New York Law School’s Digital Commons@NYLS

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-robots-that-control-everything-you-see-and-hea

Appleton, Barry

The Robots that Control Everything You See and Hear

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1173/thumbnail.jp

Crowell, Anthony W.

Introducing the Tribeca  Neighborhood Arts Initiative at NYLS

O\u27Donnell,, Addison

Legal Writing and Stephen Sondheim

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1186/thumbnail.jp

Gillingham, Allison

Field and Campus: Spring 2025

Wice, Jeffrey M.

July 28 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

August 17 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

Leonard, Arthur S.

Court Reinstates Vermont Christian School Following Suspension Over Trans Athlete

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2025
Civilians have always found themselves trapped in armed conflict, enduring a toll ranging from injury and death to hunger and displacement. How does international law safeguard vulnerable populations? What obligations do warring parties have toward civilians, and how well are they upheld? Are current measures sufficient, or is there a need for stronger action? Nathalie Weizmann, Senior Legal Officer at the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, will discuss these questions and others during this fireside chat.https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/international_law_events_flyers/1026/thumbnail.jp

Center for International Law

FIRESIDE CHAT | PROTECTING CIVILIANS IN TIMES OF WAR

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
1-21-2025 
January 21 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
BREAKING NEWS: EXECUTIVE ORDERS 
 
Trump Revokes Biden Executive Order on Census Counting 
 
In one of his first rounds of issuing executive orders, President Donald Trump 
revoked President Biden's 2021 executive order affirming that the census count the 
total number of persons living in each state. While it is not clear what "next steps" will 
be taken by the new Trump Administration on the census, revocation of the Biden 
order may make it easier to adjust the 2030 decennial count to exclude non-citizens 
from the census count for congressional reapportionment. More to come soon. 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LITIGATION 
 
Nassau County Legislature: Coads et al. v. Nassau County & 
NY Communities for Change (NYCC) v. Nassau County 
 
On January 5th, Nassau County filed a motion for disqualification and a 
memorandum of law (“memo”) in support of this motion to remove the Judge from 
this case for making allegedly biased remarks to one of the county’s attorneys. In the 
memo, the defendants argue that the state supreme court’s disqualification is 
required under the N.Y. Code of Judicial Conduct for three reasons.  
  
First, the court’s ex parte communication to the defendants’ counsel on December 
20th “creates a circumstance—standing alone—where the court’s impartiality might 
reasonably be questioned.” Second, the court’s statements relating to the Even-Year 
Election Law on December 19th and 20th created “an appearance of impropriety.” 
Lastly, the court’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned in combination with the 
above and the “manner of the court’s appointment.”  The defendants also argue that 
failure to disqualify the court would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment. 
  
On January 5th, Bennet Moskowitz and Mary “Molly” DiRago, both serving as 
counsel for the defendants, submitted affirmations in support of this memorandum. 
Later that week, the judge orally rejected the motion for disqualification. 
 
ELECTION LAW 
 
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn): Walden v. Kosinski 
et al. 
 
On January 17th, the federal district court in Brooklyn granted the parties’ request for 
an extension of time to file an answer and to set a briefing schedule on plaintiff Jim 
Walden’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which must have been served by 
 
 
January 15th. Defendants may serve any opposition on or before January 
31st. Walden is seeking to run for mayor on an “Independence” party line and state 
law currently prohibits use of that word on the ballot. 
  
Walden shall serve any reply and file all documents on or before February 7th. The 
State Board Defendants shall file an answer or otherwise respond to Walden’s 
complaint on or before ten days after the Court decides the motion for a preliminary 
injunction. 
 
CENSUS 
 
U.S. House Bill Seeks 2030 Census Citizenship Question 
 
As reported by Helen Brewer of the National Conference of State Legislatures, “U.S. 
Representative Chuck Edwards (R-NC) introduced HR 151 (linked here) in the U.S. 
House of Representatives last week. The bill’s description says that the bill seeks to 
“[t]o require a citizenship question on the decennial census, to require reporting on 
certain census statistics. And to modify apportionment of Representatives to be 
based n United States citizens instead of all persons.” Historically, apportionment 
has been based on all persons. This is a reintroduction of last year’s HR 7109, which 
passed the House of Representatives last May. Text of HR 151 is not available yet, 
but you can view last year’s bill here.” 
 
Four States Seek to Exclude Undocumented Persons & Non-
Immigrant Aliens From Reapportionment 
 
Led by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, the state filed an action in the Western 
District Federal Court in Louisiana to exclude undocumented persons and non-
immigrant aliens (such as foreign embassy personnel) from the population count 
when determining the number of congressional districts for each state.  
 
Louisiana was joined by Ohio, Kansas, and West Virginia in this action against the 
Commerce Department. The case was filed on Friday against Biden Administration 
officials but will now be addressed by the Trump Administration. Past legal efforts to 
exclude undocumented persons from the congressional reapportionment have been 
unsuccessful. 
 
LEGISLATORS 
 
Assemblyman Wieder to Remain in Rockland County 
Legislature 
 
Freshman Assemblyman Aaron Wieder (D-Rockland) announced his intention to 
keep his position as an elected member of the Rockland County Legislature while he 
also serves in the state Assembly. There is no prohibition in either the state 
constitution or Rockland County charter prohibiting dual service. 
  
As reported by Chris McKenna in LoHud, Wieder may be able to attend legislative 
sessions in Albany during daytime and cover Rockland County meetings that are 
 
 
held in night. One issue Wieder will have to deal with is the state prohibition (now in 
court) on making over $35,000 a year. That state law is now pending appeal, so 
Wieder can accept his state and county salaries without conflict for the time being. 
 
Ulster County Legislator Responds to Allegations He Lives 
Outside His District 
 
Ulster County Legislator Joe Mahoney is facing allegations that he does not live in 
the Saugerties district he represents in the county legislature. 
 
Howard Baul, a labor-relations specialist with Civil Service Employees Association 
(CSEA) made that charge during a recent legislative meeting, according to HV1 
(Hudson Valley One E-Paper). Maloney denies the accusation, arguing that he owns 
a home in Saugerties. Baul alleges that he lives in Monroe where his in-laws owned 
a home and where he also spends time. 
 
State law requires that a legislator live in the district they represent. However, 
legislators whose districts were changed after a recent redistricting can be elected 
from a residence outside a newly redrawn district and must relocate into the proper 
district within a year. Legislator Mahoney’s next steps on residency are unclear. 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds North Dakota House Districts 
  
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the North Dakota Legislature’s creation of 
subdistricts (for state House districts 4 and 9), which went into effect in 2021. The 
law was challenged by local Republican officials in North Dakota. The lawsuit 
claimed that these two subdistricts—which were drawn to prevent vote dilution in the 
Native American populations on two reservations in this area—were unconstitutional 
racial gerrymanders. 
  
This lawsuit had previously been rejected by a federal three-judge panel in 2023. 
The panel found that state lawmakers had “good reason” to create the subdistricts 
under the federal Voting Rights Act because it would give Native American voters a 
“better chance to elect their candidate of choice.” The Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara 
Nation supported the legislation.  
  
In a separate case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing a lower court 
ruling that ordered a new joint North Dakota legislative district for two other Native 
tribes. The two tribes had argued the new 2021 redistricting plan diluted their voting 
power. This new district was used in the 2024 elections. 
  
U.S. Department of Justice Sues Tennessee County Over 
Redistricting Plan 
  
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has sued Tennessee’s Fayette County, 
claiming that the county adopted a redistricting plan that “denies Black voters an 
equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.”  
 
 
  
According to the DOJ, Fayette County’s Board of Commissioners rejected several 
plans that would have combined Black communities during the 2021 redistricting 
cycle. If approved, these combined communities would have had the voting power to 
elect any candidate of their choice.  
  
The DOJ alleged that the Board disregarded the guidelines and recommendations 
provided by its redistricting committee, as well as the advice of an attorney that the 
Board hired for guidance during the redistricting process. 
  
Four Black candidates have lost in the county’s general elections since the adoption 
of this redistricting plan and no Black candidate has been elected to the nineteen-
member County Commission. Approximately twenty-six percent of the county’s 
voting age population is Black. 
  
