The litigation surrounding New York’s congressional and senate maps will end by May 20, according to the Stueben County appellate court. The court’s announcement comes after the state’s highest court invalidated both maps on Wednesday (April 27th). Here is a recap of the litigation which began in February.
The litigation surrounding these two maps began in mid-February and sped through all three levels of the state court system (trial court, appellate court, and the state’s highest court) in just over 2 months. While there was some disagreement among courts regarding whether the maps enacted by the legislature were the product of a constitutional process, all three courts involved agreed that the congressional map was a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state constitution.
Background
The New York state constitution (as amended in 2014) required an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to submit redistricting maps to the legislature for consideration by lawmakers. If the legislature failed to approve the first redistricting plan, the IRC was required, within 15 days of notification of that failure and in no case later than February 28, to “prepare and submit to the legislature a second redistricting plan and the necessary implementing legislation.” If the legislature fails to approve a second set of maps from the IRC, each house of the legislature was authorized to enact maps as necessary. In late January, the IRC signaled that it would deadlock yet again and on Feb. 2, the legislature passed congressional and state legislative maps. Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the maps into law the next day despite no second set of maps from the IRC.
News Headlines
Court Decision History
On Mar. 31 2022 a Stueben County trial court invalidated the congressional and senate maps enacted by the legislature after it found that lawmakers had no authority to draw the maps under the state constitution, which allows the legislature to only enact its own maps after the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) submits two sets of maps. In early January, the commission had failed to agree on a second set of maps and the trial court opined that the state constitution actually required courts (not the legislature) to mediate the IRC’s map-drawing if it was deadlocked. Separate from the procedural issue, the court also declared that the congressional map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the state constitution.
On April 21, 2022, an appellate court reversed the state trial court’s finding that the legislature had no authority to draw the maps on procedural grounds, but did affirm that the congressional map was a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state constitutional provisions that prohibit districts that “discourage competition or [are drawn] or the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.” On April 27, 2022, the state’s highest court found that the legislature’s enactment of the maps was procedurally unconstitutional (agreeing with the trial court) and in unanimity with both lower courts, the congressional map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Find us on:
