Court orders state to redraw congressional district lines
/
A court decision on Thursday ordered New York’s congressional maps to be redrawn by the Independent Redistricting Commission. The case is expected to head to the Court of Appeals. Map via New York State Redistricting & Me/CUNY Graduate Center
By Ryan Schwach
An appeals court ordered the state’s failed redistricting commission to redraw the state’s congressional maps on Thursday, ruling that the maps used for the 2022 election not be used again in the future.
A five-judge panel in the Appellate Division, Third Department ruled 3-2 in favor of an argument supported by the governor and attorney general that said that the congressional district lines drawn by a special court-appointed master were unconstitutional – the special master was only appointed after the Court of Appeals ruled that previous maps drawn by the state legislature were also unconstitutional.
The Appellate Division ruling orders new lines to be drawn by the New York Independent Redistricting Commission.
Thursday’s decision is largely expected to be appealed by a group of Republicans, who benefited from the lines drawn by the special master, picking up four seats in New York during the 2022 election, including in New York’s 3rd Congressional District, which was won by embattled Representative George Santos. Should they appeal, the case will be sent to the Court of Appeals and potentially spark a new round of congressional redistricting in the Empire State.
The Democratic petitioners, which included Governor Kathy Hochul and State Attorney General Letitia James argued that the state’s constitution would be violated should the special master’s maps be used for any election beyond the 2022 election. They argued that the special master and his subsequent district lines did not appropriately take into account public input or the democratic process – the State Senate lines also drawn by the special master were not included in the lawsuit.
“The right to participate in the democratic process is the most essential right in our system of governance,” the court’s opinion read. “The procedures governing the redistricting process, all too easily abused by those who would seek to minimize the voters' voice and entrench themselves in the seats of power, must be guarded as jealousy as the right to vote itself; in granting this petition, we return the matter to its constitutional design.”
This decision is yet another wrench thrown into the cogs of the already mucky state redistricting process, which has dragged through the courts for more than two years.
Though the Independent Redistricting Commission was created in 2014 in an attempt to prevent partisan disagreements over districting lines, the commission’s Democratic and Republican members almost immediately clashed as their redistricting process began in 2021.
In January 2022, the IRC put forth two redistricting draft maps because they could not agree on a single draft. The state legislature implored the IRC to go back to the drawing board, but the IRC deadlocked and declined to submit a second, final plan. The legislature then drew its own lines, which were signed into law in February of last year.
The state’s congressional redistricting saga is likely to again head to the Court of Appeals, where a new chief judge could break from the top’s court’s previous ruling. File photo by Mike Groll/Office of the governor
However, a group of Republican voters quickly sued over the maps. The case, Harkenrider v. Hochul, was ultimately heard by the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the GOP petitioners.
The new case, Hoffman v. NY State Independent Redistricting Commission, was brought by a group of Democrats, and argues that the special master’s lines shouldn’t be used beyond the 2022 election. The petitioners also argue that the IRC should be able to complete its once-in-a-decade task, and submit a final congressional map for approval by the legislature.
“The language of NY Constitution…makes clear that this duty is mandatory, not discretionary,” the court’s decision read. “It is undisputed that the IRC failed to perform this duty. Further, we agree with petitioners that Harkenrider left unremedied the IRC's failure to perform its duty to submit a second set of maps.”
Justice Stan Pritzker, a St. John’s Law School graduate, wrote the dissenting opinion, and argued that the special master’s maps were deemed “final.”
“Since the map is final, there is no longer a ministerial duty for the IRC to perform,” Pritzker wrote.
The case could have widespread implications on national politics, after congressional Republicans picked up four seats in New York using the special master’s districting lines in 2022. The gains in New York were enough to give the GOP control of the House of Representatives.
In April, Hochul and James filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in the Hoffman case, arguing that the IRC should be given another go at the maps.
“Our state’s Constitution makes it clear that an independent body, with participation from the general public, is charged with drawing maps for congressional districts,” James in a statement at the time.
Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School who leads the school’s N.Y. Census & Redistricting Institute, concurs with James’ sentiment.
“Courts are really not the ones to draw maps – legislators and commissions are,” he said.
“The Republicans benefited last year by Lee Zeldin’s coattails and by having a map that paired Democrats in Manhattan and drew better opportunities for Republicans elsewhere,” Wice added. “Now you have the opportunity to draw a map that follows the law [and] that takes in more public comment than you had in the court-drawn plan.”
If Thursday’s decision is appealed and ultimately upheld by the state’s top court, the redistricting process will begin anew. The IRC will likely hold a number of public hearings on the lines, propose a congressional map, tweak it based on public feedback and submit a final map to be approved by the legislature.
Should Thursday’s decision be appealed, the case will come before a far different Court of Appeals than the court that previously heard a major redistricting case.
The court is now led by Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, and includes Judge Caitlin Halagan, both of whom were appointed by Hochul. DiFiore, who for several years led a conservative majority on the court, is no longer on the bench and the court is believed to now have more of a liberal tilt.
Last year, Wilson wrote the dissenting opinion in Harkenrider, and argued that he believed the legislature's drawing of the maps after the IRC had failed to submit a final version was constitutional.
Judges Shirley Troutman and Jenny Rivera also dissented from the majority opinion, supported by DiFiore and current Judges Madeline Singas, Michael Garcia and Anthony Cannataro.
Should each of the judges rule the same way they did in Harkenrider, Halagan, who has yet to rule on a redistricting case, will serve as the tie breaker.
Based on Wilson’s dissent in the previous case, Wice believes the state’s top court is set to uphold Thursday’s decision, and order new congressional maps to be drawn by the IRC.
“Three of the judges there are already on record as favoring the legislature having the power to draw maps with the new membership on that court,” he said.
The redistricting rigamarole is now likely going to carry itself well into the coming months. But Wice says the fraught process is by design.
“There was no independent role for the commission – it was simply a body appointed by the legislative leaders,” he said. “It was designed as a Rube Goldberg-jigsaw puzzle that was destined to fail, and that's just what happened.”
