Before adjourning for the year, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that could significantly reshape how many New Yorkers elect Justices of the New York State Supreme Court. The measure, if signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul, would create two new judicial districts and redraw the lines of three existing ones within the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

The proposal affects the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Judicial Districts, each of which currently includes one urban county (Onondaga, Monroe, and Erie, respectively) along with a broader ring of rural counties. The bill would separate those urban centers into standalone districts while consolidating the rural counties into two newly configured districts. Specifically:

• Erie County would become its own district (the 8th district);
• Monroe County would become its own district (the 7th district);
• Onondaga County would become the new 14th Judicial District;
• The remaining rural counties from the original 5th, 7th, and 8th districts would be part of a newly configured 5th district and a brand-new 15th district.

This reorganization would bring the total number of judicial districts in the State of New York from 13 to 15.

The measure passed each house of the state legislature in June on near party-line votes, with Democratic lawmakers backing the bill and Republicans unified in opposition. The partisan divide reflects deep disagreement over the bill’s intent and likely effects.

Proponents argue the changes are needed to increase racial and ethnic diversity on the Supreme Court bench. They point to longstanding challenges in electing minority candidates from the current districts that combine urban and rural populations. By isolating Erie, Monroe, and Onondaga Counties—three urban areas with more racially diverse populations—supporters contend minority candidates will have a much better chance of being elected to the Supreme Court.

Opponents, however, argue that the measure is a thinly veiled power grab designed to strengthen Democratic control over key judicial elections. Rural counties in the current configuration provide a counterweight to the urban Democratic counties, allowing Supreme Court elections in these districts to be competitive. By radically changing the configuration of these judicial districts, critics contend, the legislature is creating districts that will likely never elect a Republican Supreme Court Justice. Opponents also point out that the Office of Court Administration has not requested or supported this reorganization, and that no compelling judicial-administrative need has ever been articulated.

In New York, Supreme Court Justices serve 14-year terms and are elected in partisan, judicial district-based elections. However, unlike most partisan offices in the state, candidates for the Supreme Court are not nominated in primary elections. Instead, they are selected at judicial nominating conventions, where each party’s judicial delegates select their party’s judicial nominees.

This system was the subject of a constitutional challenge in New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the judicial convention system violated the First Amendment rights of voters and candidates. While both the district court and Second Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and found the nomination process to be unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the system may be an unwise system, it was not unconstitutional.

While the judicial reorganization bill does not alter this convention-based nomination process, it does shift the underlying political dynamics of these Supreme Court races. In the new districts based in Erie, Monroe, and Onondaga Counties, where Democratic voters significantly outnumber Republican voters, the real competition for the bench may shift from the general election to the Democrats’ judicial nominating conventions.

As of mid-July, the bill had not yet been delivered to Governor Hochul for her signature or veto. Its fate remains uncertain. Hochul herself hails from Erie County and will very likely come under pressure from both sides of the debate. Should she sign the bill, it would mark one of the most monumental reorganizations of New York’s judiciary in recent memory. Should she veto the bill, Hochul will likely earn praise from the proposal’s critics for stopping the politicization of the state’s judiciary.

The implications of this bill go far beyond the administration of the court system. Attorneys, court-watchers, and political junkies across the state will be watching closely to see how it all unfolds.