NY law to shield minority voting clout is upheld on appeal, reversing Orange County ruling
A 2022 New York law aimed at protecting minority voting clout in local elections was upheld on Thursday in a reversal of a ruling that found it unconstitutional.
The appeals court decision focused on part of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act that prompted lawsuits last year against two Hudson Valley towns — Newburgh in Orange County, and Mount Pleasant in Westchester County — by groups of minority voters. Both cases are seeking ward-based elections for town board to give Black and Latino voters a better chance of representation.
A state judge in Orange County dealt the plaintiffs a setback in November by declaring the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as attorneys for the town of Newburgh had argued.
But that reasoning was picked apart and rejected in a 22-page opinion by a four-judge panel for the Appellate Division in Brooklyn, delivered on Thursday.
The panel also tossed out other aspects of the decision in November by state Supreme Court Justice Maria Vazquez-Doles in Orange County. The appeals court found she had no basis to declare the entire law invalid — not just the disputed part — and claim that her ruling affected all of New York.
Struck down: Judge strikes down NY law meant to open path to elect minorities to local boards
The reversal effectively revives the lawsuits in both Orange County and in Westchester, which were on hold until a higher court ruled on the validity of the voting rights law. The courts may now take up the question of whether the towns are violating that law and how any violations should be addressed.
The town of Newburgh could ask the Court of Appeals — New York's highest court — to rule on the law's constitutionality. Town Supervisor Gil Piaquadio said on Thursday that town officials haven't had a chance to discuss that possibility with their attorneys.
Chris McKenna covers government and politics for The Journal News and USA Today Network. Reach him at cmckenna@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: NY minority voting clout protection law found valid by appeals court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Pride mattered when it was 'our' holiday. There's nothing to be proud of now.
Pride mattered when it was 'our' holiday. There's nothing to be proud of now. | Your Turn Do you think it's important to have a Pride Month? Are you concerned the Trump administration may try to further infringe upon the rights of LGBTQ+ people? Here's what you said. You've likely heard the phrase, "Pride started as a riot." And while it's true that pride as we know it grew out of the Stonewall Uprising of June 1969 – the first pride parade took place one year later on June 28, 1970, with protest marches occurring in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles – LGBTQ+ history is still unfolding today. Did you know it was still illegal to be gay as recently as 22 years ago? In 2003, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized same-sex sexual conduct, ruling state sodomy laws as unconstitutional. And it wasn't until 10 years ago, in 2015, that full marriage equality arrived with the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. And it wasn't until 2020 – five years ago – that the Supreme Court ruled protections against workplace discrimination extended to sexual orientation and gender identity. Under President Donald Trump's second administration, LGBTQ+ rights are back in the spotlight as he issues executive orders banning transgender military servicemembers and rescinding funding from educational institutions that allow trans athletes to compete in sports. So far in 2025, more than 500 bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community have been introduced across America. As Pride Month 2025 gets underway across the country (albeit with fewer corporate sponsors), we asked what pride means to you – not just the parades, protests and community, but also your feelings, fears and hopes – and whether it can continue to exist in its current form. Here's what readers told us. Share your take: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? Tell us. | Opinion Forum I'm saddened by what pride ‒ and our country ‒ has become Pride Month was extraordinarily significant to me when it was "our" holiday, until about 15-20 years ago. Since then, it has become a politically divisive public spectacle that is nothing to be proud of. All the corporate trucks and vans with no apparent association to our community, driving slowly down the parade route without even decorating their vehicles, are extravagantly insulting. Recently, there have been more gawking straight families in attendance than LGBTQ+ people. I'm not at all disappointed with the businesses that are no longer participating in pride events. Their duplicitous "support" only benefited themselves. Our pride is not a commodity, despite the ignorance of younger LGBTQ+ people. When Pride Month was new in Houston, every business in the Montrose neighborhood closed for the duration of the parade, even the bars. Andy Mills and Ray Hill assumed risks to their lives to direct us participants in the parade down Westheimer Road. They tolerated police raids, arrests and physical abuse by the cops for living authentic