Election Law Struck Down by State Judge
Law Meant to Align Local Elections with State and Federal Races
A law moving many town and county elections in New York to even-numbered years to align them with state and federal races was struck down by a state judge, providing a win to Republicans who claimed it was a partisan effort by Democrats to gain an electoral edge.
Background
Sponsors of the bill approved by the Democrat-led state Legislature last year said they wanted to shift elections for town supervisor, county executive and some other local posts from odd-numbered years to reduce confusion and increase voter turnout. Republicans denounced the law as an effort to move local elections to higher-turnout presidential election years, which could favor Democrats.
Ruling
A number of Republican officials sued the state, leading to the ruling on Tuesday in Syracuse from state Supreme Court Justice Gerard Neri, who said the law violated the state constitution. Neri said, in part, that the law violated the rights of local governments to control their own affairs. He also noted that the law does not affect New York City elections, since city elections and certain local posts such as county district attorney are held on odd-numbered years under the state constitution.
Judge’s Question
The judge raised a question about the federal requirement that governments provide equal protection to people under the law, asking, "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?"
Reactions
State Sen. James Skoufis, a sponsor of the bill, predicted the decision would be overturned on appeal, stating, "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. In the meantime, the plaintiffs continue to waste local tax dollars on their senseless crusade to preserve lower turnout in elections."
State Republican Chairman Ed Cox said the ruling was a victory for people who care about local elections, stating, "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, as discussion of local issues would have been buried beneath an avalanche of federal and state spending."
Conclusion
The ruling is a significant setback for Democrats who had hoped to implement the law, which would have aligned local elections with state and federal races. The decision is a victory for Republicans, who claimed the law was an effort to gain an electoral advantage.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What was the purpose of the law?
A: The law aimed to shift elections for town supervisor, county executive, and other local posts from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years to reduce confusion and increase voter turnout.
Q: Who sued the state?
A: A number of Republican officials sued the state, challenging the law.
Q: What did the judge rule?
A: The judge ruled that the law violated the state constitution, violating the rights of local governments to control their own affairs.
Q: Will the decision be appealed?
A: Yes, the decision is expected to be appealed.