The DOJ has asked the district court to block the Board from using this redistricting 
plan for any upcoming elections. 
 
UPCOMING EVENTS 
 
New York “American Community Survey” Census Conference 
 
“ACS On The Road” on January 28, 2025: Join New York Law School, New York 
Counts, the Population Reference Bureau, New York City Planning Department, and 
the U.S. Census Bureau to learn how different data users in New York City use 
American Community Survey (ACS) data. We will conclude with small breakout 
sessions where you will have the opportunity to interact with Census Bureau staff 
and share what you need to better use ACS data in your own work.  
 
The event will be held at New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, Manhattan 
from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Registration is required. You can register here: 
https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/qnqo80v1iobqqa/. 
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund and the 
New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice & Alexis 
Marking. 


English

January 21 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
4-7-2025 
April 7 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
CENSUS 
  
N.Y.C. Census Conference Kicks Off 2030 Organizing Push 
  
On April 1, over 100 attendees participated in a half-day conference at New York 
Law School focused on preparing for the 2030 census. The event was co-sponsored 
by the N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute (at New York Law School), 
N.Y.C. Council Member Julie Menin, and the N.Y.C. Central Labor Council. The 
conference was held on the halfway mark between Census 2020 and 2030. 
  
Opening remarks were provided via recorded messages from U.S. House Minority 
Leader Hakeem Jeffries and N.Y.S. Assemblyman Landon Dais (D-Bronx), the 
sponsor of state legislation to establish a state census program (A.6894). N.Y.C. 
Central Labor Council President Vincent Alvarez also welcomed participants to the 
convening. 
  
Panels featured former N.Y.C. Planning Department expert Joe Salvo, Planning 
Department Population Director Joel Alvarez, CUNY Graduate Center experts John 
Mollenkopf and Steve Romalewski, Wennie Chin (NYPIRG), Eve Stotland (NY 
Community Trust), Juan Rosa (NAJLEO), and Pharein Griffith (NAAC). The speakers 
focused on key lessons learned from 2020 and on how to plan for Census 2030 
outreach, especially as it related to hard-to-count communities. 
  
Council Member Menin and NY Law School Professor Jeff Wice authored a column 
published in the N.Y. Daily News on “Census 2030 is halfway here” and the need to 
organize early.  
 
Read the full piece in the New York Daily News. 
 
A recording of the conference will be provided in a future update. 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LITIGATION 
 
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Newburgh 
  
Following an Appellate Division decision upholding the state Voting Rights Act and 
directing a challenge to the Newburgh Town Board’s at-large membership, legal 
wrangling continues back before the lower court where the case is on remand. On 
March 7th, the Town of Newburgh and its Town Board (“the Town”) requested that 
the State Supreme Court accept for filing a reply memorandum of law in support of 
their motion for leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals and 
requested that the Court refrain from issuing remittitur (“Reply”), which Reply 
responds to the appellants’ February 28th responses to the Town’s motion to leave 
for appeal. Although the Town technically may not file this Reply under CPLR 
 
 
2214(b) because the motion was served on less than 16 days’ notice as required, the 
Town argues this Reply would “aid the Court’s disposition” of the motion.   
  
The reply memorandum included three main arguments. First, “The Court of Appeals 
reviewing the constitutionality of the NYVRA now—including determining what 
implicit elements may support that conclusion—would provide essential clarity to the 
pending NYVRA cases across the state, while furthering judicial and litigant 
economy.” Second, “This case is a proper vehicle for the Court of Appeals deciding 
the unsettled and important constitutional question of whether the NYVRA violates 
the federal or state Equal Protection Clause, and what implicit elements may support 
that conclusion.” Lastly, “No remittitur appears on the docket, and withholding 
remittitur would promote judicial and litigant economy.”  
  
On March 10th, the appellants filed a letter with the Court to object to the Town’s 
untimely reply. As stated in the letter, “The Town’s notice of motion specifically set 
the return date for their motion as March 3, 2025 at 10:00 am…There is no reason 
for this Court to entertain papers submitted after the motion has been fully submitted 
simply because the Town failed to submit their papers on time.” The appellants 
further contend that this untimely submission was another attempt by the Town to 
delay the trial in this matter, citing numerous examples of such. A trial must occur in 
a timely manner for the appellants to receive relief for the 2025 elections. 
Accordingly, the letter asks the Court to deny the Town’s request to submit a reply, 
expedite its decision on the pending motion “to the extent possible,” and (upon 
denying the motion) direct the Supreme Court to schedule a trial. 
  
