Appellate Court Revives New York Voting Rights Act
An appellate court in New York reversed a lower court overturning the state’s John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) — a law that grants voters additional protections not covered by federal law.
The four-judge panel in the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled unanimously that the Town of Newburgh failed to show how remedying vote dilution in accordance with the NYVRA would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The judges also concluded that the trial court had no authority to strike down the entire NYVRA or bind other courts and parties from contemplating challenges under the NYVRA, particularly when only the vote dilution provisions were being considered.
“The voices of all New Yorkers deserve to be heard,” said New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) in a statement to Democracy Docket. “The New York Voting Rights Act was signed into law to protect and expand voting access in our State. The Second Department’s decision only reaffirms the protections intended in the New York Voting Rights Act.”
Six Black and Hispanic voters filed a lawsuit in March 2024 alleging Newburgh’s at-large method for electing town board members unfairly favors white voters and dilutes the political power of voters of color, in violation of the NYVRA. The town failed to replace the at-large system after being notified of its NYVRA violation, prompting the plaintiffs to file a lawsuit.
In November 2024, a trial court judge struck down the NYVRA and dismissed the case. Judge Maria Vazquez-Doles wrote in her opinion that the law violated the U.S. Constitution because it provided “enhanced rights” to protected classes, citing a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended race-based affirmative action in higher education.
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) wrote in a filing defending the NYVRA that the trial court decision “rests on the fundamentally incorrect premise that the NYVRA’s antidiscrimination provisions are themselves discriminatory.” Instead, she argues, the law “equally protects voters of any race from discriminatory vote dilution,” in compliance with the Constitution.
The judges in the appellate court agreed, noting that the NYVRA provides multiple alternative electoral methods to at-large systems that do not sort voters based on race. Even a district-based system would be constitutional so long as race was not used as a predominant factor in drawing the map outside of very limited circumstances.
Along with today’s opinion affirming the constitutionality of the NYVRA, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s decision back in May 2024 to not dismiss the case. Newburgh had argued that because they adopted a resolution stating their intention to remedy a potential NYVRA violation, they were immune from litigation for 90 days under the NYVRA’s “safe harbor” provision. Vazquez-Doles rejected this claim in May and the appellate judges agreed today, writing the defendants can not use the safe harbor provision as a stalling tactic to put off litigation when “it has conclusively decided to take no further action.”
The case will now return to trial court, where parties will argue whether the at-large system violates the NYVRA.
Today’s decision reinstating NYVRA impacts similar lawsuits challenging at-large electoral methods in the towns of Cheektowaga and Mount Pleasant.
Read the opinion regarding constitutionality here.
Read the opinion affirming the order denying a motion to dismiss here.
The alert was updated Jan. 30 to include Hochul’s statement.
Original post, Nov. 8, 2024
On Thursday, a New York trial court judge struck down the state’s 2022 Voting Rights Act (NYVRA), which was created to make up for deficiencies in federal law following Congress’s 2021 failure to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Orange County Judge Maria Vazquez-Doles ruled that the NYVRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined race-based affirmative action in college admissions was unconstitutional, Vazquez-Doles wrote that the NYVRA similarly “provides enhanced rights” to protected classes, in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, the judge ruled the law didn’t serve any compelling state interest when allowing multiple protected classes to band together to prove vote dilution.
The U.S. Supreme Court requires “that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination against all people, not just those classes who have experienced historic discrimination or who experienced such morally repugnant treatment to a degree greater than other people,” the order read.
The decision stems from a case in which six Black and Hispanic voters challenged the Town of Newburgh’s method for electing town board members, which they claimed violated the NYVRA. The plaintiffs argued that the town’s at-large electoral method for its five town board members unfairly dilutes the voting power of Black and Hispanic residents who typically favor different candidates than the white majority.
The NYVRA was signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in June 2022. It aimed to strengthen voting rights, particularly for minority voters, by prohibiting vote dilution and voter suppression, among other practices. Under this law, local municipalities could not use electoral methods that weakened the ability of racial minority groups from electing the candidate of their choice or influencing the election.
The plaintiffs argued that despite Black and Hispanic voters making up approximately 40% of the population, only white board members have ever been elected. In January, they sent a letter to the Newburgh town board notifying them of their potential NYVRA violation. The law required the town to propose a solution to the NYVRA violation within 50 days and start implementing the solution within 90 days. When Newburgh failed to propose a plan to replace the at-large system, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asking the court to block the current electoral method and create a new one in time for the 2025 election.
In Thursday’s ruling, Vazquez-Doles said the NYVRA was too broad in scope and reached beyond what U.S. Supreme Court precedent allows when considering vote dilution cases. She dismissed the case, allowing Newburgh’s at-large system to continue.