lives. They protected marchers from the Ku Klux Klan that threatened us about 40 years ago. Young community members are completely unaware that this is not a frivolous observation. My wife and I have been exclusively committed for 33 years. In June 2015, the Supreme Court declared our marriage rights and we married the following week. We're in our 70s now and poor. But we're so fearful of President Donald Trump annulling our union that we're selling everything we own to move to Mexico. We have made two frugal trips and now have official Mexican residency cards. We anticipate leaving for good on June 8, the day after my best friend's funeral. We hope never, ever to return. To the younger LGBTQ+ community: Please educate yourselves. There are only a few of us who were there in the beginning, but we'll be happy to share our information. And the fact is that we feel thoroughly disrespected by you. — Jazz Paz, 73, Houston Pride is so much more than rainbows and parades to me Without a doubt, Pride Month is important, and it means so much more to me than rainbows and parades. From an outside view, it's easy to look at pride as a corporate-centered, rehearsed display of disingenuous virtue signaling. To those of us in the community, that skin-deep assumption is lobbed at us every June. Pride to me, however, means acceptance. It means reflecting on the endless strife for equality ‒ in marriage, in employment, in housing and in spousal rights. We're celebrating how far we've come, but we're also rallying for the future and the challenges our community still faces. Corporations and their involvement in Pride Month have long been controversial. Many in our community welcome the awareness, visibility and donations to LGBTQ+ causes. However, others see corporate sponsoring as a market scheme to cash out on our community and its allies by slapping some rainbows on merchandise for a month or making a cliché social media post advertising their support every first of June. Your Turn: I think the WNBA's popularity is here to stay – thanks to Caitlin Clark | Opinion Forum Indeed, the reversal of several companies this year, deciding that pride is no longer profitable to them during this political climate, has shown just how shallow their sponsorship was all along. When they were given the chance to prove that those who were always skeptical of corporate support of pride were wrong, they didn't hesitate to bend the knee to bigotry and prove the pessimists correct. The very crux of Trump's second presidency has been to target minorities, whether it be us, racial minorities, the undocumented and many more. I think it's important to point out that just six years ago, Trump was declaring his support for Pride Month on Twitter during his first term. His administration's actions, back then, proved to be the opposite of supporting the LGBTQ+ community, but he still had the gall to at least pretend he cared about us. Now, Trump wouldn't dare even mention Pride Month in a positive light because the fringe conservative wing he aligns himself with has grown so hateful and obsessed with LGBTQ+ issues that showing any shred of kindness to us would be worthy of excommunication to them. I would be dumbfounded if the federal government recognized Pride Month during this administration. Cruelty, brashness and classlessness highlight the priorities of this administration. None of these are compatible with pride or what we stand for, so it's easy to see why it's an absolute no for them. Marginalization and apathy are all that Trump and his allies know. My questions to the older LGBTQ+ generations would be: How have you remained so resilient? — Jacob Vertrees, 21, Phoenix My partner and I won't be at Pride Month. I fear for those who will. I used to think pride was important, but I think that pride, and a lot of other gay events, have been overshadowed by the prevalence and acceptance of drugs in the LGBTQ+ community. Although we have in the past, my partner and I won't be attending this year, specifically because of this. I think sponsors are pulling out because they don't want to be associated with what it has become. It took an alarming amount of time for permits to be approved for WorldPride in Washington, DC. I am expecting them to arrest people who congregate on federal lands. — David Thibodeau, 64, Washington, DC This is just my 2nd Pride Month out. It feels like finally exhaling. I think Pride Month's importance cannot be overstated enough. To me, pride means visibility, courage and, most important, joy. It's the exhale of built-up closeted anxiety and fears finally being able to be truly released among a community of those who not only accept you for who you are, but also celebrate it. This will be just my second Pride Month where I'm publicly out, and my grandfather is a gay man who had to live in shame and had the courage to finally come out in the 1980s while his friends died suddenly of AIDS. Pride is also about honoring those who came before us, who paved the way for our freedom. I absolutely think corporations and businesses have a role in pride. With such a large, influential monetary impact on society amid a backdrop of volatile and dangerous political rhetoric, corporations have a responsibility and moral obligation to support heritage events like Pride Month. Corporations can make