A New York trial court judge struck down the state’s Voting Rights Act on Thursday, ruling that the law is unconstitutional because it protects certain minority groups from discrimination when it should protect all voters equally.
Orange County judge Maria Vazquez-Doles said the New York Voting Rights Act, which “provides enhanced rights” to protected classes based on race and ethnicity, violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. To justify her decision, she cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that ended race-based affirmative action in college and university admissions.
In that case, the Court determined that the equal-protection clause, Vazquez-Doles wrote, “prohibits discrimination against all people, not just those classes who have experienced historic discrimination or who experienced such morally repugnant treatment to a degree greater than other people.”
In June 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York. The bill was sold as an attempt to strengthen the voting rights of all New Yorkers, especially those belonging to historically marginalized or disenfranchised communities. The legislation prohibits voter suppression and intimidation against minorities, among other discriminatory practices.
The judge wrote that the law is too broad in scope and doesn’t meet strict scrutiny, meaning it doesn’t serve a compelling state interest nor is it narrowly tailored.
Thursday’s order also dismissed a lawsuit in which six black and Hispanic voters sued Newburgh, a town about 66 miles north of New York City, over its method for electing board members. The plaintiffs alleged that the town’s at-large electoral method diluted their voting power by only ever electing white candidates to the five board seats. They claimed this is in violation of the voting-rights law.
The text allowed voters to challenge at-large elections that either caused racially polarized voting patterns or impaired the ability of members of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice, particularly those who belong to their racial or ethnic community.
The suit, one of at least four filed under the state’s Voting Rights Act, proposed that the court require the town to elect board members by district. Judge Vazquez-Doles rejected the request, allowing Newburgh’s at-large elections to proceed.
The plaintiffs are expected to appeal the judge’s decision.
“When New York enacted the strongest voting rights law in the country, we knew there would be challenges,” Democratic state senator Zellnor Myrie, who sponsored the voting-rights bill, said on Friday. “I disagree with the court’s legal reasoning and expect this decision will be overturned on appeal.”
The New York Voting Rights Act features a controversial provision, known as preclearance, that required certain jurisdictions to obtain approval from the Democratic attorney general or a state court before making any changes to the election or voting process. Any significant changes included moving poll sites or removing deceased voters from registration records.
Preclearance raised concerns that New York attorney general Letitia James would exert an unprecedented level of control over local elections and circumvent the state’s bipartisan board of elections, National Review previously reported. The provision went into effect on September 22, about a month ahead of the state’s early-voting period.
In 2013, the Supreme Court struck the preclearance requirements from the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Governor Hochul acknowledged in a 2022 memorandum that the state voting-rights measure “intended to extend beyond the [federal Voting Rights Act] and provide greater protections” to minorities, Vazquez-Doles wrote.
“The decision to strike down the New York Voting Rights Act was certainly the right decision,” Joseph Burns, an election attorney for Holtzman Vogel, told NR. “It’s hard, however, to believe that this is the end of the story. Attorney General Letitia James is certain to appeal the decision, and she’s likely to find a more favorable bench at the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.”