all possible applications, not merely because it allegedly placed the particular municipality in an allegedly untenable position. … “[O]ur capacity rule reflects a self-evident proposition about legislative intent: the ‘manifest improbability’ that the legislature would breathe constitutional rights into a public entity and then equip it with authority to police state legislation on the basis of those rights” … . Clarke v Town of Newburgh, 2025 NY Slip Op 06359, CtApp 11-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the circumstances under which a town, which is a governmental entity created by the state legislature, can challenge the constitutionality of a state statute. Here a town’s challenge to the facial constitutionality of the voter dilution provision of the Election Law was rejected on the ground the state legislature did not grant towns the right to police state legislation.

 

, ,

THE ELEVEN YEAR ELECTION LAW (EYEL), WHICH MANDATES EVEN-YEAR COUNTY ELECTIONS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION; THE CHALLENGE BY COUNTIES WITH CHARTER PROVISIONS MANDATING ODD-YEAR ELECTIONS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the state had the authority to pass the Even Year Election Law (EYEL) which mandates even-year local elections. Several counties with charters setting odd-year elections challenged the EYEL as violating the home rule provisions of article IX of the State Constitution:

The Municipal Home Rule Law was enacted contingent on the passage of the current form of article IX to “provide for carrying into effect provisions of article nine of the constitution . . . and to enable local governments to adopt and amend local laws for the purpose of fully and completely exercising the powers granted to them under the terms and spirit of such article” (see Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 50, 59). As relevant here, Municipal Home Rule Law § 33 (3) (b) requires that county charters must “provide for . . . the manner of election or appointment” and “terms of office” for “agencies or officers responsible for the performance of the functions, powers and duties of the county,” while Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 (3) contains a list of topics that a county charter cannot address in a manner inconsistent with enacted state legislation. * * *

Nothing in article IX limits, expressly or by implication, the otherwise plenary authority of the legislature to mandate the timing of certain elections, as the EYEL does … . Consequently, without any such constitutional limitation, the EYEL is a proper exercise of that authority. County of Onondaga v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 05737, CtApp 10-16-25

 

, , ,

THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ DECISION TO PURCHASE NEW VOTING MACHINES WHICH OPERATE BY SCANNING A BAR CODE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PETITIONER, COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INJURY-IN-FACT; COMMON CAUSE ARGUED THE USE OF A BAR CODE WHICH IS SCANNED BY THE MACHINE WILL IMPEDE VERIFICATION OF THE VOTING BALLOTS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the petitioner, Common Cause New York, had standing to contest the State Board of Elections’ (the Board’s) approval of the use of a new voting machine on the ground the machine’s mechanism for counting votes (using a bar code) impeded the right to independently verify the voting ballots. The majority held the petitioner met the “injury-in-fact” requirement. The dissenters disagreed. Although the writ of mandamus to compel was not the proper mechanism because a discretionary, as opposed to a ministerial, act was at issue, the petition was converted to a writ of mandamus to review:

The Board … posits that petitioners cannot establish the existence of an injury that differs from the public at large. We do not believe that the facts of this case warrant “an overly restrictive analysis of [that] requirement” … . Indeed, that requirement is tempered by the principle “that standing is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury,” as doing so would insulate the “most injurious and widespread Government actions” from scrutiny … . Within that context, petitioners have alleged a particularized harm flowing from the approval of the ExpressVote XL [voting machine] and, although it likely affects numerous high-propensity voters … , it is sufficiently “different in kind or degree from that of the public at large” to permit standing … . * * *

We may consider the modern view of a petitioner’s pleading requirements in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which merely require that the petitioner ” ‘set forth his [or her] facts and his [or her] prayer for relief and such relief as is proper may be given to him [or her]’ ” … . Accordingly, “notwithstanding the nomenclature of [petitioners’] application,” … we find that their request can be readily construed as one for mandamus to review, which asks “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” … . Matter of Common Cause N.Y. v Kosinski, 2025 NY Slip Op 04690, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: Here the petition brought in the form of a writ of mandamus to compel was deemed improper because the underlying act, the purchase of voting machines, is discretionary, not ministerial. But the court had the authority to consider the petition as a writ of mandamus to review, which was the appropriate mechanism.

 

, , , , ,

THE “EVEN YEAR ELECTION LAW” (EYEL) IS CONSTITUTIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Even Year Election Law (EYEL) does not violate the New York Constitution or the United States Constitution. The decision is complex and cannot be fairly summarized here:

The EYEL amended provisions of County Law § 400, Town Law § 80, Village Law § 17-1703-a (4), and Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 (3) such that elections for most county, town, and village officials would be held on even-numbered years, and would no longer be held on odd-numbered years, effective January 1, 2025 … . Exceptions were made for the offices of town justice, sheriff, county clerk, district attorney, family court judge, county court judge, and surrogate court judge — each of which has a term of office provided in the New York Constitution … — as well as town and county offices with preexisting three-year terms, all offices in towns coterminous with villages, and all offices in counties located in New York City … . Additionally, a new subsection (h) was added to Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 (3) to preclude county charters from superseding the newly enacted County Law § 400 (8).

The EYEL purports to encourage an increased voter turnout in local elections now scheduled in odd-numbered years, which are years without federal or state-wide elections on the ballot, consistent with the State’s public policy of “[e]ncourag[ing] participation in the elective franchise by all eligible voters to the maximum extent” … , and the mandate of the New York Board of Elections to “take all appropriate steps to encourage the broadest possible voter participation in elections” … .  County of Onondaga v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02818, Fourth Dept 5-7-25

 

, ,

NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW 11, WHICH ALLOWS NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE, VIOLATES THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined New York City Local Law 11, which allowed non-citizens to vote, violates the New York Constitution:

Local Law 11 allows “municipal voters” to vote in New York City elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President and City Council Member (New York City Charter §§ 1057-aa, 1057-bb). The law defines a municipal voter as “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” and who: (1) “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”; (2) “is a resident of New York city and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election”; and (3) “meets all qualifications for registering or preregistering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or preregistered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter” … . * * *

Whatever the future may bring, the New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens. Fossella v Adams, 2025 NY Slip Op 01668, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The NYS Constitution restricts the right to vote to citizens.

 

, ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) WOULD FORCE THE TOWN TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lasalle, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town did not demonstrate as a matter of law that compliance with the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) would force the town to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

On this appeal we are asked to decide whether the vote dilution provisions of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (L 2022, ch 226; hereinafter NYVRA), intended to ensure that a numerical minority’s voice is not removed from local government, facially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (hereinafter the Equal Protection Clause) … . The defendants in this case, the Town of Newburgh and the Town Board of the Town of Newburgh (hereinafter the Town Board), lack the capacity to challenge the constitutionality of the NYVRA except to the extent that it forces them to violate the Equal Protection Clause. Since, on this record, the defendants failed to show as a matter of law that compliance with the NYVRA would force them to violate the Equal Protection Clause, we reverse the order of the Supreme Court. * * *

Here, the defendants contend that any change of its at-large electoral system to comply with the NYVRA would violate the Equal Protection Clause because it would be done with the express purpose of giving citizens statutorily grouped together by race greater electoral success than its at-large system, and that the NYVRA, unlike the FVRA, is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. * * *

However, race-based districting is only one of the possible remedies under the NYVRA; the NYVRA also contemplates remedies that do not sort voters based on race, such as such as ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, limited voting, and the elimination of staggered terms (see Election Law §§ 17-204[3]; 17-206[5][a][ii],[iv] …). Clarke v Town of Newburgh, 2025 NY Slip Op 00518, Second Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an in-depth analysis of whether the New York Voting Rights Act forces a political subdivision the violate the Equal Protection Clause in fashioning a remedy for an alleged violation of the NYVRA.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) AND WAS THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR THE 90-DAY “SAFE HARBOR” EXTENSION TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE NYVRA ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-CITIZENS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined that the defendant Town of Newburgh’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging a violation of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) was properly denied. The so-called “safe harbor” provision of the NYVRA extends the time allowed for a town to address an alleged violation for 90 days. Here the Second Department held that the actions taken by the town were not sufficient to trigger the 90-day extension:

In a case of first impression, the central issue stated broadly is whether the contents of a resolution passed by a political subdivision pursuant to the New York Voting Rights Act (see Election Law § 17-206[7][b]), in which the political subdivision purported to affirm its intent to enact and implement a remedy to a potential voting rights violation, were sufficient to trigger the 90-day safe harbor provision of that statute. * * *

On January 26, 2024, a law firm representing the plaintiffs sent the Town a NYVRA notification letter, alleging that the Town’s use of an at-large method for electing the members of the Town Board violated the NYVRA by diluting the votes of Hispanic and African-American voters. * * *

