A New York state judge has invalidated a law that aimed to transition many local elections to even-numbered years to coincide with state and federal elections. This ruling has been seen as a victory for Republicans, who argued that the legislation was a strategic move by Democrats to gain an advantage in upcoming elections.
The legislation, which was passed by the Democrat-majority state Legislature last year, was intended to simplify the electoral process and improve voter turnout by moving elections for positions like town supervisor and county executive from odd to even years. However, Republican opponents criticized the law, asserting that it would effectively shift local elections to coincide with presidential election years, which are typically associated with higher turnout for Democratic candidates.
Following the law’s introduction, several Republican officials initiated legal action, leading to a ruling issued on Tuesday in Syracuse by State Supreme Court Justice Gerard Neri. Justice Neri determined that the law was unconstitutional, emphasizing that it infringed upon the rights of local governances to manage their own affairs.
The judge also pointed out that this legislation would not affect voting for New York City elections, which are traditionally held in odd-numbered years as mandated by the state constitution. He raised a thought-provoking question regarding the fairness of the law: “Are the urbane voters of New York City less likely to be confused by odd-year elections than the rubes living in Upstate and Long Island?” This commentary highlights concerns about equitable treatment under the law.
The office of the attorney general is currently assessing the implications of the ruling. Meanwhile, State Senator James Skoufis, one of the bill’s advocates, expressed hope that the decision would be overturned in an appeal.
Skoufis remarked, “This case was always going to be appealed, and I fully expect a more objective panel of judges to rule in favor of the law’s constitutionality.” He further criticized the plaintiffs for their actions, claiming they were squandering local tax dollars in an attempt to maintain lower voter participation in elections.
On the other hand, State Republican Chairman Ed Cox heralded the ruling as a win for those who value local governance. He condemned the legislative change as an aggressive tactic by Democrats aimed at consolidating power across all levels of government. “This radical change to longstanding election law was a blatant effort by Democrats to consolidate total, one-party control at every level of government, and establish permanent Democratic authority in our state,” Cox asserted, arguing that local issues would have been overshadowed by broad federal and state campaigns.
