| The case brought by the partisan Elias Law Group has been a mess from the start. The plaintiffs claimed that NY-11 violated the New York State Voting Rights Act even though that Act explicitly does not apply to congressional or state legislative redistricting. Attorney General Letitia James, on behalf of Governor Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders, agreed that the Voting Rights Act does not apply, but nevertheless invited the court to interpret New York’s 2014 constitutional amendment as permitting the vote-dilution claims asserted by the plaintiffs. In essence, the Attorney General invited the court to make up the law to suit Democratic political purposes. The court’s decision ignored constitutional requirements for district compactness, continuity of existing districts, and communities of interest, as well as the prohibition on partisan gerrymandering. The court also ignored the fact that NY-11 was unchanged when the State Legislature and the Governor got another turn at redistricting in 2024. No matter: the court instead adopted a scheme suggested in an amicus brief submitted to the court, an argument that had not been considered by the parties to the case and was not argued with or analyzed by experts on both sides. The court mandated that the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) establish new lines for NY-11 by Friday, February 6, even though the IRC was not a party to the case. The court’s ruling was subject to a mandatory stay. There is no way new lines can be implemented – even if appellate courts were to agree – by Friday. Now, the original amici from the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School have submitted papers to the appellate court reaching the following remarkable conclusion: “In this complex and novel case, the Supreme Court correctly construed Petitioners’ claim as a claim for a coalition crossover district and set forth the proper standard for this kind of allegation. However, the court failed to apply its own standard before imposing liability, mistakenly believing that this application could be postponed until the remedial stage of the litigation. Congressional District 11 should not be struck down unless and until a court determines that a coalition crossover district compliant with federal and state requirements could be drawn in its place.” Of course, defenders of existing NY-11 believe that the entire case is flawed and without merit. But it is worth noting that even those suggesting alternative ways of drafting NY-11 state that the trial court was wrong in its decision. This once again proves that the court and Democrats have made a legal hash of this entire farcical case. |