… [T]he defendants’ interpretation of the NYVRA seems to prioritize prolonging the process, potentially to strategize their position, over the underlying intent and purpose of the statute. They interpret the NYVRA as requiring a political subdivision to do nothing more than pass a resolution reciting some of the language from the statute after spending 50 days deciding whether it is worthwhile to do so. Then, after passage of a contentless resolution that commits a political subdivision to do nothing unless it unilaterally decides that a NYVRA violation “may” exist, a political subdivision enjoys a 90-day immunity from suit, regardless of whether it does anything further and even when it has conclusively decided to take no further action. These positions are irreconcilable with both the text and the purpose of the NYVRA. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to satisfy the safe harbor provision of Election Law § 17-206(7) … . Clarke v Town of Newburgh, 2025 NY Slip Op 00517, Second Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the criteria for a 90-day “safe harbor” extension to allow a town to address a complaint by citizens alleging violation of the New York Voting Rights Act.

 

ROBERT F KENNEDY, JR’S NOMINATING PETITION DECLARED INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the nominating petition for presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of the We the People Party was properly declared invalid because the New York residency requirement was not met. The address Kennedy listed as his New York residence was a friend’s home where Kennedy stayed one night:

… [B]oth Kennedy and the friend testified that Kennedy spent only one night at the Katonah home, in June 2024, approximately one month after his nominating petition was filed and two weeks after petitioners commenced this proceeding. Matter of Cartwright v Kennedy, 2024 NY Slip Op 04354, Third Dept 8-29-24

Practice Point: Here 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s. nominating petition was declared invalid because the New York residency requirement was not met.

 

,

NEW YORK’S EARLY MAIL VOTER ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, determined New York’s Early Mail Voter Act is constitutional:

Plaintiffs, a coalition of elected officials, registered voters, and party officials, challenge New York’s Early Mail Voter Act (the Act), which permits all registered voters to vote early by mail in any election in which the voter is eligible to vote. Plaintiffs maintain the Act is unconstitutional and seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against its implementation and enforcement. The question raised here is difficult. Though the State Constitution contains no language that explicitly requires in-person voting, the legislative and executive branches have often proceeded as if our Constitution requires as such. Our Court has never been asked to determine what the Constitution requires in this regard. Recently, the legislature assumed that the Constitution requires in-person voting, passing concurrent resolutions culminating in the 2021 proposed amendment to authorize mail-in voting. We acknowledge that the public rejected that amendment, and we take seriously both the legislature’s position in 2021 and the voters’ rejection of the proposed constitutional amendment. At the same time, we may not simply defer to the legislature’s assumptions about what the Constitution requires. Our task is to rigorously analyze the constitutional text and history to determine if New York’s Early Mail Voter Act is unconstitutional. We now hold that it is not. Stefanik v Hochul, 2024 NY Slip Op 04236, CtApp 8-20-24

Practice Point: New York’s Early Mail Voter Act is not unconstitutional.

 

,

THE NEW YORK EARLY MAIL VOTER ACT, EFFECTIVE JANAURY 1, 2024, IS CONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the 2923 New York Early Mail Voter Act (Election Law 8-700 et seq) is constitutional:

In 2023, the Legislature passed the New York Early Mail Voter Act (Election Law § 8-700 et seq), permitting all registered voters in New York to apply to “vote early by mail . . . in any election . . . in which the voter is eligible to vote” … . To be considered for processing, an application to vote early by mail must be received by a local Board of Elections (hereinafter BOE) no later than 10 days before the election … . Once received, the BOE confirms that the applicant is “a registered voter of the county or city at the address listed in the application and is eligible to vote in the election or elections for which the application is filed” … . A ballot is then issued to the applicant, along with a postage-paid return envelope, which must be cast and counted by the BOE if received by the close of polls on election day or postmarked by that date and received no later than seven days thereafter … . The Act contains safeguards to protect against fraud, requiring the State BOE to maintain “an electronic early mail ballot tracking system” that records, among other information, whether it “received such voter’s completed early mail ballot” and “counted or rejected” it … . Correspondingly, each local BOE is required to “maintain an early mail ballot tracking system integrated with the [S]tate [BOE’s] system” … . Concomitant with the Act’s passage, the Legislature also amended Election Law § 9-209 to make the canvass procedures set forth in that section — which contain substantial protections to ensure election integrity — applicable to early mail ballots. The express purpose of the Act is to ensure “ease of participation” in elections and to “make New York State a leader in engaging the electorate, meeting voters where they are and opening up greater opportunities for people to have their choices made on the ballot” … . It was signed into law on September 20, 2023 and became effective January 1, 2024.  Stefanik v Hochul, 2024 NY Slip Op 02569, Second Dept 5-9-24

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy