Harkenrider v. Hochul
| Docket Number | 60 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 2022 |
| Citation | 38 N.Y.3d 494,197 N.E.3d 437,176 N.Y.S.3d 157 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Tim HARKENRIDER, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Kathy HOCHUL, as Governor, et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo (Craig R. Bucki, Steven B. Salcedo and Rebecca A. Valentine of counsel), and Graubard Miller, New York City (C. Daniel Chill and Elaine Reich of counsel), for Carl Heastie, appellant-respondent.
Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, New York City (Eric Hecker, John Cuti, Alex Goldenberg, Alice Reiter and Daniel Mullkoff of counsel), for Andrea Stewart-Cousins, appellant-respondent.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Jeffrey W. Lang and Jennifer L. Clark of counsel), for Kathy Hochul and an- other, appellants-respondents.
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, New York City (Misha Tseytlin of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Campaign Legal Center, Washington, D.C. (Paul M. Smith, Mark P. Gaber and Simone T. Leeper of counsel), and Chicago, Illinois (Annabelle E. Harless of counsel), for Campaign Legal Center and another, amici curiae.
Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York City (James M. McGuire, Daniel M. Sullivan and Gregory J. Dubinsky of counsel), for League of Women Voters of New York State, amicus curiae.
John Ciampoli, Massapequa, for Thomas F. O'Mara and others, amici curiae.
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, New York City (Matthew D. Brinckerhoff and Andrew G. Celli of counsel), and Elias Law Group LLP, Washington, D.C. (Aria C. Branch, Haley K. Costello Essig, Shanna M. Ruelbach, Maya M. Sequeira, Graham W. White, Christina A. Ford and Aaron M. Mukerjee of counsel), for Jamaal Bowman and others, amici curiae.
In 2014, the People of the State of New York amended the State Constitution to adopt historic reforms of the redistricting process by requiring, in a carefully structured process, the creation of electoral maps by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) and by declaring unconstitutional certain undemocratic practices such as partisan and racial gerrymandering. No one disputes that this year, during the first redistricting cycle to follow adoption of the 2014 amendments, the IRC and the legislature failed to follow the procedure commanded by the State Constitution. A stalemate within the IRC resulted in a breakdown in the mandatory process for submission of electoral maps to the legislature. The legislature responded by creating and enacting maps in a nontransparent manner controlled exclusively by the dominant political party — doing exactly what they would have done had the 2014 constitutional reforms never been passed. On these appeals, the primary questions before us are whether this failure to follow the prescribed constitutional procedure warrants invalidation of the legislature's congressional and state senate maps and whether there is record support for the determination of both courts below that the district lines for congressional races were drawn with an unconstitutional partisan intent. We answer both questions in the affirmative and therefore declare the congressional and senate maps void. As a result, judicial oversight is required to facilitate the expeditious creation of constitutionally conforming maps for use in the 2022 election and to safeguard the constitutionally protected right of New Yorkers to a fair election.
Every ten years, following the federal census, reapportionment of the state senate, assembly, and congressional districts in New York must be undertaken to account for population shifts and potential changes in the state's allocated number of congressional representatives (see NY Const, art III, § 4 ). Redistricting — which is "primarily the duty and responsibility of the State" ( Perry v. Perez , 565 U.S. 388, 392, 132 S.Ct. 934, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Growe v. Emison , 507 U.S. 25, 34, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 [1993] ) — is a complex and contentious process that, historically, has been "within the legislative power ... subject to constitutional regulation and limitation" ( Matter of Orans , 15 N.Y.2d 339, 352, 258 N.Y.S.2d 825, 206 N.E.2d 854 [1965] ). In New York, prior to 2012, the process of drawing district lines was entirely within the purview of the legislature,1 subject to state and federal constitutional restraint and federal voting laws, as well as judicial review.
