NYS Court of Appeals hears arguments on new even-year election law

ALBANY — Judges from New York’s top court on Monday challenged Republicans’ claims that a new law moving local elections to even-numbered years was unconstitutional.

The seven judges on the State Court of Appeals repeatedly tested the arguments by lawyers representing GOP officials that control of local elections was embedded in the state constitution and could be changed only by statewide referendum, that voter turnout wasn’t a legitimate state interest and that the State Legislature had no authority to change the timing of local elections.

And beyond the detailed and highly specific legalistic arguments, judges and attorneys wrestled over whether combining local elections with statewide and national contests would be just too much for voters to handle.

"Is your contention that it’s just too much information for them to consider so they’ll ignore local races?" Judge Shirley Troutman asked at one point.

"A lot of them are going to be ignoring down-ballot issues," replied Misha Tseytlin, attorney for a group of individual voters who joined the lawsuit led by Onondaga County Executive Ryan McMahon, a Republican.

The lawsuit focuses on a measure approved by the Democratic-dominated State Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul in 2023. Democrats said combining local races — such as for county executive and county legislature — will lead to better turnouts, less confusion for voters and less cost to counties who otherwise have to hold elections every year.

Republicans contend it violates the state constitutional guarantees for "home rule," would lead to local races being ignored and would give Democrats an advantage because enrolled Democrats turn out in higher numbers in even-numbered years.

If upheld, the new law means everyone running locally in 2025 will have a truncated term. If you normally have a two-year term and you are running in 2025 — think county legislature — then it will be truncated to a one-year term, up for reelection in 2026.

If you are running for, say, Nassau County executive, it would be for a three-year term instead of the normal four. Bruce Blakeman, a Republican, is running for reelection this fall against Seth Koslow, a Democratic county legislator.

The law doesn’t apply to New York City or certain countywide offices such as district attorney.

A Syracuse judge initially ruled in favor of the Republicans in 2024, but earlier this year the State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, New York’s mid-level court, reversed the ruling and rejected the Republicans’ claims.

That ruling formed much of the basis of Monday’s two-hour back-and-fourth at the Court of Appeals. It wasn’t so much about politics as detailed dissections of the legal definitions of "special laws" versus "general laws," expressed local rights versus embedded rights, counties with specific charters and the definition of a "substantial state interest."

Turnout in "purely local elections is not a consequential state concern," Janet Callahan, McMahon's attorney, said in one exchange.

"How is maximizing voter participation not a substantial state concern?" Judge Jenny Rivera countered.

Callahan contended control of local elections — including ability to set dates — was embedded in a section of the state constitution granting county rights and could be altered only by a constitutional amendment.

Interjecting, Judge Anthony Cannataro asked: "Are there any other statutes that’s true of" other than election law?

"Off the top of my head, I’m not sure, frankly, your honor," Callahan replied.

"It seems striking that there aren’t any other examples to cite," Judge Caitlin Halligan said.

At another point, Judge Michael Garcia, the lone Republican on the court, noted that a section of the constitution Republicans rely on doesn’t address terms of local offices expressly but another section does.

Angelo Genova, an attorney representing Blakeman, contended the section Garcia cited didn’t apply to all counties, depending on whether they had charters. In part because of the unevenness, Genova called the law "clearly unconstitutional."

But Judge Madeline Singas jumped in to say Genova was taking a "roundabout" view, "asking us to ignore" the section that expressly discusses terms of office and give more credence to a section that "implies" county control.

The court typically takes at least four weeks to issue a decision after oral arguments, though the timetable could be accelerated because of this year’s pending elections.

By Yancey Roy

yancey.roy@newsday.com@yanceyroy