NEW CITY, NY – The ongoing legal battle between Rockland County and the State of New York is set to escalate as the County’s lawsuit challenging recent changes to the state’s election laws will soon be heard by New York State Supreme Court Justice Gerald Neri.
This lawsuit, initiated by County Attorney Thomas Humbach on behalf of Rockland County and County Executive Ed Day, aims to preserve the long-standing tradition of holding local elections in odd-numbered years, a practice the new state legislation seeks to eliminate.
Last year, Governor Kathy Hochul signed a controversial bill that mandates local government elections, including those for county executives, legislatures, and town and village officials, to be held in even-numbered years, aligning them with high-profile presidential and gubernatorial races. This change, according to the county, threatens to overshadow local issues and diminish the focus on community-specific concerns, as they could be lost amidst the noise of larger, more expensive campaigns.
“This law is another attempt to override local charters, laws, and control in a home rule state,” stated County Executive Ed Day, emphasizing the critical role local governments play in managing essential services such as drinking water, social services, zoning, and public safety. “We have a constitutional right to say how our local officials are chosen.”
The lawsuit, supported by other municipalities including Orange, Rensselaer, Onondaga, Nassau, and Dutchess counties, argues that the state’s new law undermines the principle of home rule. County Attorney Thomas Humbach criticized the rationale behind the legislation, which claims that New Yorkers are too “exhausted” and “confused” by annual elections. Humbach pointed out that the solution proposed by the state—a longer and more complex ballot every other year—would, in fact, place a greater burden on voters.
Moreover, the Rockland County Board of Elections has expressed unanimous concern that the new law would result in higher election costs, a factor that further complicates the already contentious issue.
With the state’s reply brief due by August 30, 2024, the legal proceedings are set to continue with oral arguments expected to take place in September.