On March 10th, the Town filed a response to the appellants’ letter with three 
arguments. First, the Town argues that the appellants’ reasoning “makes no sense” 
and “this Court accepting the Reply could not possibly delay this Court’s adjudication 
of the Town’s Motion.” Second, the Town argues that saying they have consistently 
attempted to delay the trial is an “egregious effort to mislead the Court.” The Town 
calls attention to the Supreme Court case, stating that the “only source of delay” in 
those proceedings was due to the plaintiffs’ “inexplicable decision” to file an 
additional expert report two months after the court-ordered deadline for the 
submission of expert reports, which created a chain reaction of additional expert 
reports and depositions.  
  
The Town also states that other than the untimely expert report, “the only reason” 
that trial did not take place as originally scheduled last fall was because the Supreme 
Court granted summary judgment in the Town’s favor, which the plaintiffs then 
appealed. The Town complied with the expedited appellate briefing schedule and 
immediately filed its motion for leave to appeal once the Court issued its ruling.  
  
Third, the Town argues that by the plaintiffs’ “own explicit and unambiguous 
concession, they cannot obtain any relief here for the ongoing 2025 election.” As 
stated in the Town’s response letter, “While Plaintiffs initially sought relief for the 
2025 election in their Complaint filed on March 26, 2024, they admitted that ‘any 
court-ordered remedies’ would have needed ‘to be implemented before February 
2025’ for any such relief to take place, given that ‘the nomination process for 
candidates for Town office in November 2025 will begin in or around February 
2025.’” 
 
 
  
The Court has not issued a decision yet on this matter. 
 
ELECTION LAW LITIGATION 
 
Eastern District of New York (Kings County): Walden v. 
Kosinski et al. (N.Y.C. Mayoral) 
  
On March 18th, counsel for mayoral candidate Jim Walden requested immediate 
injunctive relief to move his case seeking to use the name “Independence” for his 
party affiliation. Although the New York City Board of Elections has continued to 
“take no position” on Walden’s constitutional claim, the city BOE has now stated that 
it will reject Walden’s nominating petitions if he uses the name “Independence Party.” 
The city BOE must apply the Party Names Provision “as written, consistent with the 
State [Board’s] position on the law,” unless the provision is “rendered 
unenforceable.”  
  
Walden’s counsel argues that rendering the provision “unenforceable” would 
presumably include “a determination, at the preliminary injunction stage, that 
enforcement is likely to deprive Walden of his First Amendment rights.” Additionally, 
since Walden intends to file petitions under the Independence Party, the city BOE’s 
statements show that “Walden’s intended conduct is ‘proscribed by the challenged 
regulation’ and that he faces a credible threat that the Party Names Provisions will be 
enforced against him.” Walden therefore requests a preliminary injunction. 
  
On March 31st, Walden’s counsel requested that the Court decide the pending 
motion for preliminary injunction as soon as possible. The petitioning period of the 
electoral calendar begins on April 15th, and petitions must include “the name of the 
independent body whose nomination Mr. Walden seeks.” As a result, Walden must 
know the Court’s decision in order to have accurate petitions. 
  
On April 1st, the Court denied Walden’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 
  
On April 5th, the Court released its memorandum and order holding that that Walden 
has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment claim. 
Consequently, Walden also has not shown likelihood of irreparable harm. For these 
reasons, the Court ruled that it did not need to “reach the balance of equities,” and 
that the preliminary injunction must be denied. 
 
STATE LEGISLATION 
 
Voting and Election Reform Bills Moving in Albany 
  
At the end of March, the State Senate passed a bill (S1356A (Skoufis) / A3649B 
(Taylor)) with unanimous bipartisan support directing the State Board of Elections to 
join a multistate voter-registration list-maintenance organization such as the 
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC). The proposal also passed the 
Senate unanimously in 2023 and again in 2024, but stalled in the State Assembly. 
However, the Assembly advanced the proposal this past week to Ways and Means, 
 
 
where it will need to be reviewed before the end of the session and advanced to the 
floor for a full vote. The pending Assembly bill has nearly two-dozen co-sponsors. 
  
