The federal challenge to New York’s Even Year Election Law is moving forward without Suffolk County or any other government entity as a plaintiff, while two Democratic county legislators are pressing separate measures: one aimed at recovering Suffolk’s legal expenses and the other at increasing legislative oversight of future lawsuits brought in the county’s name.
The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint July 9 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, naming the four individual commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections as defendants in their official capacities.
The new complaint retains the New York Republican State Committee, the Nassau and Suffolk county Republican committees, the New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways and individual candidates and elected officials from Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland counties. No county, town or other governmental entity is named as a plaintiff.
The filing follows U.S. District Judge Gary R. Brown’s June 29 decision dismissing the prior complaint. Brown dismissed the governmental plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, ruling that Suffolk County and the Town of Huntington were barred by the prior state-court litigation, lacked standing and had no cause of action under the federal civil rights statute known as Section 1983.
Brown also dismissed the claims against New York State, Gov. Kathy Hochul and the State Board of Elections, but gave the remaining non-municipal plaintiffs permission to file a new complaint against the board’s individual commissioners or assert other claims consistent with his decision.
The Second Amended Complaint continues to allege that the Even Year Election Law violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and political organizations by forcing local races onto ballots dominated by state and federal contests. It alleges that the change will increase campaign costs, reduce candidates’ visibility and impair their ability to communicate with voters about local issues.
Meanwhile, Suffolk County Legislator Greg Doroski said Friday that he has amended legislation he previously introduced concerning the county’s participation in the case.
“We deserve our money back,” Doroski said at the beginning of an Instagram video announcing the revised proposal.
Doroski said Brown “dismissed every claim Suffolk County brought in the Even Year Election lawsuit with prejudice” and argued that taxpayers, rather than the Republican committees leading the litigation, bore the cost.
“This isn’t about debating the merits of the Even Year Election lawsuit,” Doroski said. “This is about the misuse of taxpayer dollars for political purposes.”
According to a press release issued by Doroski’s office, the revised measure would rescind Suffolk County’s authorization to participate in the litigation and direct the county attorney to seek reimbursement from the lawyer who represented the county.
RiverheadLOCAL has not yet obtained the revised resolution, which Doroski said will be laid on the table at the Legislature’s July 14 meeting. The meeting will take place at the Maxine Postal Legislative Auditorium at the county center in Riverside.
Doroski also called on the town boards in Riverhead, Brookhaven, Islip, Huntington and Smithtown — the other governmental plaintiffs from Suffolk County in the original federal action — to introduce similar measures seeking recovery of their legal expenses.
As previously reported, Riverhead paid $207,958.79 for legal services and expenses covering June through December 2025. Records obtained through a subsequent FOIL request showed that Riverhead paid an additional $21,426 for legal services and expenses incurred from Jan. 1 through March 31, 2026.
The town voluntarily dismissed its claims in the lawsuit June 10, so it may still have additional obligations for legal fees incurred from April 1 through the date of its dismissal.
Riverhead and six other municipalities, including Suffolk County, were collectively billed $50,000 per month for services from January through March, with the amount divided evenly among the seven municipalities, according to records obtained through FOIL.
Doroski said last month that he had confirmed Suffolk County paid at least $230,000 in legal fees connected with the federal case.
Doroski’s original resolution would have rescinded Suffolk County Legislature Resolution 257-2024, approved in April 2024, which authorized the county attorney to commence litigation challenging the Even Year Election Law. The resolution was introduced by the Legislature’s presiding officer at the request of County Executive Ed Romaine and passed along party lines, with Republican legislators voting in favor and Democrats opposed.
Suffolk County was a plaintiff in one of several lawsuits brought in state court in 2024 to overturn the Even Year Election Law. The county was represented by Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, according to Resolution 257-2024. Suffolk’s case was consolidated with the others and litigated as one action.
The New York Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the law and dismissed the lawsuits in a decision entered Oct. 16, 2025.
The New York Republican State Committee, joined by the Suffolk and Nassau county Republican committees, the counties of Suffolk, Nassau and Orange, Riverhead and seven other Republican-led Long Island towns, filed the federal action Oct. 30, 2025.
Brown dismissed the prior complaint June 29 but allowed the remaining non-municipal plaintiffs to file a new complaint against individual State Board of Elections officials. That led to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint last week.
Because Brown has already dismissed Suffolk County’s claims with prejudice, Doroski said he is amending his bill to rescind the 2024 authorization and direct the county attorney to pursue reimbursement of fees and expenses the county paid in connection with the federal lawsuit.
Doroski has said he does not believe the 2024 resolution authorized Suffolk County’s participation in the subsequent federal action.
Asked whether he expects bipartisan support for his bill, Doroski said Monday that it was “unlikely.”
“But as we saw in Riverhead with Councilman Rothwell’s comments on the matter, there may have been some uncertainty among our Republican colleagues in what they were signing up for,” Doroski said. “This is an opportunity for us all to make it right and stand up for hardworking taxpayers.”
A separate proposal introduced in April by Legislator Jason Richberg would amend the Suffolk County Charter to require legislative approval before the county initiates affirmative civil litigation.
Richberg’s bill would require the Legislature to approve the nature of the claims, the forum, the principal relief sought and any anticipated need for outside counsel or extraordinary litigation expenses.
The proposal would allow emergency filings without advance approval when necessary to prevent irreparable harm, preserve a statute of limitations, meet a mandatory deadline or seek emergency injunctive relief. The county attorney would then be required to seek legislative ratification within 30 days.
The measure would not restrict the county attorney’s authority to defend lawsuits brought against Suffolk County.
Richberg’s proposal was introduced April 21 and referred to the Legislature’s Ways and Means Committee. The committee later tabled it “subject to call by the chair,” leaving it pending without a vote.
Richberg, who voted against the 2024 resolution authorizing litigation over the Even Year Election Law, said during committee consideration that his bill would provide an opportunity for legislators to debate whether the county should enter a lawsuit before it is filed.
County Executive Ed Romaine’s office did not respond to questions submitted by email Monday morning about whether Resolution 257-2024 authorized the county’s participation in the federal lawsuit handled by the Brewer law firm, whether any separate authorization was obtained and whether Romaine supports the Doroski and Richberg proposals.
The Second Amended Complaint seeks a declaration that the Even Year Election Law violates the First Amendment and an order barring the state election commissioners from enforcing it. Alternatively, the plaintiffs ask the court to allow affected localities to opt out of the law, which moves most town and county elections to even-numbered years to coincide with state and federal elections.
The survival of local journalism depends on your support.
We are a small family-owned operation. You rely on us to stay informed, and we depend on you to make our work possible. Just a few dollars can help us continue to bring this important service to our community.
Support RiverheadLOCAL today.
