State legislation that facilitated lawsuits against minority groups in New York due to voting procedures and electoral splits has been overturned by a court that ruled that the law’s unique protections based on race and ethnicity are unconstitutional.
In a ruling on Thursday, Orange County state court Justice Maria Vazquez-Doles invalidated New York’s Voting Rights Act of 2022 and rejected a case against the Town of Newburgh filed by six Black and Hispanic voters.
- Advertisement -
The inhabitants of the town filed the lawsuit, claiming that “at-large” elections to choose board members in the predominantly white town prevented Black and Hispanic voters from choosing their preferred candidates. The town, which is around 60 miles (96 kilometers) north of New York City, would elect board members per district, according to the method they requested the court impose.
A means to contest at-large elections that resulted in racially divided voting patterns or hindered a racial, ethnic, or linguistic group’s capacity to elect representatives to public office was established under New York’s Voting Rights Act.
According to the judge, that section of the statute was in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that college and university affirmative action policies were unconstitutional, it similarly invoked the equal protection provision.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer stated that they will file an appeal.
Attorney David Imamura stated, “We are confident that the New York Voting Rights Act is constitutional, and that on appeal that belief will be vindicated.”
At least four cases were brought under the state’s voting rights statute, including this one, which was filed in March.
According to the equal protection provision, the government can only intervene based on race if there is a strong state interest in doing so, according to Vazquez-Doles’ ruling.
According to Vazquez-Doles, ending discrimination against a racial group might satisfy that need; nevertheless, the language of the statute in New York did not require voters contesting an election system to provide proof of prior prejudice.
According to her theory, white voters may also be able to fight for changes to the electoral system under the current law if they believe their voting power has been diminished.
Vazquez-Doles noted, “No compelling interest — as that term has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause — exists in protecting the voting rights of any group that has historically never been discriminated against.”
She also discovered that there were no explicit rules in the New York legislation governing the amount of voting power that must be reduced before a group’s rights are infringed.
More than six states, mostly controlled by Democrats, including New York, took action to protect voting rights after representatives were frustrated with new voting restrictions in some Republican-led states and the failure of voting rights legislation in Congress.
Bill sponsor State Senator Zellnor Myrie stated in a statement, “When New York enacted the strongest voting rights law in the country, we knew there would be challenges.”
He continued, “I disagree with the court’s legal reasoning and expect this decision will be overturned on appeal.”