a very powerful impact, which can not only change the lives of those who are struggling but also help boost their own success and productivity. Diversity makes things run smoothly and work better. Trump is not shy about his direct homophobia, transphobia and attacks against the LGBTQ+ community. His putrid policies, hateful rhetoric and unconstitutional directives purport baseless attacks on the community that do not affect him in any way. If corporations, organizations, communities, lawmakers and individuals do not stand up, mobilize and advocate, we could see our country fall back in time where something as simple as being yourself is punishable by law. With right-wing extremists at the helm, there is no telling what their next move will be. Would it be surprising? Not at all. But we have the responsibility ‒ as queer people, and those who are allies ‒ to stand up and not allow that to happen. Shunning our pride federally will not and cannot stop celebrations; that's how they win. How can we rise together to combat this hatred? — Gillian Gurney, 26, New York City I'm an educator. I see how meaningful pride is to marginalized students. As an educator, I realize that marginalized students face daily criticism from false stereotypes, misguided religious zealots and even their parents. Pride Month is not some "liberal" plot. It is a month to recognize marginalized citizens in our society. If we can have Mother's Day, Veterans Day and other events to recognize specific groups, it seems the only ones who dispute helping subgroups are the intolerant haters. Yes to helping anyone in the United States who needs help, not ignoring or hating them. Since the war on diversity, equity and inclusion began with Project 2025's hope of making America more white-male centric, many American citizens have rejected this arrogant, racist theory. Businesses like Target and Tesla are losing financially and in public opinion. The Trump administration's goal is to keep the American culture wars as inflamed as possible to deflect from gross mismanagement by Elon Musk and the Republican budget cuts to health care that will decimate senior citizens who rely on Social Security and Medicare for their survival. Sounds a bit like North Korea, does it not? Why does a mostly white male administration need to target specific communities? Trump is the least Christian president ever; sleeping with a porn star while your wife is pregnant is not found in the New Testament. — Neil Reilly, 57, Sacramento, California
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
As Trump's deportation push gains momentum, Canada proposes tougher border restrictions
Advertisement 'It's deeply discouraging and, frankly, scary to see the government going down this path,' Sande said. Carney's move comes in the wake of a recent US Supreme Court decision that Canada, and French-speaking Quebec in particular, has long been an attractive choice for members of Greater Boston's large Haitian community. And after the high court cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport them, many were considering relocating to Canada, according to Jeff Thielman, chief executive of the International Institute of New England. The actions on either side of the border leave them and other immigrants in a quandary. 'If our country isn't going to be welcoming, which is a travesty, then maybe Canada can be welcoming. And if Canada says no to them, then what do we do?' said Thielman, whose organization serves refugees and immigrants in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 'Seriously, there's no place for them to go — and it's not fair to them.' Advertisement Since taking office, Trump has sought to end a variety of programs enabling citizens of certain countries to take refuge in the U.S., but lower courts have slowed his efforts. In May, the Supreme Court In a more recent decision, the Supreme Court Canadian officials have worried since Trump's election last year that the looming termination of these programs could lead to an influx of refugees to the north. During the first Trump administration, Advertisement A migrant was searched by a police officer after arriving at the Roxham Road border crossing in Roxham, Quebec, Canada, on March 2, 2023. SEBASTIEN ST-JEAN/AFP via Getty Images So far, evidence of a new surge in northbound migration is mixed. Nationwide, asylum applications processed by Canada so far this year are half those of last year, 14,557 through the first five months of 2024, compared to 31,244 in the same period in 2024, according to the Canada Border Services Agency. But at the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle port of entry, which connects Interstate 87 near the New York-Vermont border with Autoroute 15 in Quebec, officials clocked a dramatic uptick in activity this spring, doubling month-over-month in March and April. Year to date, asylum claims at that crossing — which this year account for more than one-third of such claims in Canada — are up by about 60 percent. The agency declined to provide similar figures for other ports of entry. Rebecca Purdy, a spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency, said the increase in claims at that location has not affected the crossing's operations. She said the government has plans in place to lease additional space in the