New York Congressional Redistricting Challenge

A pro-voting lawsuit challenging New York’s 2024 congressional map that dilutes the voting power of Black and Latino voters on Staten Island.

Background

New York voters filed a lawsuit in state court challenging New York’s 2024 congressional map that dilutes the voting power of Black and Latino Staten Islanders (CD-11). Plaintiffs assert Staten Island has a history of race discrimination that has suppressed minority voting rights for decades, and is still prevalent today. Plaintiffs argue that the map violates the state constitution’s prohibition against racial vote dilution and the New York Voting Rights Act’s protection of coalition and minority influence districts. The lawsuit seeks a new minority influence district joining Staten Island with voters in lower Manhattan.

Why It Matters

Black and Latino populations now account for 30% of Staten Island’s population, yet demographic changes have not been accounted for, resulting in only marginal success for Black and Latino candidates in Staten Island elections. Protecting Black and Latino voters from vote dilution is a critical safeguard to counteracting President Donald Trump’s nationwide redistricting war intended to secure maximum GOP advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. 

Latest updates

• Mar. 19, 2026: Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case.
• Mar. 2, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court granted defendants’ stay application, pausing the lower court’s order to redraw CD-11 pending the appeals process in the state court.
• Feb. 19, 2026: The appeals court denied the request for a stay and lifted the automatic stay.  This means the IRC can move forward with redrawing the map. Plaintiffs filed their responses in opposition to defendants and intervenor-defendants’ stay applications before the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Feb. 13, 2026: The Trump administration filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court stating the lower court’s order to redraw CD-11 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Intervenor-defendants sent a letter to the Appellate Division asking the court to rule on their emergency stay motion “so that the U.S. Supreme Court does not need to act.”
• Feb. 12, 2026: Defendants and intervenor-defendants filed emergency stay applications with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to keep the old congressional map in place for the 2026 midterms.
• Feb. 11, 2026: The Court of Appeals declined to hear defendant and defendant-intervenors’ premature appeal, allowing the appeals process to continue in the Appellate Division. The trial court added the independent redistricting commission as a party to the lawsuit.
• Feb. 6, 2026: The State Board of Elections filed their opposition to lifting the automatic stay and asked the court to grant leave to continue their appeal in the Court of Appeals.
• Feb. 5, 2026: State officials filed their support for plaintiffs’ motion to lift the automatic stay blocking the redistricting commission from redrawing the map.
• Feb. 4, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their motion to lift the automatic stay pausing the map redraw pending appeal in the Appellate Division. Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the Court of Appeals addressing the jurisdictional question of defendants’ direct appeal.
• Jan. 30, 2026: Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Appellate Division asking them to deny defendants and intervenor-defendants’ appeal and lift the automatic pause on the redistricting commission’s redraw of the map.
• Jan. 29, 2026: Defendants and intervenor-defendants sent letters to the Appellate Division seeking an expedited briefing schedule to align with the Court of Appeals briefing schedule.
• Jan. 27, 2026: Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Court of Appeals detailing why defendants’ request to take up their appeal now, before the Appellate Division reviews the case, is improper.
• Jan. 26, 2026: Defendants appealed the court’s Jan. 21 ruling to the New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division) and the Court of Appeals, and asked the respective appeals courts to quickly review the case. The deadline to redraw the map is automatically paused upon appeal.
• Jan. 21, 2026: The court found CD-11 unconstitutional and ordered the redistricting commission to redraw the district by Feb. 6.
• Jan. 16, 2026: Parties filed their post-trial briefs.
• Jan. 12, 2026: Parties filed their memorandums on proposed proper remedies.
• Jan. 6-8, 2025: The court held a hearing on defendants and intervenor-defendants’ motion to dismiss.
• Dec. 23, 2025: Defendants and intervenor-defendants filed their replies in support of their motion to dismiss.
• Dec. 18, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants and intervenors-defendants’ motion to dismiss.
• Dec. 15, 2025: The court denied defendants’ motion for recusal.
• Dec. 11, 2025: The court held a hearing on defendants’ motion for recusal.
• Dec. 8, 2025: Defendants and intervenor-defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
• Nov. 26, 2025: Defendants filed a motion seeking the judge’s recusal.
• Nov. 7, 2025: The court granted Congresswoman Malliotakis (CD-11) and individual voters’ motion to intervene as defendants. The court will hold a hearing on Jan. 6-7 on the petition and defendants forthcoming motions to dismiss.
• Oct. 31, 2025: New York Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (R) and individual voters filed a motion to intervene as defendants to preserve the current boundaries of CD-11.
• Oct. 27, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their petition.