The city is working to push back the deadline for council candidates to submit nomination papers, set now for May 23, in light of a federal judge’s decision that barred Boston from using its new redistricting map in the November election.

A day after a U.S. District Court ruling sent councilors back to the drawing board, a city spokesperson said Boston was “reviewing options for filing deadlines and determining how it will address any resulting changes to district boundaries and treat nomination papers that have already been submitted.”

That means the city will look to “extend timelines for filing nomination papers and otherwise modify processes to ensure that potential candidates for the office of district City Council have an opportunity to run as district lines are redrawn,” the spokesperson said. “Potential candidates should continue to file nomination papers at the Boston Elections Department.”

The city spokesperson added, “The city is committed to a speedy and smooth resolution to redistricting and to a clear and transparent election process.”

What remains unclear, however, is whether restarting the redistricting process could force a delay to the city’s preliminary election, set for Sept. 12, and general election, set for Nov. 7. Such a change would require either a court order or state legislation, said Debra O’Malley, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office.

There is past precedent, O’Malley said. In 1983, Boston’s preliminary election was delayed for two weeks, and its general election was delayed for a week, to allow city officials time to redraw districting lines after its prior map was thrown out, when a federal judge ruled that prior lines drawn by the council were unconstitutional, the New York Times reported at the time.

“That is obviously not something anyone would want to see happen now, given the confusions that would be involved,” O’Malley said.

In this instance, U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris ruled Monday the City Council had likely violated the Constitution when factoring race into the establishment of Boston’s new redistricting map, which was approved last fall via a 9-4 vote, and issued a preliminary injunction barring its implementation.

Saris said the council likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which bars laws requiring segregation of the races, one of three alleged violations cited by the plaintiffs, a group of residents led by Rasheed Walters in their lawsuit against the City Council. Walters is a former Boston Herald columnist who was not on staff.

Regarding next steps, Saris wrote that it was unclear whether the Boston Election Commission could extend the May 23 deadline for candidate nomination papers. She also said her decision to enjoin the new map could lead to concerns about potential council candidates meeting the one-year residency requirement, in terms of whether last year’s changes had impacted what district they reside in.

O’Malley said the Secretary of State’s office reached out to offer assistance as the city figures out how to proceed with this matter, but noted that ultimately, “this is their map and their election.”

“Our Elections Department has already had a call with city officials today,” O’Malley said. “There will be additional consultations, I’m sure. But it will be up to the city to decide how they will proceed with respect to drawing their maps.”

City Council President Ed Flynn said in a Tuesday statement that he had spoken with the secretary of state, Mayor Michelle Wu’s office and the Boston Law Department, “regarding the recent ruling on redistricting and about possible next steps.”

“It is important for all of us to work together and do what is right for all of our communities, and show positive leadership that puts the residents of Boston first.”

Council candidates, including those vying for the open seat in District 3, which along with District 4 was most heavily impacted by last year’s redistricting changes, said they weren’t too concerned about a new map impacting their ability to stay in the race. Several spoke, however, about the chaos that Monday’s court ruling had created.

“It’s just a complete mess,” said one council candidate, who asked to remain anonymous.

The candidate relayed that the city Elections Department said they would take nomination papers, but wouldn’t be able to certify them because “the districts essentially do not exist right now.”

“I mean, they exist for this council, but not for the purposes of the election for the next council,” the candidate said.