Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, along with voters and New York election officials, asked the Supreme Court to allow the state to proceed with 2026 elections using its existing congressional map after a state court ordered redistricting of her district.
The legal challenge stems from a Jan. 21 ruling by Justice Jeffrey Pearlman of the New York State Supreme Court, who determined that the current boundaries of New York's 11th Congressional District violate the state constitution by diluting the votes of Black and Latino residents. The district, which encompasses Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn, is the only congressional district in New York City represented by a Republican.
Pearlman prohibited the state from using the current map in upcoming elections and instructed the state's independent redistricting commission to complete a new map by Feb. 6. The ruling came after a group of voters filed suit in October 2025, arguing that the district's boundaries failed to provide Black and Latino voters with an equal opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.
The demographic composition of Staten Island has shifted significantly, with Black and Latino residents now comprising approximately 30% of the population while white voters have decreased to 56%. The plaintiffs contended that despite this demographic change, the current district boundaries continue to dilute minority voting power.
Malliotakis, who joined the lawsuit to defend the existing map, argued that the state court's decision would force New York "to adopt an unconstitutional racial gerrymander." She contended that redrawing district lines based primarily on racial considerations would violate federal constitutional principles by sorting voters based on race.
Peter Kosinski, a Republican co-chair of the state's board of elections, supported Malliotakis's position and warned of potential electoral disruption. He told the court that failure to stay the lower court's ruling "by February 23, 2026, New York's congressional elections will be thrown into chaos and uncertainty."
The timing of the dispute adds urgency to the Supreme Court appeal. With the 2026 election cycle approaching, state officials face competing deadlines for candidate filing periods, ballot preparation, and voter registration processes. Any significant delay in resolving the redistricting question could complicate election administration across the state.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between state voting rights protections and federal constitutional limits on race-conscious redistricting. While the Voting Rights Act and state constitutional provisions often require consideration of minority voting strength, federal courts have imposed restrictions on using race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines.
New York's redistricting process has been particularly contentious in recent cycles. The state established an independent redistricting commission following voter approval of a constitutional amendment, but the commission's role and authority have been subjects of ongoing legal disputes.
Malliotakis and Kosinski initially sought relief from state appellate courts before turning to the Supreme Court. The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. An intermediate appellate court has not yet acted on their request for a stay.
Under state law, filing an appeal automatically stayed the portion of Pearlman's order directing the redistricting commission to create a new map. However, the prohibition on using the current map for elections remains in effect, creating the potential administrative complications that Republican officials cite in their Supreme Court filing.
The 11th Congressional District has been represented by Malliotakis since 2021, when she defeated Democratic incumbent Max Rose. The district has traditionally been considered more conservative than other New York City congressional districts, but demographic changes and shifting voting patterns have increased its competitiveness.
The Supreme Court's response to the emergency application could provide guidance on the balance between state voting rights enforcement and federal constitutional constraints on redistricting. The justices have previously addressed similar tensions in cases involving both majority-minority districts and claims of racial gerrymandering.
If the Supreme Court declines to intervene, New York would need to proceed with creating new district boundaries while managing the compressed timeline for election preparation. State officials would face the challenge of ensuring that any new map complies with both state constitutional requirements and federal voting rights protections while avoiding impermissible racial gerrymandering.
The outcome could influence redistricting disputes in other states where demographic changes and voting rights considerations intersect with constitutional constraints on race-conscious districting. As states continue to grapple with evolving demographics and legal standards, the balance between protecting minority voting rights and avoiding racial gerrymandering remains a complex legal question with significant political implications.