After a contentious challenge of Clarkstown’s election map redistricting by Councilmen Patrick Carroll and Frank Borelli, Supreme Court Justice Amy Puerto ruled that the pair failed to support their claims that Supervisor George Hoehmann was employing political gamesmanship in an effort to remove one the councilmen from the Town Board.
In the week following a ruling that upholds Clarkstown’s term limit law, Puerto issued her formal decision that Caroll, Borelli, and Democratic Party Chairman Schenley Vital failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims that the current map—which was approved by the Town Board—is in contravention of state law. Their request for election map revision was also rejected.
In their claim, the councilmen argue that the map is “drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates.”
If the two council members ran for re-election in 2023, the current map would have put them in direct opposition of each other. However, Puerto stands by her ruling.
“In consideration of this claim, the court gives great deference to the legislature and notes it is not the duty of the judiciary to substitute the legislature’s judgment with its own,”
Judge Amy Puerto
Puerto also wrote in her formal decision that “[the councilmen] have not established how they are disfavored by the 2023 map [and] have not met their burden in establishing that the 2023 map does not substantially comply [with state law].”
While Hoehmann was pleased with Puerto’s decision, he was dismayed with the reasoning behind Caroll and Borelli’s argument.
“They offered no facts and just innuendo and politically motivated bias comments […] Their arguments were baseless and insulting. The map was not intended to disenfranchise anyone.”
Judge Maintains Term Limits Ruling
Last week, Puerto ruled to uphold term limits in Clarkstown, a law that was enacted in 2014. Both Borelli and Hoehmann supported the law in 2014, but Hoehmann was vocal in his recent opposition, as he intended to run for another two-year term in November.
Hoehmann was joined by Councilman Donald Franchino and citizen Thomas Foley in challenging the law, taking their case to the New York State Supreme Court on Dec. 22, 2022. In their filing, they argued that the law was vague and that the electorate were not given the opportunity to vote on it. They also stated that the Town Board was within its power to void the law with its recent 3 to 2 vote.
However, Puerto defended her stance in a seven-page decision that outlined the legislative requirements for a supermajority of four votes. In her ruling, she stated that the law enacted in 2014 is legal, and referenced an Appellate Division decision that only allows for a four-month statute of limitations in which to challenge the law.
As per Puerto’s ruling: “The Court finds [Hoehmann, Francino, and Foley’s] claim that the statute imposes a ‘continuing harm’ and therefore not subject to the statute of limitations, unavailing and inapplicable.” The 2014 law maintains Clarkstown as the only New York County government with term limits.
The Outcome in Yonkers
So, in both of the issues of term limits and redistricting, the writing may be on the wall for the similar challenges from Yonkers.
In regards to term limits, this is now the second New York State court to have affirmed that municipal governments may alter term limits without a public referendum. While no official ruling has been delivered by the Westchester Supreme court on the challenge in Yonkers, the differences in fact of that case as compared to Clarkstown and NYC may not be great enough to produce a different outcome.
And while the City Council did concede to an amended version of the council district maps, a challenge and cry of gerrymandering is still underway. The significantly altered sixth Yonkers city council district could come under the microscope of legal eyes. But, the “who” and “how” of the process may matter greater than the “what” of the resulting maps, as Judge Puerto implies.
To those in Yonkers challenging recent legislative action by judicial means, Clarkstown has just twice displayed that these means appear ill-suited for change.
