A state judge has invalidated a law aimed at facilitating lawsuits concerning electoral districts and voting processes that were perceived to diminish the political representation of minority groups. The judge ruled that these specific racial and ethnic protections outlined in the statute are unconstitutional.
Justice Maria Vazquez-Doles, of the Orange County state court, made this ruling on Thursday, which included the dismissal of a case filed by six voters of Black and Hispanic descent against the Town of Newburgh.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs contested the town’s “at-large” election system for board members, claiming it disadvantaged Black and Hispanic residents by limiting their ability to choose representatives that align with their interests. They proposed that a district-based system be implemented instead. The Town of Newburgh is located approximately 60 miles (96 kilometers) from New York City.
The Voting Rights Act of 2022 in New York was designed to enable voters to contest at-large electoral systems that resulted in voting patterns favoring one race over another or restricted a specific racial, ethnic, or language group’s capacity to elect their preferred candidates.
However, the judge concluded that this aspect of the act contravened the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This ruling parallels a United States Supreme Court decision from the previous year, which deemed that affirmative action initiatives in higher education institutions were unconstitutional, also referencing the equal protection clause.
An attorney representing the plaintiffs indicated an intention to appeal the ruling. “We firmly believe that the New York Voting Rights Act is constitutionally sound, and we are hopeful that this belief will be upheld in appellate court,” stated attorney David Imamura.
Filed in March, this lawsuit is part of at least four challenges that have emerged under the state’s voting rights legislation.
Vazquez-Doles noted in her opinion that while the government may act based on race when there is a compelling state interest, the New York law did not necessitate that those contesting electoral systems provide evidence of historical discrimination against their groups.
She posited that the law, as it stands, could permit white voters to initiate lawsuits claiming that their voting influence has been compromised. “There is no compelling interest, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, in safeguarding the voting rights of any group that has not faced historical discrimination,” Vazquez-Doles stated.
Additionally, she pointed out that the New York law failed to articulate clear measures regarding how much a group’s electoral power must diminish before their rights are considered violated.
New York is one of several Democratic-leaning states that enacted enhanced voting rights protections in response to recent restrictive voting measures in some Republican-led states and the blockage of voting rights legislation in Congress.
In response to the ruling, New York state Senator Zellnor Myrie, who sponsored the bill, expressed optimism. “We anticipated challenges when New York established one of the most robust voting rights laws in the country. I disagree with the court’s reasoning and believe this decision will be overturned on appeal,” he asserted.