A law that moved many New York city and county elections to even years to align them with state and federal races was struck down by a state judge, delivering a victory for Republicans who argued it was a partisan effort by the Democrats was to win electoral elections. edge.
Sponsors of the bill passed by Democrats-led state Legislature last year said they wanted to shift elections for city supervisor, county executive and some other local posts from odd years to reduce confusion and boost voter turnout to enlarge. Republicans denounced the law as an attempt to move local elections to higher-turnout presidential election years, which could benefit Democrats.
A number of Republican officials have sued the state, leading to a ruling in Syracuse on Tuesday by Supreme Court Justice Gerard Neri, who said the law violated the state constitution. Neri said in part that the law violates the rights of local governments to control their own affairs.
The judge also noted that the law does not affect elections in New York City, as city elections and certain local offices, such as district attorney, are held on odd years under the state constitution. Neri said the law raises questions about the federal requirement that governments provide equal protection to people covered by the law.
“Are the urban voters of New York City less likely to be confused by an election in a strange year than the rubes living in Upstate and Long Island?” Neri asked.
The Attorney General’s Office investigated the decision.
State Sen. James Skoufis, a sponsor of the bill, predicted the decision would be overturned on appeal.
“This case was always going to be appealed and I fully expect a more objective panel of judges to rule in favor of the constitutionality of the law,” Skoufis, a Democrat, said in a prepared news release. “Meanwhile, prosecutors continue to waste local taxpayer dollars on their futile crusade to maintain lower voter turnout.”
Republican State Chairman Ed Cox said the ruling was a victory for people who care about local elections.
“This radical change to longstanding election law was a blatant attempt by Democrats to consolidate total one-party control at every level of government and establish permanent democratic authority in our state, as discussion of local issues would have been buried under an avalanche of federal and state spending,” Cox said in a prepared statement.
