New York's Even Year Election Law ruled unconstitutional

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — Several counties challenged the Even Year Election Law—S3505B/A4282B—arguing that it infringes their authority to control local elections and terms for local officials. On Tuesday, New York Supreme Court Justice Gerard Neri agreed, ruling the law unconstitutional from Syracuse.

A press secretary for Gov. Kathy Hochul's office said, "We are reviewing the decision and considering our options."

Dutchess, Jefferson, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, Nassau, Rensselaer, Rockland, and Suffolk Counties sued the state and Hochul, saying that the law would violate home rule protections under Article IX of the New York Constitution. The defendants in the state government motioned to dismiss the case, but Neri also dismissed that motion on Tuesday in the decision, which you can read at the bottom of this story.

“It’s unsurprising the plaintiff’s hand-picked judge sided with the partisans who prefer fewer people voting in their elections," said Democratic State Sen. James Skoufis, who sponsored the bill. "This case was always going to be appealed and I fully expect a more objective panel of judges to rule in favor of the law’s constitutionality. In the meantime, the plaintiffs continue to waste local tax dollars on their senseless crusade to preserve lower turnout in elections.”

But New York State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt has characterized the even-year election law as ending local elections in New York, saying that Hochul ignored bipartisan opposition to sign the bill in December. He's said that the change would silence community discussions and inject national politics into local races.

"Another desperate Albany Democrat power grab stopped by the courts. This is a big win for voters and local candidates who would be drowned out by national level spending and advertising," Ortt tweeted on Tuesday. "Republicans will continue to protect local elections."

The law—signed by Hochul in December 2023 but not set to take effect until January 2025—schedules elections on even-numbered years. The change involved a few concise edits to the election law already on the books, which scheduled those same elections for odd-numbered years.

The state argued that the Even Year Election Law was constitutional—a "general law" that applies uniformly statewide—and that the aim of reducing voter confusion to increase voter turnout represents a valid state concern superseding local authority. But the law exempted certain positions—like sheriff and district attorney—and certain races, particularly those in New York City.

In cases like this, the state argued, laws that proceeded through the legislature have an assumption of constitutionality, and any challenges must prove unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. The court does not often strike down laws, usually doing so only after trying to reconcile them with the Constitution.

Yet the Court of Appeals has already ruled that local laws about local elected offices can diverge from state law without violating the Constitution. And the plaintiffs questioned whether the law would really reduce confusion among voters or apply uniformly in light of carve-outs to the rule.

"The Even Year Election Law does not even consolidate all elections," Neri writes in the ruling. "Are the urbane voters of New York City less likely to be confused by odd-year elections than the rubes living in Upstate and Long Island?"

They said voters engage when they feel informed, so educating New Yorkers affects voter participation more than when an election takes place. The counties suing the state also argued that moving elections would overshadow local issues, and that only a constitutional amendment can modify their right to run their elections.

According to watchdog group Citizens Union, research confirms many benefits of moving local elections to align with state and federal races. It would boost turnout, reduce voter fatigue, keep the electorate informed, save money, and help local governments meet the needs of the community.

"Keeping local elections separate to avoid competition underestimates voters’ ability to focus on both local and national issues," they said. "Our priority should be making it easier, not harder, for people to vote.”

Read the decision below: