Top NY court hears oral arguments in suit challenging congressional redistricting

New York’s top court appeared to be as divided as ever Wednesday on a lawsuit seeking to redraw congressional districts in the state, leaving a judge specially appointed to the court for this case as a potential wild card.

The Court of Appeals held oral arguments in Buffalo on a suit filed by Democrats seeking to scrap the current district boundaries and redraw them for 2024.

Republicans — who hold 11 of New York’s 26 seats after gaining four in ’22 — want the court to leave well enough alone.

At stake is not only congressional boundaries in New York but also potentially control of the House of Representatives, which Republicans hold by a scant five seats.

The legal issues involved in the New York lawsuit revolve around a reading of the state constitution and the Court of Appeals' previous involvement in redistricting. It also touches on technicalities about timeliness and grounds for a challenge.

The political handicapping revolves around whether any members of the court changes their minds about last year’s redistricting case or whether a new jurist will be the difference maker.

Just last year, the court — in a 4-3 decision — declared a map drawn by the Democratic-led Legislature was unconstitutionally gerrymandered and effectively handed mapmaking duties to a court-appointed “special master.”

But the author of that decision, former Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, since has retired and it’s uncertain whether the majority might flip this time around.

In their new lawsuit, Democrats contend the special master was a short-term solution to make sure a set of maps was in place for Election Day last year.

Without such a time crunch, the proper process is to order the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission and the State Legislature to come up with new maps — as per the state constitution — the Democratic side contends. A do-over could improve their chances to win back seats on Long Island and the Hudson Valley.

Republicans counter that redistricting, per the constitution, is a once-a-decade process and the 2022 maps must be kept in place unless they violate the law in some way.

In a nearly two-hour proceeding Wednesday, it seemed evident the six returning judges to the court still see the case the same way.

New Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, who moved up from associate to succeed DiFiore, joined colleagues Shirley Troutman and Jenny Rivera in grilling Republican attorneys on why last year’s decision shouldn’t be seen as a short-term fix.

Rivera at one point suggested the court might find the court map “not in accordance with the constitution” since it wasn’t produced by the IRC and State Legislature. Wilson suggested last year’s ruling might not bar the IRC and Legislature from reopening the issue.

In contrast, Judges Madeline Singas, Michael Garcia and Anthony Cannataro — who sided with DiFiore last year — repeatedly put Democratic lawyers on the defensive.

Among other things, Garcia asked whether the appeal was “putting process above substance” by hanging their case on an interpretation on how maps should be drawn rather than the outcome — which was non-gerrymandered districts.

The new and seventh member of the court, Democrat Caitlin Halligan, had recused herself because of ties to one of the lawyers involved.

That put another wrinkle on the case: To ensure an odd-numbered panel, Wilson designated Dianne Renwick, a midlevel appellate judge in New York City, to sit as the seventh judge in this matter.

In the fast-paced question-and-answer style that marks most Court of Appeals arguments, Renwick got in just one question, a technical one that left little clue of how she might view the case.

The Court of Appeals typically takes at least four weeks to issue a decision, although it is possible that the political calendar implications of ordering new maps could motivate a quicker ruling.

If maps are to be redrawn, the process would have to move quickly to get maps in place by spring for congressional candidates to qualify for the June primary. If the maps are late, legal analysts have said it could open the door for Republicans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the redrawing based on timeliness grounds.

By Yancey Roy

yancey.roy@newsday.com@yanceyroy