New York Attorney General Letitia James has made a career out of her crusade against former President Donald Trump. And tomorrow, September 22, a new law takes effect that grants her widespread power over the Empire State’s election process. After campaigning for AG – and winning – on taking down the Donald, can Ms. James be trusted as New York’s arbiter of election integrity?
A Shift in the Balance of Power
Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York in 2022. It includes a new rule requiring certain jurisdictions to request “preclearance” (permission from the attorney general or a designated court) to make election-related changes. According to Joseph T. Burns, an election attorney and partner at the law firm Holtzman Vogel, the changes could include alterations to early voting hours or even removing the names of deceased registrants from the rolls.
Burns warned in an op-ed for the New York Post that this law gives James “unprecedented power over the election process in some of the most hotly contested congressional districts in the nation, including those on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley.” As he explained, the new rule requires “certain counties, cities, towns, villages, and school districts” to get approval for various types of changes. Burns identified four “triggers” that cause a jurisdiction to fall under this rule: violation of the 14th or 15th Amendments, the Federal Voting Rights Act, or the John R. Voting Rights Act of New York. According to a 2023 document published by the AG’s office, any “subdivision which, within the previous 25 years, has become subject to a court order or government action based upon a finding” of any such violation would find itself in need of preclearance in order to enact changes.
That sounds bad. It seems, at face value, to only affect districts that legitimately discriminate against minorities. However, as Burns pointed out, that isn’t always the case. In 2014, Erie County became the subject of a court order involving the 14th Amendment when legislators and executives couldn’t agree on a redistricting plan. Other factors that could lead to an adverse action and render a jurisdiction a “covered entity” might include having too many minority arrests – regardless of the actual crime rate and offender demographics.
Another Weapon in the Anti-Trump Arsenal of Letitia James?
AG Letitia James has been laser focused on taking down Trump. She campaigned on an anti-Trump platform, won, and immediately began investigating the former president. She launched several lawsuits against Trump’s administration and inherited an ongoing state lawsuit when she took office. She then sued him for allegedly deceiving banks, insurers, and others by overvaluing assets and his net worth on financial paperwork. After a judge ruled in her favor, she boasted publicly that she would seize Trump’s assets. An appeals court later granted Trump a bit of a reprieve, allowing him to pay a more manageable fee while waiting for his full appeal. And so, Letitia James was denied the chance to run the former president out of town and out of business.
The ways in which this newfound power could be used against the former president as he runs once again for the highest office in the land are somewhat limited – at least in theory. A jurisdiction that would normally support Trump would have to both have been the target of government action alleging some violation of voting rights and find itself in need of a qualified change. Still, should a pro-Trump change be ordered by such a locality, Ms. James may find herself in the position to be a thorn in Trump’s side once again.
