A law approved in 2023 that shifted elections in New York to even-numbered years violates the state Constitution, according to a state Supreme Court judge.
New York’s Constitution states that the legislature can act only in relation to “the property, affairs, or government” of local governments “only by general law.”
The only exception is if the Legislature acts through a special law, but the Legislature must be promoting a substantial state interest or concern if it utilizes that option.
Even if legislators acted through a special law, they did not promote a substantial state interest or concern, according to Neri.
State officials said in defending the law that the current system of elections, which features some occurring in odd-numbered years, leads to voter confusion and causes lower voter turnout because they’re not aligned with elections for Congress and the presidency.
While defendants did show that more people vote during elections that include Congress and/or the presidency on the ballot, the judge said voter education is more important for turnout than timing. He also said aligning local and federal elections would cause the size of the ballot to balloon, supporting concerns from plaintiffs that keeping the law in place would stoke confusion and cause some voters to stay home.
The issue is exacerbated by not all elections being consolidated to even years. Under the law, some races, including those for sheriff and district attorney, can be held during odd years, in addition to New York City elections.
“While the Even Year Election Law would impact virtually every county outside of New York City, certain county offices and the entirety of New York City remain exempt. The proffered reason for this is that it would take a constitutional amendment to change elections for those offices. As we have seen with Article IX, the fact is it would take a constitutional amendment to change the elections for any local offices,” the judge wrote.
He continued: “The purported state interest does not pass the smell test. Voters participate when they are aware, informed, and believe their vote matters. Timing, as evidenced by the above, is a secondary or tertiary concern. Further distinguishing state from local concern is the fact that none of the affected offices are state offices. There is simply no state interest in the timing and changing of terms of local offices.”
Ryan McMahon, executive of Onondaga County, sued over the law. He said in a statement to news outlets that the decision is a victory for voters.
“As out-of-touch legislators in Albany are constantly passing unfunded mandates and crippling regulations, the decision today made crystal clear that home rule law is still a vital component of the New York State constitution,” McMahon said.
“The fact that the initial legislation exempted New York City shows what a partisan joke this was and that it was only designed to punish upstate. It would have been expensive, unnecessary and injurious to the people of our state,” he said.
Democratic state Sen. James Skoufis, a sponsor of the law, said in a statement that the ruling will be appealed.
“This case was always going to be appealed,” he said, “and I fully expect a more objective panel of judges to rule in favor of the law’s constitutionality.”
