Judge strikes down New York Voting Rights Act, citing equal protection concerns

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — A judge ruled it unconstitutional to enforce a law protecting voters based on race or national origin. She struck down the John Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA), deciding that such protections represent unequal treatment from the state and violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

On November 7, New York State Supreme Court Judge Maria Vazquez-Doles ruled from Goshen that the NYVRA didn’t meet strict scrutiny standards for voting measures targeting race-based issues. To pass constitutional review, as in analogous federal laws aimed at historical injustice, such laws must be narrowly tailored and address concrete examples of discrimination—"enumerated justifications."

You can read the judge's decision at the bottom of this story.

The judge applied several precedents when deciding the case. She cited "Thornburg vs. Gingles," or Gingles, the 1986 ruling on federal Voting Rights Act criteria establishing vote dilution. There, the U.S. Supreme Court created a test for a minority group claiming dilution:

• They must be large and geographically compact enough to form a majority within a reasonably drawn district
• They should demonstrate political unity, showing a cohesive voting pattern
• The white majority must create a consistent voting bloc negating minority influence

Vazquez-Doles found that NYVRA's criteria didn't meet the standard set by Gingles. Under the court order, the state cannot enforce the law, though the plaintiffs can appeal.

“The NYVRA is hereby stricken in its entirety from further enforcement and application to these Defendants and to any other political subdivision in the State of New York,” reads the judge's decision. Both the attorney for the plaintiffs and New York state's Assistant Attorney General Derek Borchardt—who is not a party in the lawsuit—wrote to Vazquez-Doles asking for clarity.

They want to know whether her order blocked only §17-206(2)(b)(i)—the part of the law about at-large voting and voter dilution—or the entire NYVRA. The plaintiffs need to know what's relevant to appeal. The Office of the Attorney General noted that provisions on voter intimidation and language assistance should not be affected.

Enacted in 2022, NYVRA expanded voting access and prevented discrimination against minorities based on race, ethnicity, or language. It let protected classes challenge "at-large" voting systems that elect officials town-wide rather than by district. But unlike the federal Voting Rights Act, the judge wrote, the NYVRA allowed a claim of vote dilution without a specific example of discrimination or particular government interest.

Six Newburgh residents alleged that the town’s election system diluted Black and Hispanic votes, disenfranchising those voters. They argued that at-large voting made it harder for their communities to elect candidates, and wanted to create new voting districts that better represent their demographics.

Newburgh town officials pushed back, filing a motion to dismiss. They argued that the NYVRA forced government bodies to violate the Constitution by focusing solely on race rather than addressing some particular incident or specific harm. With such squishy definitions, they said, the NYVRA created unfair classifications, and the strict scrutiny standard mandates that voting laws on race serve a compelling state interest.

Federal cases and ones from states like California and Washington target past problems, like specific examples of racially polarized voting, Vazquez-Doles ruled. As explained in her decision, quoting the law:

“Racially polarized voting” means voting in which “there is a divergence in the candidate, political preferences, or electoral choice of members in a protected class from the candidates, or electoral choice of the rest of the electorate.”

Longstanding rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court require clear proof and structured remedies, she reasoned, and federal courts consistently reject broad claims for coalition voting rights like those in Newburgh. The lack of minority representation on the Board of the Town of Newburgh, which is 60% white, didn't meet the standard of an enumerated justification, according to Vazquez-Doles.

The Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Brennan Center for Justice released a joint statement after the ruling.

"The NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination," they said. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case."

Take a look at the ruling below: