Every now and then, a judge makes a decision so unwise that it’s impossible to read without burying your face in your hands. Opinion by New York State Judge Jeffrey Pearlman Williams v. New York State Board of Elections That’s the case.
Pearman’s opinion is so inconsistent with the current U.S. Supreme Court approach to racial injustice cases — whose Republican majority opposes nearly all race-conscious laws — that it’s hard to imagine it surviving an appeal.
But the case also gives the court’s Republican majority a tool it can use to accelerate one of its major policy initiatives — stripping away gerrymandering safeguards in the federal Voting Rights Act and allowing red southern states to draw Republican-friendly maps that remain illegal.
For four decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Voting Rights Act to sometimes require minority groups in states with little representation in Congress or state legislatures to draw new legislative maps to elect more candidates of color.
Rules for when states must redraw maps, originally set out in Supreme Court decision Thornburg v. Jingles (1986), they are sufficiently complex to defy succinct summary. However, as a general rule, jingles When a state is residentially segregated and the state’s electorate becomes racially polarized, it usually means that white voters strongly favor candidates from one party, while nonwhite voters favor candidates from another party.
In that case, jingles States can be required to draw additional districts where a racial minority group is in the majority to ensure adequate representation of that group.
Actual effect jingles The problem is that red, majority-white states sometimes have to draw additional black or Latino districts to elect Democrats. As expected, jingles Unpopular with the Supreme Court’s Republican majority. The court is widely expected to reject jingles in something called Louisiana v. Calaisthe judges heard last October.
However, since the court typically does not issue its most controversial rulings until late June, Calle It’s likely that the decline won’t occur until well after the 2026 midterm election cycle begins. So red states want to draw new, more Republican maps but can’t do so for the following reasons jingles — It may not be until the 2028 election cycle that these maps are drawn.
However, williams The case raises a very similar legal issue Calle. And, with Calle, williams “Shadow cases” filed before the Supreme Court are a mix of emergency motions and other matters that judges often decide on very tight timelines.
In other words, by ordering the redistricting of Republican congressional districts, Pearman gave the Supreme Court’s Republican majority a case they could use to get out of trouble. jingles That’s months ahead of schedule — potentially giving several red states time to redraw their maps before the 2026 midterm elections get underway in full force.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a brief to the judge that her district is in the heart of New York state. williamsThe Supreme Court is also being urged to embrace a dubious legal theory that would give Republican judges sweeping authority over federal election-related legal disputes arising under state law. Currently, state law issues are decided by state courts rather than the U.S. Supreme Court.
So what are the specific legal issues? williams?
Malliotakis’ district includes Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn. The district leans significantly to the right — Malliotakis won the 2024 race with 64% of the vote — but Democrats could win in an unusually strong election year. Former New York Rep. Max Rose won the district in 2018 but lost his 2020 re-election bid to Malliotakis.
Pearman’s opinion concluded that the district must be redrawn by the state Redistricting Commission because, as currently configured, it violates a provision of the New York Constitution that closely follows the federal Voting Rights Act.
But Pearman’s interpretation of this provision of the state constitution was more radical than the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, even when the Supreme Court had an affirmative vote.jingles most. exist bartlett v. strickland (2009), the Supreme Court held that jingles States were not required to draw new “crossover districts,” allowing minority voters to combine their votes with like-minded white voters for candidates of their choice.
Still, Pillman argued that the New York Constitution went further than the Voting Rights Act and that Malliotakis’ district must be redrawn as a cross-district district. The practical effect of this decision was to transform this fairly red district into a Democratic-leaning district, since voters of color in New York tend to prefer Democratic candidates to Republican candidates.
But even if Pearman is correct that New York law requires crossing districts, and even if federal law does not do so, his decision has little chance of surviving an encounter with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s Republican majority is generally skeptical of any legal theory that would require redrawing legislative districts to change their racial makeup — which is why they’re expected to be thrown out jingles exist Calle case. Pearman’s ruling was based on the premise that New York law requires state courts to redraw at least some legislative districts on racial grounds, even though federal law does not require that outcome. It’s hard to imagine a legal argument that would better enrage the Supreme Court’s Republican majority.
New York’s own courts are likely to rule williams The case ended before the Supreme Court could rule. Malliotakis also asked a state appeals court to intervene, saying that if that court blocked Pearman’s order, there would be no need for a federal judge to step in.
But if state courts don’t act quickly — Malliotakis asked the Supreme Court to step in by Feb. 23 to prevent Pearman’s order from disrupting the upcoming primary and general election — then the Supreme Court is likely to reject Pearman’s approach. In a worst-case scenario for Democrats, the Supreme Court ruling could be overturned jingleswhich would give many red states the freedom to draw gerrymandered maps for the 2026 elections that would be illegal under current law.
In other words, the New York judge’s decision will increase Democratic representation in Congress, which could have the ironic effect of: republican Representative in the United States House of Representatives.
Malliotakis also asked the court to accept a legal theory that has been repeatedly rejected
Malliotakis’ brief to the judge also proposed a different solution williams This would significantly expand Republican control of federal elections. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected this theory, known as the “separate state legislatures” theory, for more than a century.
This was done recently Moore v. Harper (2023), after retired military leaders warned judges against embracing the separate state legislative bodies theory because it “undermines the integrity of elections and exacerbates threats to national security at home and abroad.”
However, although Moore largely overturned the theory of independent state legislatures Moore The opinion also takes an ominous line that the Supreme Court may exercise greater power over federal elections at a future date. The line asserts that “state courts may not extend beyond the scope of ordinary judicial review so as to unconstitutionally infringe upon roles reserved exclusively to state legislatures.” Malliotakis claimed that Pearman’s decision grossly misrepresented the New York Constitution and should be cited by the Supreme Court Moore and rejects Pillman’s interpretation of New York law.
If the court did that, it would be a constitutional earthquake. Typically, each state’s highest court has the final say on issues of state law. Overruling state courts on such matters would eliminate checks and balances on federal power and turn judges into the final arbiters of nearly all disputes involving federal elections.
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority — the same Republicans who ruled that President Donald Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution — could overturn state election procedures and even second-guess federal election results that are decided under state law.
Democrats should hope New York appeals court rules williams disappear. By making a dubious decision in favor of Democrats, Pearman gave the Republican Supreme Court a powerful weapon with which to elect more Republicans.