As New York State prepares for its 2025 elections, a major legal and political battle continues to rage over what has come to be known as the Even Year Election Law (EYEL). With the Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court, poised to hear oral arguments on September 8, 2025, the controversy surrounding this measure shows no signs of abating.

The EYEL, which was signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul in the final days of 2023, moves most of the Empire State's local offices to be elected on even-year cycles. Earlier this year, in a 5-0 decision, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department upheld the constitutionality of this controversial measure, reversing a lower court ruling that had found the law unconstitutional.

The law at issue was first proposed by Democratic state lawmakers in 2013. Year after year and legislative session after legislative session, it died without ever being acted on by either house of the state legislature. In 2022, however, the State Senate passed this bill. The Assembly finished its 2022 session without acting on the proposal.

A year later, in the final days of the legislative session, both houses of the state legislature approved this bill over the strong opposition from local government leaders and without the support of a single Republican member of either house of the state legislature.

The new law makes a number of changes to how elections for local offices are conducted in the Empire State. First, it forces nearly every town and county office to be elected on an even-year election cycle. This includes town supervisors, town councilors, town highway superintendents, county legislators, and county executives. Not included in this change are all judicial offices, county clerks, sheriffs, and district attorneys. The state constitution prohibits those offices from being forced to be elected on even-year cycles. Additionally, city offices are also exempted from this new law. The state constitution requires that elections for city offices occur on odd-year election cycles.

To accomplish the goal of moving these town and county offices to being elected in even-year elections, the law cuts short the current terms of office for these officials. A town supervisor who would normally run for a two-year term in 2025, for instance, will now run for a one-year term in 2025 followed by a two-year term in 2026. Similarly, a county legislator who would normally run for a four-year term in 2025 will now run for a three-year term in 2025, followed by a four-year term in 2028.

The legal battle has taken several turns. Initially, opponents of the EYEL scored a win at the trial level when a Supreme Court Justice in Onondaga County held that the law violated the state constitution's many protections for local governments as to how they organize themselves. However, that victory was short-lived. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed that decision earlier this year, finding the law constitutional and clearing the way for its implementation.

With the appellate court's ruling, the EYEL is now set to take effect for the 2025 elections, meaning that many candidates currently running for office will indeed serve shortened terms before transitioning onto the new even-year cycle. However, the legal fight is far from over, as the case now heads to the Court of Appeals for what promises to be a decisive ruling.

Regardless of what the Court of Appeals decides in the coming months, the fight over local elections in even years may continue beyond the courtroom. Should the Court affirm the Fourth Department's decision, opponents of the EYEL have vowed to challenge it in federal court. On the other hand, should the Court agree with the local governments challenging the law and hold that the EYEL violates the state constitution's protections for local governments, the Democratic majorities in each house of the state legislature might vote for a constitutional amendment rolling back some of those protections.

The EYEL controversy has become a defining issue in New York's 2025 election cycle, with local candidates forced to navigate an uncertain legal landscape. Whatever the Court of Appeals decides this fall will likely reshape not just New York's electoral calendar, but the fundamental relationship between state authority and local autonomy. For a state that has long prided itself on strong local governments, the outcome of this case may determine whether that tradition survives in an era of increasing centralization of power in Albany. The stakes could not be higher for the Empire State’s democratic future.

All of the views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The National Law Review.