Filed Date: Feb. 3, 2022
Closed Date: June 2, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a challenge to the redistricting of congressional districts in the state of New York. The plaintiffs in this case were a group of New York voters. They filed their complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Steuben County on February 3, 2022, against New York’s Governor, Lieutenant Governor, President of the Senate, Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the Assembly, Board of Elections, and the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants drew an election map that amounted to unconstitutional political gerrymandering and further disregarded required procedures for reconsideration of a map that ran afoul of guarantees in the New York constitution. The plaintiffs argued that the maps should be invalidated because of procedural defects––New York law, they alleged, required that the state legislature must consider a second set of maps from the Independent Redistricting Commission, which they did not do here. In the alternative, the plaintiffs asked the court to strike down the map as unconstitutionally gerrymandered. The case was assigned to Judge Patrick McAllister.
Oral arguments were heard on March 3, 2022. The defendants argued that legislation enacted in 2021 amended the Redistricting Reform Act of 2012 and allowed for the legislature to pass a second map without considering the Commission’s. Accordingly, the defendants argued that the 2021 legislation created an additional pathway for redistricting maps.
On March 31, 2022, Judge McAllister issued an opinion finding the redistricted maps unconstitutional. 173 N.Y.S.3d 109. Judge McAllister agreed with the plaintiffs that the procedure used by the legislature was unconstitutional because they did not have the authority to override the Constitutionally mandated process for redistricting by enacting new legislation in 2021.Judge McAllister went on to find that the maps were drawn with an unconstitutional political bias because the new maps resulted in a loss of four congressional seats for the Republican party. The defendants did not identify any other persuasive factors that could have contributed to their decision making and resulted in the same outcome. After comparing the statistical analyses of several experts, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the maps were drawn with a political bias in violation of Article III §4(c)(5) of the New York Constitution. The Legislature was ordered to submit bipartisan maps to the court for review by April 11, 2022. If the legislature failed to do so, the court stated that it would appoint a neutral expert to draw new plans at the defendants’ expense.
The defendants appealed the decision of the trial court to the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division on March 31, 2022. On April 4, 2022, the appellate division issued an order temporarily staying the trial court’s decision. After reviewing the arguments of the parties, the appellate division partially granted an ongoing stay on April 8 that allowed the defendants to proceed with the planned map while also permitting the trial court to retain a neutral expert to prepare an alternate proposal.
On April 21, 2022, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s invalidation of the maps but on the alternative grounds that they were drawn with an unconstitutional partisan bias. The court disagreed with the trial court’s determination that the process used by the legislature was unconstitutional because it held that the New York Constitution did not speak to what the procedure should be in the event that the Redistricting Commission did not vote on any plan. Therefore, the legislation did not override the state constitution but instead filled a gap in the process. The court ordered the legislature to enact a replacement redistricting map by April 30, 2022.
On April 22, 2022, the defendants appealed the decision to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the appellate division’s decision. In his opinion for the court on April 27, 2022, Chief Judge DiFiore concluded that the process used to create the maps was unconstitutional and the maps were substantively unconstitutional because they were drawn with a partisan bias. Judge DiFiore ordered that a neutral expert should assist with the redrawing of the congressional maps in preparation for the primary elections. The court expressed confidence that the process could be completed in time for the elections to be held in August 2022. The matter was remanded to the trial court to schedule and oversee the redistricting process. 173 N.Y.S.3d 109.
On April 18, 2022, the trial court appointed Dr. Jonathon Cervas as the independent special master to redesign the maps. Judge McAllister gave the parties and any person seeking to intervene or participate as amicus curiae until May 4, 2022, to submit their plans to the court and Dr. Cervas for review.
Dr. Cervas submitted his final plan to the court on May 21, 2022. Dr. Cervas’s plan split six fewer counties than the legislature’s unconstitutional plan, created districts that were more compact, and resulted in nine more districts that were “competitive” for both parties. The plan was adopted by the court on the same day. Minor revisions were suggested to aid with election administration and those revisions were adopted by the court on June 2, 2022.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Claire Butler (12/30/2022)
Lindley, Stephen K. (New York)
McAllister, Patrick (New York)
Moskowitz, Bennet (New York)
Tseytlin, Misha (Illinois)
Winner, George H. (New York)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:31 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 3, 2022
Closing Date: June 2, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are a group of New York voters challenging redistricted congressional maps.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
The State of New York (Steuben), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2022 - None
Issues
Voting: