Court rules against Queens redistricting lawsuit

A judge rejected a lawsuit last week that claimed that the Richmond Hill and South Ozone Park and the South Asian communities that live there had been unfairly divided by the new City Council district lines. Map via Redistricting and You/CUNY Graduate Center

By Ryan Schwach

A State Supreme Court judge rejected late last week a lawsuit from Queens residents alleging that the New York City Districting Commission unfairly drew council redistricting lines that split Queens’ South Asian communities.

The council maps, which were approved earlier this year, will remain in place for the upcoming elections this year, barring any further legal challenges.

The lawsuit, which was filed in late February, alleged that the commission’s City Council lines unfairly split the South Asian and Indo-Caribbean neighborhoods of South Ozone Park and Richmond Hill. The two dozen petitioners named in the suit argued that the lines diluted their voting power and representation, which they said has been the case for several decades.

Under the maps, Richmond Hill is mostly kept whole, but included in District 29, which also includes parts of Forest Hills and Kew Gardens. Ozone Park is split into two districts – District 28, which includes a portion of Southeast Queens, and District 32, which includes parts of the Rockaway peninsula, Howard Beach, Woodhaven and Glendale.

On May 5, Supreme Court Judge Erika Edwards denied the petition. In her decision, Edwards said that the maps were drawn lawfully and that any relief granted to the petitioners would impact other elections this year.

“Although the court always endeavors to protect the rights of racial and language

minorities against voting rights violations, here, petitioners simply failed to demonstrate the

merits of their claims,” the decision read.

The judge decided that the commission's redrawing of the lines were “rationally based,” and that the city’s process for creating the maps and passing them into law fell within the bounds of the city’s charter, which the petitioners argued had been violated.

“There was a public comment process which included testimony from numerous people and many of the petitioners testified, submitted comments, or otherwise participated in the process,” the decision said. “The Districting Commission properly considered the testimony, comments, submissions and alternatives, such as the Unity Map. The Districting Commission carefully evaluated the Certified Final Plan’s compliance with the New York State and United States Constitutions, the New York City Charter and weighed the applicable criteria set forth in New York City Charter.”

The judge also said that if they were to toss the current maps, the re-doing of the process would delay other elections. Though the petitioners also argued that only a few neighboring districts would also have to undergo changes, Edwards said that she believed most of the city’s lines would have to be redrawn.

“The court finds that Respondents demonstrated that if the court were to grant Petitioners’ requests for relief, then it would impact neighboring Election Districts at a minimum, the map would have to be redrawn, the Districting Commission would have to be reconstituted, the City Council primaries would be delayed, there would have to be two primary elections and it would be costly and require a delay of several months,” Edwards said. “Therefore, the candidates, voters, tax payers and City would be extremely prejudiced.”

Jerry Vattamala, an attorney from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund who represented the Queens resident said that he was “disappointed in the decision.”

“I think that's a bad precedent to say that the Districting Commission can just sort of say that they comply with the charter and that satisfies their requirements,” Vattamala said.

“I think that's setting a bad precedent and giving undue power to the Districting Commission,” he added. “That's problematic.”

Mainly, Vattamala was disappointed with how the court disagreed with the main thrust of their argument, which was that the commission did not use the correct legal standard for ensuring that communities like the South Asian community in Queens receive fair opportunities for representation.

But Edwards said that the commission held up their requirements laid out in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when it comes to the “effective representation of the racial and language minority groups,” as is cited in the section of the City Charter the petitioners were appealing to.

To defend the claim, the city retained Dr. Lisa Handley, a redistricting expert who also was a consultant on New York City and State election lines after the 2000 census, who testified that the commission’s maps upheld the requirements under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“It increased the number of districts that offer Asian voters an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates of choice,” the court said Handley found.

The Eagle reached out to Handley, who did not respond in time for publication.

Additionally, the petitioners used the testimony of their own expert, but the court ultimately ruled with Handley’s testimony.

Vattamala stipulates that the Voting Rights Act is not the appropriate legal standard, an assertion the court disputed.

“The Districting Commission was just looking whether they complied with the Federal Voting Rights Act, and what the charter requires is something more than that,” Vattamala argued. “The charter was several decades ahead of its time for providing supplementary protections for racial language minorities, in addition to what the Federal Voting Rights Act requires.”

“There's really no engagement with that in the decision,” he added.

However, Vattamala did say there was a bright spot. The court ruled against the argument made by the city that the petitioners waited too long to file, waiting until the four-month statute of limitations nearly ran out.

“They just did not rule in our favor on certain points, but certain points they did,” he said.

Petitioners, like local activist Aaron Fernando, were also disappointed with the ruling.

“I think I was really excited when I first heard about the case,” he said. “I was really hoping this could be an opportunity to finally get at least one win. It's been hell after all our losses, with the Assembly lines and such.”

This ruling comes a few weeks after the state legislature and the governor signed off on Assembly district lines that are nearly identical to current Assembly lines, undoing previous drafts which were applauded by the Queens communities for their unification of the South Asian community.

“It's very unlikely you will see an Indo-Caribbean elected to the legislature from the area,” said Fernando.

Vattamala says that they are considering their options in regards to the ruling, and that the decision may not be the end of the city’s redistricting process.

“I think we have several different legal options that we're looking at, including a potential appeal to the First Department,” he said. “This is most likely not over.”

The Districting Commission did not respond to request for comment, but the New York City Law Department did express their approval of the ruling.

“The redistricting plan was thoroughly planned and adopted,” said department spokesperson Nicholas Paolucci. “We are pleased with this court ruling.”