On December 12, 2023, the New York State Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) handed down a decision that could have a major impact on politics in the Empire State and across the country. In Matter of Anthony S. Hoffmann v. New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court of Appeals ordered the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to redraw New York’s twenty-six congressional districts and submit the new district maps to the state legislature by February 28, 2024.

The congressional districts at issue were drawn by a trial court with the assistance of a special master in 2022, after the Court of Appeals invalidated the state legislature-drawn congressional district map in Harkenrider v. Hochul. The court struck down the map for violating the New York Constitution’s anti-gerrymandering provisions[2] and redistricting procedural requirements.[3]

The 2022 round of congressional redistricting in the Empire State was the first since New York voters approved an anti-gerrymandering amendment to the state’s constitution in 2014.[4] This amendment prohibited partisan gerrymandering in drawing congressional districts and established a new process—which included the newly created, bipartisan IRC—for drawing districts.[5] In the Hoffmann decision, the majority held that the 2014 amendment was intended to limit the use of court-drawn congressional and state legislative maps like the one at issue,[6] and that court-drawn maps are only to be used on a temporary, remedial basis.[7] The court-drawn districts at issue were, therefore, interim and not to be used for the whole decade through the 2030 census.[8]

The Hoffmann majority grounded its decision in “[a] simple and straightforward proposition” that “[t]he plain text of the 2014 amendments to the Constitution places express limitations on court-drawn maps.”[9] Specifically, the majority reasoned that after the 2014 amendments were enacted, “New York courts no longer have the blanket authority to create decade-long redistricting plans,” and that “the Constitution now limits court-drawn redistricting to the minimum required to remedy a violation of law.”[10] On the other hand, the dissent and appellants interpreted the 2014 amendments to read as if the “IRC process ‘shall govern except if a court orders the adoption of, or changes to, a redistricting plan.’”[11] But the majority rejected this rationale.[12]

To remedy this violation of the procedural redistricting requirements of the New York Constitution, the majority in Hoffmann, led by Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and joined by Judges Jenny Rivera, Shirley Troutman, and Dianne Renwick,[13] held that the process of drawing congressional districts must return to the IRC and the state legislature.[14] Congressional maps produced by this process will be used until the post-2030 census round of redistricting. In its decision, the Hoffmann majority gave the IRC until February 28, 2024, to deliver newly drawn congressional maps to the state legislature.[15] The IRC subsequently submitted its new congressional maps, but the state legislature rejected the maps and proposed its own on February 27, 2024.[16] The state legislature approved those maps, and Governor Hochul signed them into law on February 28, 2024.[17]

Finally, the Hoffmann majority rejected the argument that this proceeding was untimely and barred by the doctrine of laches. The statute of limitations on a proceeding such as this is four months from the governmental body’s refusal to act.[18] Some appellants argued that the proceeding was barred because they believed the claim accrued when the IRC announced its deadlock on January 24, 2022. But according to the majority, the four-month statute of limitations began to run when the petitioners filed their complaint and the IRC subsequently refused to act.[19] Thus the statute of limitations had not expired when this proceeding was commenced on June 28, 2022. Additionally, this was, according to the majority, only two months after the Court of Appeals’ Harkenrider decision and, therefore, did not violate the doctrine of laches.[20]

The three dissenting judges in Hoffmann, led by Judge Anthony Cannataro and joined by Judges Michael Garcia and Madeline Singas, argued that the congressional maps adopted for the 2022 general election were intended to be used until the next round of redistricting.[21] With regard to the procedural violation of the constitution the majority found in Harkenrider, the Hoffmann dissenters argued that it was remedied by the court-ordered map that was used in the 2022 general election.[22] That map, according to the dissenting judges, was not just an interim map. Had the map only been intended to be used for the 2022 congressional election, the Harkenrider decision would surely have noted that it was only a temporary solution.[23] Furthermore, the dissenting judges argued that the mid-decade redistricting that the majority is now ordering is expressly prohibited by the redistricting amendment to the state constitution that was approved by the voters of New York in 2014.[24]