area to process refugee claims if needed. The most common countries of origin of those claiming asylum at ports of entry this year are Haiti, Venezuela, and the U.S., according to Purdy. Canada's previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, 'What Justin Trudeau said in 2017 really backfired against him,' Béland said. Pandemic-fueled inflation and a growing housing crisis as many refugees were coming to Canada 'led to a backlash,' he said. Advertisement So when Carney, a member of Trudeau's Liberal Party, campaigned to succeed him this spring, he tacked to the center on immigration. And on Tuesday, when Carney's government introduced its first bill, the message was clear. A truck crossed the Peace Bridge at the Canada-US border in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada, on April 2. Laura Proctor/Bloomberg 'A strong border is essential to our national security, to foster safe communities and support our economy,' said Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree at a press conference in Ottawa. The 'It tries to kill at least two birds with one stone,' Béland said. Asked at Tuesday's press conference whether the bill was an attempt to 'appease' the Trump administration, Anandasangaree said he expected it to 'strengthen the relationship with the United States.' 'There are a number of elements in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S., so we are addressing some of those issues,' he said. 'But it's not exclusively about the United States.' Human rights activists have expressed alarm at provisions that would make it harder to seek refuge in Canada. It would prevent those who have been in the country for more than a year to claim asylum, and it would close a loophole Advertisement 'It's this massive expansion of state power that can be used for any purpose,' said Syed Hussan, a spokesperson for Canada's Migrant Rights Network. The Refugee Centre, a Montreal-based nonprofit serving new Canadians, is quick to feel the effects of immigration policy changes on either side of the border. Its clients are most commonly from Haiti and Venezuela at the moment, according to spokesperson Alina Murad, but it hasn't detected a surge in asylum-seekers relocating from the United States. Murad says she understands that citizens of Canada and the U.S. alike 'are hurting and feeling the effects' of inflation and the housing crunch. But she believes people from elsewhere 'are being used as scapegoats.' 'It's not fair to blame refugees and immigrants for bad policies in other areas,' she said. 'These are people who are just trying to get to safety.'
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Is Divided in More Ways Than You'd Think
When Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court during President Trump's first term, originalism found itself in an unfamiliar and challenging position. All three of the court's new members were avowed originalists, holding that judges ought to interpret the Constitution according to the meaning it had when it was ratified. As a result, a majority of the justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, now subscribed to this theory. Originalism, long seen as an insurgent force at the Supreme Court, had become its reigning philosophy. For the originalists on the court, the shift from backbenchers to decision makers brought new responsibilities and presented new difficulties. Problems that had mostly been hypothetical debates within the court's originalist minority became central questions of constitutional law. How readily should an originalist court overturn a precedent at odds with the original meaning of the Constitution? What should an originalist judge do when the original meaning of the Constitution does not fully address a modern dispute? The originalist justices have shown themselves to be divided on these and other questions of constitutional theory. To many critics of the Supreme Court, its majority appears monolithic, but that perception is mistaken. Indeed, the defining challenge for the court's conservatives today is how to maintain a majority to move the law in an originalist direction despite the many theoretical disagreements among them. For originalists such as myself, these fractious dynamics pose the greatest threat to the urgent effort to restore the rule of law that was so badly damaged by the Supreme Court in the 1960s and '70s under Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger. But for all observers of the court, regardless of judicial or political inclination, these disputes are key to understanding its decisions. Originalism in its modern form emerged in the 1970s. The Supreme Court had issued an array of controversial decisions including Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 (requiring an arrestee to be informed of certain rights before being interrogated) and Roe v. Wade in 1973 (holding that there is a right to abortion). To some in the legal academy — and to many in the public — nothing in the text or history of the Constitution seemed to justify these rulings. The court's decisions struck them as arbitrary at best. At worst, in the words of Justice Byron White, who served on both the Warren and Burger courts, they appeared to be an 'exercise of raw judicial power.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