Particularly with respect to congressional maps, exclusive legislative control has repeatedly resulted in stalemates, with opposing political parties unable to reach consensus on district lines — often necessitating federal court involvement in the development of New York's congressional maps . Among other concerns, the redistricting process has been plagued with allegations of partisan gerrymandering — that is, one political party manipulating district lines in order to disproportionately increase its advantage in the upcoming elections, disenfranchising voters of the opposing party (see generally Rucho v. Common Cause , 588 U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2494, 204 L.Ed.2d 931 [2019] ).
By adopting the 2014 constitutional amendments, the People significantly altered both substantive standards governing the determination of district lines and the redistricting process established to achieve those standards. Given the history of legislative stalemates and persistent allegations of partisan gerrymandering, the constitutional reforms were intended to introduce a new era of bipartisanship and transparency through the creation of an independent redistricting commission and the adoption of additional limitations on legislative discretion in redistricting, including explicit prohibitions on partisan and racial gerrymandering (see Assembly Mem in Support, 2012 NY Senate-Assembly Concurrent Resolution S6698, A9526 Sponsor Memo, S2107). The Constitution now requires that the IRC — a bipartisan commission working under a constitutionally mandated timeline — is charged with the obligation of drawing a set of redistricting maps that, with appropriate implementing legislation, must be submitted to the legislature for a vote, without amendment (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]; § 5-b [a]).2 If this first set of maps is rejected, the IRC is required to prepare a second set that, again, would be subject to an up or down vote by the legislature, without amendment (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]). Under that constitutional framework, only upon rejection of a second set of IRC maps is the legislature free to offer amendments to the maps created by the IRC (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]) and, even then, a statutory restriction enacted as a companion to the constitutional reforms precluded legislative alterations that would affect more than two percent of the population in any district (see L 2012, ch 17, § 3).
Following receipt of the results of the 2020 federal census, the redistricting process began in New York — the first opportunity for district lines to be drawn under the new IRC procedures established by the 2014 constitutional amendments. Due to shifts in New York's population, the state lost a congressional seat and other districts were malapportioned, undisputedly rendering the 2012 congressional apportionment — developed by a federal court following a legislative impasse (see Favors , 2012 WL 928223, *2, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 36910 ) — unconstitutional and necessitating the drawing of new district lines. Throughout 2021, the IRC held the requisite public hearings, gathering input from stakeholders and voters across the state to inform their composition of redistricting maps. In December 2021 and January 2022, however, negotiations between the IRC members deteriorated and the IRC, split along party lines, was unable to agree upon consensus maps. According to the IRC members appointed by the minority party, after agreement had been reached on many of the district lines, the majority party delegation of the IRC declined to continue negotiations on a consensus map, insisting they would proceed with discussions only if further negotiations were based on their preferred redistricting maps.
As a result of their disagreements, the IRC submitted, as a first set of maps, two proposed redistricting plans to the legislature — maps from each party delegation — as is constitutionally permitted if a single consensus map fails to garner sufficient votes (see NY Const, art III, § 5-b [g]). The legislature voted on this first set of plans without amendment as required by the Constitution and rejected both plans. The legislature notified the IRC of that rejection, triggering the IRC's obligation to compose — within 15 days — a second redistricting plan for the legislature's review (see NY Const, art III § 4 [b]). On January 24, 2022 — the day before the 15-day deadline but more than one month before the February 28, 2022 deadline— the IRC announced that it was deadlocked and, as a result, would not present a second plan to the legislature. Within a week, the Democrats in the legislature — in control of both the senate and assembly — composed and enacted new congressional, senate, and assembly redistricting maps (see 2022 NY Assembly Bill A9167, 2022 NY Senate Bill S8196, 2022 NY Assembly Bill A9039-A, 2022 NY Senate Bill S8172-A, 2022 NY Assembly Bill A9168, 2022 NY Senate Bill S8197, 2022 NY Senate Bill S8185-A, 2022 NY Assembly Bill A9040-A), undisputedly without any consultation or participation by the minority Republican Party.3 On February...
To continue reading
Request your trial