Court of Appeals hears consequential redistricting case
/
The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Hoffmann v. the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, a consequential redistricting case, on Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2023. Screenshot via Court of Appeals
By Jacob Kaye
The Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard arguments about whether or not New York’s congressional districts will be redrawn for the third time in the past two years, restarting a redistricting process that has been marred by partisan squabbles, multiple lawsuits and general confusion about where the state’s congressional lines stand.
It was the second time that the state’s top court heard oral arguments about potential constitutional violations that occurred during the state’s messy, once-a-decade redistricting process last year. However, the court and the attorneys arguing before them seemed closer to reaching any type of consensus about when that violation actually occurred.
Since the end of 2021, New Yorkers have been presented with several draft district maps, a map drawn by the state’s legislature and a map drawn by a court-appointed “special master.” Should the state’s Democrats get their way, a new congressional district map from the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission could be presented to voters soon.
The question of whether or not a new map will be drawn and put in place for the congressional races through the remainder of the decade now rests with the state’s highest court.
The decision will likely have serious implications on national politics. Last year, Republicans were able to flip four congressional districts in New York and help give the GOP a majority in the House of Representatives under the map drawn by the special master.
Should the Court of Appeals rule in the state Democrats’ favor, as many as six seats could be flipped into blue districts, aiding Democrats in their efforts to gain a majority in D.C.
For nearly two hours on Wednesday, Court of Appeals Judges Shirley Troutman, Jenny Rivera, Madeline Singas, Anthony Cannataro, Michael Garcia, Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and Appellate Division Justice Dianne Renwick – who was brought up to the court for the case after newly-appointed Court of Appeals Judge Caitlin Halligan recused herself from the case – heard arguments in Hoffmann v. the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission.
The case was brought by state Democrats, including Governor Kathy Hochul and State Attorney General Letitia James, and argues that the 2022 congressional map drawn by the court-appointed special master was only meant to be used in the 2022 congressional election, and not in the remaining four congressional elections slated for the rest of the decade.
Issues with the state’s redistricting process began relatively quickly. After beginning to collect public testimony to inform their draft maps in 2021, the Independent Redistricting Commission, which was created in 2014 by a constitutional amendment in an effort to take map drawing powers out of the hands of the legislature, reached a standstill.
Required to submit a final map to the legislature for approval at the start of 2022, the IRC said that its members had reached a partisan deadlock, and told lawmakers that they wouldn’t be submitting a map at all.
As per a state law separate from the constitutional amendment creating the commission, state lawmakers took it upon themselves to draw and enact a set of congressional, Assembly and State Senate district maps.
New York’s congressional districts could again be redrawn should the Court of Appeals rule in favor of a group of Democrats challenging the lines drawn by a court-appointed special master in 2022. Map via Redistricting and You/CUNY Graduate Center
Those maps were challenged in court by a group of Republicans, who claimed that the maps drawn by the lawmakers violated the constitution in two ways – because they were gerrymandered to favor Democratic incumbents and candidates and because they were drawn outside of the constitutionally-mandated process.
The case, known as Harkenrider v. Hochul, made its way to the Court of Appeals, which sided with the Republicans who brought the case. Following the top court’s decision, a lower court appointed a special master to draw the maps, which would go on to be enacted and used in last year’s elections.
While the Democrats arguing for new maps in the case heard by the court on Wednesday said that they don’t take issue with the current maps, they argued that New Yorkers were denied their right to a map from the IRC, which should be allowed a second shot at drawing the state’s congressional districts.
“We are not challenging the maps, but the remedy that was ordered in Harkenrider did not cure the procedural violation at issue in this case, which was the failure of the IRC to send a [final] map to the legislature,” said Aria Branch, an attorney representing the Democrats in the case.
But several of the Court of Appeals judges who ruled in favor of the Republicans in the previous case, including Cannataro, Garcia and Singas, were skeptical.
During one exchange, Cannataro argued that if New Yorkers deserved a map from the IRC, the petitioners should have brought a case the moment lawmakers began drawing district lines in 2022.
“What you said at the top of your argument is that you've come here to vindicate the IRC process,” Cannataro said. “The promulgation of the maps on February 3 completely took the IRC out of the picture, so, it seems as if you want to kind of have it both ways.”
“Do you want the IRC process or do you just want to set up maps that complies or conforms to what you think the maps should be?” he added.
In response, Branch said that the “petitioners want to live in districts that are drawn according to the IRC legislative process.”
“But that didn't happen last time,” Garcia said. “You didn't challenge it because you thought, ‘Okay, they can do it, the legislature can do this.’ If the be all and end really is the IRC, those maps weren't drawn by the IRC.”
The Court of Appeals is expected to issue a decision in the case in the coming weeks.
The make-up of the state’s top court is significantly different than it was when a redistricting case last came before the court.
No longer is the court led by former Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, who presided over a conservative majority, which also included Garcia, Singas and Cannataro, over the past several years.
It’s now led by Wilson, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Harkenrider v. Hochul, and argued that the constitution had not been violated when lawmakers took it upon themselves to draw district lines after the IRC had failed to submit a final map.
Troutman and Rivera also ruled in the minority in the case, making Renwick, who is sitting on the court for the case in place of Halligan, the tie-breaking vote.
Should the court rule in favor of the petitioners, ordering a new map to be drawn by the IRC, the commission would likely begin the process of drawing new maps ahead of the 2024 election immediately.
