New York’s Highest Court Upholds Even Year Election Law
By: Joseph T. Burns
In a unanimous decision with major implications for elections in the Empire State, the New York State Court of Appeals has upheld the state’s Even Year Election Law (EYEL), rejecting claims by several local governments that the statute violates the home rule protections of the New York Constitution. The state’s highest court ruled that “there is no express or implied constitutional limitation on the Legislature’s authority to enact the Even Year Election Law,” affirming an Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decision upholding the law.
Enacted in 2023, the EYEL consolidates most elections for county and town officials with even-numbered-year contests for state and federal offices. The Legislature’s stated goal was to reduce voter confusion and increase voter turnout in races for local offices by aligning local elections with the high-turnout cycles typically seen in gubernatorial and presidential election years.
The law in question prohibits local charters from superseding state law on the timing of elections. It exempts constitutional offices, certain local offices with three-year terms, judicial offices, and city offices. To synchronize election cycles, the law shortens the next terms of local elected officials subject to the EYEL. For instance, a town official who would normally run for a two-year term will now run for a one-year term followed by two-year terms.
Counties, including Onondaga and Nassau, along with several towns and individual voters, filed lawsuits contending that the EYEL violates Article IX of the New York Constitution, which protects the right of local governments to adopt and amend their own charters. The counties argued that because Article IX and the Municipal Home Rule Law authorize them to set the “manner of election” and “terms of office” for county officials, the Legislature lacked authority to override those provisions through the EYEL.
In 2024, a Supreme Court Justice in Onondaga County agreed, holding that counties possess a constitutional right to determine the timing of local elections. The court declared the statute unconstitutional and prevented its enforcement. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, however, reversed the trial court earlier this year. It held that the EYEL qualifies as a general law and that the measure serves a legitimate statewide interest in encouraging voter turnout and participation.
Writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals, Judge Michael Garcia affirmed the Fourth Department and upheld the law. Garcia’s opinion offers a thorough historical survey of home rule in New York, tracing the evolution of local self-government from the 1777 and 1846 constitutions through the 1963 amendment of Article IX.
While recognizing that the home rule provisions were meant to support local governments handling local concerns, the Court reaffirmed that the state remains the “preeminent sovereign of New York.” Local authority exists only to the extent delegated by the state constitution and state legislature.
The Court rejected the argument that counties have a constitutional right to set their own election timing or terms of office. Those powers, the Court emphasized, are statutory, not constitutional:
“Only the right to form an alternative form of government is guaranteed by section 1(h)(1), that right does not implicitly include a right to set terms of office or timing of elections….”
The Court further held that the EYEL is a valid general law because it applies to all local governments except those exempted for permissible reasons and that Article IX’s “savings clause” does not prevent the state legislature from later superseding local provisions. In short, nothing in the Constitution limits the state’s power to regulate the timing of local elections.
A group of individual voters also challenged the EYEL, alleging that consolidating local elections with higher-profile state and federal contests would cause “voter fatigue,” longer ballots, and a decreased focus on local issues. Applying the Anderson/Burdick balancing test, the Court found any burden on voters to be minimal and justified by the “State’s legitimate and substantial interest in increasing voter turnout and reducing confusion.”
The Even Year Election Law decision cements Albany’s supremacy over local governments in matters of election administration and election timing and substantially narrows the scope of New York’s home rule protections. Although Article IX was designed to provide protections for local governments, the decision appears to view home rule as a grant of authority from state government rather than a source of power granted by the state constitution and beyond the reach of Albany.
Critics will likely claim that the ruling effectively strips county charters of constitutional significance. By confirming that the state legislature may alter the timing of most local elections, the Court has signaled that local self-government in New York will be subordinate to Albany’s policy preferences. Supporters of the EYEL, however, will argue that the decision promotes efficiency in election administration, reduces voter confusion, and advances the state’s long-standing and well-established goal of enhancing voter participation in local elections. Given that the EYEL will impact those local officials who are elected in less than one-month, New Yorkers are likely to see the practical and political implications of the law in the very near future.