The dissenting judges also argued that the practical effects of the Hoffmann decision are undesirable and contrary to the language and intention of the 2014 redistricting constitutional amendment. The dissenters argued the Hoffmann decision will open the door to another substantive challenge to the new maps, followed by the potential invalidation of that map for violating the anti-gerrymandering provisions of the state constitution, and another judicially-imposed map.[25] This, the dissenters argued, does not adhere to the intentions of the 2014 redistricting amendment or the 2022 Harkenrider decision.

The intention of the 2014 amendment, the dissenters argued, was to prevent partisan gerrymandering in redistricting and create competitive congressional races in New York State.[26] According to the dissenting judges, these intentions were manifested in the 2022 court-ordered map, which resulted in some of the most hotly contested races in the country. In contrast with the court-ordered map, the prior draft map drawn by the state legislature in 2022—which was ultimately invalidated as unconstitutional and replaced by the court-ordered map—would have resulted in some of the least competitive House races in the country.[27]

Finally, the Hoffmann dissenters disagreed with the majority’s analysis on the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. While every judge agreed that the applicable statute of limitations is four months, the dissenting judges argued that this began to run earlier than the majority held it does, making the petitioners’ filing of this proceeding untimely.[28] Furthermore, the dissenting judges argued that political gamesmanship contributed to the delayed filing of the Hoffmann proceeding. They claimed that the petitioners only filed this proceeding when it was clear that the map they desired—the map drawn by the state legislature—would be found unconstitutional.[29]

Because of its potential to determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Hoffmann decision generated tremendous public interest immediately after it was decided. Democratic attorneys and elected officials, including New York State Governor Kathy Hochul, praised the Hoffmann decision, while Republicans, including New York Republican State Committee Chairman Ed Cox and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, strongly criticized it.[30] Many speculate that several Republican-held House seats in New York will now be extremely competitive because of the Hoffmann decision. Given the current narrow majority in the House, this decision may determine which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2024 elections.[31]

[1] Hoffmann v. N.Y. State Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 234 N.E.3d 1002 (N.Y. 2023).

[2] Harkenrider v. Hochul, 197 N.E.3d 437 (N.Y. 2022).

[3] Id. at 451.

[4] Hoffmann, 234 N.E.3d at 1009.

[5] Id. at 1008.

[6] Id. at 1012.

[7] Id. at 1016.

[8] Id. at 1017.

[9] Id. at 1012.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 1035. Judge Halligan took no part in the decision.

[14] Id. at 1021.

[15] Id. at 1009.

[16] Luke Parsons, New York Democrats Introduce New Congressional Maps After Rejecting Redistricting Commission's Latest Proposal, State of Politics (Feb. 27, 2024), https://nystateofpolitics.com/state-of-politics/new-york/politics/2024/02/27/new-york-democrats-introduce-new-congressional-maps.

[17] Luke Parsons, Hochul Signs New York Legislature's Own Set of New Congressional Maps into Law, Spectrum News 1 (Feb. 28, 2024), https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2024/02/28/new-york-legislature-passes-new-congressional-maps.

[18] Hoffmann, 234 N.E.3d at 1017.

[19] Id at 1017-18.

[20] Id. at 1018.

[21] Id. at 1031.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at 1033.

[25] Id. at 1034.

[26] Id. at 1023.

[27] Id. at 1034

[28] Id. at 1029.

[29] Id. at 1028.

[30] Nicholas Fandos, Top Court Clears Path for Democrats to Redraw House Map in New York, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/nyregion/new-york-redistricting-democrats.html.

[31] Melissa Quinn, Here Are the Redistricting Disputes Shaping the Battle for House Control, CBS News (Dec. 26, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/redistricting-states-house-congress-control/.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].