you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.

State courts are increasingly at the center of legal and political battles over electoral districts. In the past two weeks, there have been several major state rulings related to mid-decade redistricting efforts. And now, following a Supreme Court ruling, southern states have passed maps. louisiana vs curry The decision has sparked a new wave of lawsuits. The situation is as follows.

The biggest news in the country is virginiathe state Supreme Court blocked a constitutional amendment that would have allowed Democrats in the state Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional maps. The court’s 4-3 decision came after the amendment had already been passed, and just as several Southern states were drawing new maps after enacting their constitutions.chalice. The decision sparked sharp criticism and muddied expectations regarding the midterm elections.

As Steptoe’s Laura Niday explains in an article, the legal issues before the court were related to the state constitutional amendment process. state court report analysis. Virginia’s constitutional amendment process is relatively difficult. The amendment must be passed by the state Legislature and passed again after the next general election before it goes to voters.

The problem was that 1.3 million Virginians had already voted for General Assembly candidates, and the amendment was first passed during early voting for the October 2025 general election. The court ruled that this early voting period was part of the general election, meaning that the necessary intervening election had not occurred prior to the second passage of the amendment.

In its reasoning, the court focused on the purpose behind the amendment: to give Virginia an opportunity to consider the amendment during a vote by its legislators, who would have to pass it twice. If Congress passes an amendment after early voting has already begun, those who voted before it passed will be denied the opportunity. Opponents argued that the court was expanding the meaning of elections in a way that contradicts both federal and state law.

The court also addressed the reason for waiting to rule until after the referendum. The lawsuit pointed to long-standing state precedent that courts can intervene only at the end of the amendment process, as well as Virginia’s own position in cases where the state has argued the courts must wait. The court’s ruling means Virginians will vote this year based on the state’s existing congressional map, but it could also lead to a new effort to change the constitution for 2028.

in missourithe state Supreme Court issued two redistricting decisions last week rejecting efforts to block the use of new congressional maps passed in 2025. Maggard vs. Statethe court rejected a bid to halt the use of the map until voters had a chance to consider a referendum to overturn it. Plaintiffs relied on the right to vote in the Missouri Constitution. The referendum gives Missourians the right to approve or reject acts of the state Legislature, and provides that only the challenged measures go into effect. rear Voters approve it. The state argued that the provision had not yet been triggered because the referendum had been submitted to the Secretary of State, but the signatures had not yet been certified.

The plaintiffs argued that the only way to accomplish the state constitution’s voting rights purpose was to automatically suspend the maps pending signature review by the Secretary of State. There remained a hint that the Secretary of State was slowing down the process. The court responded that there was no dispute that the Secretary of State was acting within the legally recognized deadline for approving the referendum, and held that an automatic suspension triggered by the submission of a referendum was inconsistent with the text of the Constitution.

in Healy vs. Statethe Missouri Superior Court also rejected arguments that the map violated state constitutional requirements regarding contiguity and compactness. And although the plaintiffs did not raise a claim that the map was a partisan gerrymander, the court expressed dictum skepticism about whether such a claim was valid. On May 27, the Missouri Supreme Court is scheduled to hear another case challenging the map, arguing that the governor lacked the authority to call the special session in which the map was passed.

When I looked at the post,chalice Map, 3 lawsuits florida They object to the state’s new congressional maps, pointing to a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit drawing districts that favor incumbents or political parties. Defendants argue that the amendment no longer has the force of law, that the amendment’s anti-discrimination provisions violate the U.S. Constitution by requiring racial preference in redistricting, and that the partisan gerrymandering provisions cannot be severed from the whole. The trial court held a preliminary injunction hearing on Friday. Expect this case to move quickly.

in tennesseeplaintiff of NAACP v. State of Tennessee They argue that the Legislature did not have the authority to change state law banning redistricting in the middle of the decade during a special session called by the governor that passed a new legislative map. The state constitution requires the governor to “specify” the purpose of the special session and requires the legislature to limit its business to those listed in the governor’s proclamation. Because the mid-decade redistricting law was not certified as part of the special session, the plaintiffs argue that Congress did not have the authority to act on it. (Tennessee’s map is also at issue in a series of federal lawsuits.)

on the other hand, louisianathe plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried to prevent state officials from halting state legislative primaries so that the Legislature could redistrict districts after the election. chalice. Judges in both cases denied temporary restraining orders.

Sometimes three weeks can feel like a year. the aftermath of louisiana vs curry It felt like more than 10 years had passed. Please expect many more cases to appear in the future.

Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief State Court Report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon Redistricting lawsuits intensifySᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 21, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/redistricting-litigation-heats

New York City judges are overwhelmed with caseloads. In the Bronx, for example, there are 2,358 pending cases per Supreme Court justice. (In New York State, “Supreme Court Judges” refers not to judges of the state’s highest court, but to judges of the trial court of general jurisdiction and the four intermediate appellate courts. There are eight other trial courts: New York Civil Court, including Claims Court, Surrogate’s Court, Family Court, Housing Court and Small Claims Court; Criminal Court; District Court; County Court; and Town and Village Court.)

By comparison, outside of New York City, the number of cases per judge ranges from 135 cases per judge in the 4th Judicial District, which covers the Midwest of New York, to 436 cases per judge in the 10th Judicial District, which covers Long Island.

The overwhelming increase in New York City’s caseload has led to delays in the trial of litigants, including marital divorces, child support orders in family court, criminal court trials during Rikers Island incarceration, and delays in motions and judgments in all courts. Additionally, because Supreme Court justices serve on both New York’s trial courts and intermediate appellate courts, hearings in some appellate courts can take nearly three years.

The New York City Supreme Court’s overwhelming caseload is a result of Article 6 of the New York State Constitution, which uses population-based ratios to set the number of Supreme Court justices elected to each judicial district. That’s one judge for every 50,000 people, a number chosen over 60 years ago in 1963. This leaves the Legislature without the power to approve additional seats to meet the court’s needs driven by the number of cases filed.

The New York County Supreme Court, serving Manhattan, has one of the highest litigation filing rates in the state due to its unique location and reputation. Litigation against New York City government agencies is naturally filed here, and its commercial division attracts complex business cases from around the world, and it is widely regarded as the court of choice for matrimonial cases throughout the state.

To address the lack of resources, the State Courts Administration has adopted an interim measure to appoint judges from other courts, such as civil and criminal courts, to the Supreme Court on an “acting” basis. The number of acting Supreme Court justices sometimes exceeds the number of justices elected to the Supreme Court.

Based on the 2020 census, New York State has a population of 20.1 million people, which translates to 403 judges. Currently, the number of Supreme Court justices authorized by Congress is 364. However, the Supreme Court has more than 700 judges, both elected and “acting” judges. These transfers have reduced the number of cases per judge in places like the Bronx, but the courts from which the acting judges come are now facing their own judicial shortages.

The New York City Bar Association’s comprehensive report analyzes the need to eliminate the constitutional cap on the number of judges in each judicial district, stating that “this ‘Peter to Paul pays’ approach not only depleted judicial resources in other courts, but also created a virtually permanent and large class” of acting judges who sit on courts other than those elected by the people or appointed by the relevant appointing authority.

The New York State Assembly is considering a bill that would allow a referendum on whether to amend the New York Constitution to remove population-based limits on the number of Supreme Court justices that have been in place since 1846. Such reforms would help increase access to justice and create opportunities for greater diversity on the courts.

The proposed constitutional amendment would allow Congress to create additional Supreme Court seats as needed and budget allows. The legislatures of New York and all other states have always created a judicial branch. A constitutional amendment does not change this procedure.

In addition to eliminating the cap, the New York City Bar Association proposed creating a weighted caseload system that would periodically analyze the complexity of all cases using objective metrics, taking into account the time it takes to resolve similar cases. Objective metrics would identify where seats are needed in all courts in New York State. These would replace the population-based formulas that have been used since the 1800s to predict the number of people infected. Predicting the number of cases should no longer be done when there is data available to provide the actual numbers.

There is precedent for weighted caseload systems. The federal government and about 40 states use metrics to determine the number of judges they need. If other states can master this process, surely New York can too.

The court system is intended to serve the public. An independent analysis of the needs of the court system, and by extension the needs of the people, ensures that access to justice is not just a slogan but a reality. Voltaire once said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” There is no “perfect” solution, as ensuring access to justice is an ever-changing goal. But maintaining a population-based system is not the solution.

My lord. Andrea Masry is a judge on the New York State Supreme Court. She works in the commercial division of the New York County Courts and is one of the authors of the City Bar report cited in the article.

Fran Hoffinger is a partner at The Hoffinger Firm, PLLC and immediate past chair of the City Bar Council on the Administration of Justice, which sponsored the report discussed here.

Recommended citation: Hon. Andrea Masry and Fran Hoffinger, Bill could eliminate cap on number of judges in New York stateSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 18, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/eliminate-cap-number-judges-new-york