ERIC is a multistate voter list maintenance organization that supports more than 20 
member-states and their election administrators by aiding them in identifying and 
removing ineligible voters from their voter rolls. As the legislative intent explains, 
ERIC helps improve the accuracy of America's voter rolls and increases access to 
voter registration for eligible citizens. Keeping voter rolls clean, accurate, and current 
is an ongoing data challenge since voter registration is tied to residency and 
thousands of Americans are constantly moving residences, aging into the voting 
population, naturalizing, or passing away. While illegal voting is rare, maintaining 
accurate registration records reduces the vulnerability and helps build confidence in 
election outcomes. 
  
In addition, the Assembly passed a bill (that has also passed the State Senate) 
which adds some flexibility to polling place staffing. The bill clarifies that local boards 
of elections can schedule split shifts for poll clerks (i.e., breaking up the job into 
multiple shifts) during the lengthy election day assignments, which can run 16 
straight hours or more. The Assembly Election Law Committee also considered and 
refused to advance a bill that would have required a form of government-issued ID to 
be presented when casting a ballot, or a paper copy be supplied when returning a 
mail ballot.  
  
Finally, the Senate passed a campaign-finance safeguard (S2437) which 
would require that social media influencers disclose when they are being paid by a 
campaign, and which would clarify that political campaigns must disclose such an 
expenditure in their periodic filings. In the Assembly, the bill is awaiting consideration 
by the Election Law Committee. 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT 
 
Attorney General Preclearance Submissions 
  
Last week, the Attorney General’s Office granted permission to the N.Y.C. Board of 
Elections to move forward with an early voting hours request (141) and an early 
voting poll site request (221). The Attorney General’s office also received requests 
from the N.Y.C. Board of Elections (281), Suffolk County Board of Elections (261), 
Nassau County Board of Elections (262), and the Albany County Board of Elections 
(162) for other election day voting issues. Numbers after the jurisdictions refer to the 
submission number. All submissions can be accessed at the Attorney General’s 
Voting Rights Section portal here: NYVRA Preclearance Portal. 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
FLORIDA: A panel of federal judges has now decided that a pending lawsuit in 
Florida will head to trial. The lawsuit—filed by five residents of St. Petersburg and 
Tampa—challenges the constitutionality of the 2022 Florida Senate redistricting plan 
and alleges that Senate Districts 16 and 18 were racially gerrymandered. The 
residents allege that “racial gerrymandering unjustifiably packed Black voters into 
 
 
District 16, stripping them from adjacent District 18 and reducing their influence 
there.”  
  
The federal panel rejected the gerrymandering allegation for District 18 and will 
proceed to trial regarding District 16. The judges pointed to legislators’ statements 
and other evidence that was taken into consideration when the district was drawn. As 
stated in the ruling, “Together, the direct and circumstantial evidence that race 
predominated in drawing District 16 requires this court to weigh evidence and make 
credibility determinations: a task properly left for trial.” For District 18, the panel 
determined that the plaintiffs had not provided adequate evidence to proceed. 
  
The districts were drawn under a Florida constitutional amendment known as “Fair 
Districts,” which was passed in 2010. The amendment requires that new maps do 
not “diminish” the ability of racial minorities “to elect representatives of their choice.” 
However, this lawsuit alleges that the Legislature did not “narrowly tailor” its use of 
race in compliance with the amendment. The plaintiffs therefore argue that the plan 
violated their equal protection rights.  
  
In addition to this lawsuit, the Florida Supreme Court is currently considering a 
challenge to the Florida congressional redistricting plan. Also, a third lawsuit 
(challenging several Florida House districts and one congressional district) is 
pending in a federal court in Miami. 
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund and the 
New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice, Alexis 
Marking & Jarret Berg. 
 
 


New York Law School

Not a member yet

The Robots that Control Everything You See and Hear

Introducing the Tribeca Neighborhood Arts Initiative at NYLS