New York, Nov 9 (AP) A judge has struck down a state law that made it easier for New Yorkers to sue over electoral divisions and voting rules that weakened the political voice of minority groups, saying its special protections based on race and ethnicity are unconstitutional.

Orange County state court Justice Maria Vazquez-Doles struck down New York's Voting Rights Act of 2022 on Thursday in a decision in which she also dismissed a lawsuit brought by six Black and Hispanic voters against the Town of Newburgh.

Also Read | The ‘Australia Today' Issues Statement After Canada Blocks Broadcast of EAM S Jaishankar's Press Meet, Calls Action 'Murder of Free Press'.

In the suit, the residents challenged the way people were elected to the town's board, arguing that “at-large” elections to pick board members in the majority-white town had kept Black and Hispanic residents from electing their candidates of choice. They asked the court to impose a system in which the town, located about 60 miles (96 kilometres) north of New York City, would elect board members by district.

New York's Voting Rights Act created a pathway for voters to challenge at-large elections that led to racially polarized voting patterns or impaired a racial, ethnic or language-group's ability to get members of their community into office.

Also Read | Russia Issues Demarche to Canadian Diplomat, Summons Head of Embassy in Moscow Over 'False Accusations' of 'Russian Sabotage' Against NATO Countries.

The judge said that portion of the act violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The U.S Supreme Court similarly cited the equal protection clause in its ruling last year that affirmative action programs at colleges and universities were unconstitutional.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said they would appeal.

“We are confident that the New York Voting Rights Act is constitutional, and that on appeal that belief will be vindicated,” attorney David Imamura said.

The lawsuit, which was filed in March, was one of at least four lawsuits filed under the state's voting rights act.

In her decision, Vazquez-Doles wrote that under the equal protection clause, the government can take actions based on race only if there's a compelling state interest in doing so.

Ending discrimination against a racial group could meet that standard, Vazquez-Doles wrote, but the wording of New York's law didn't require voters challenging an electoral system to show evidence of past discrimination.

Hypothetically, she said, the law, as written, could also allow white voters to sue for electoral system changes on the grounds that their voting power had been diluted.

“No compelling interest — as that term has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause — exists in protecting the voting rights of any group that has historically never been discriminated against,” Vazquez-Doles wrote.

She also found that the New York law didn't include clear guidelines on how much a group's voting power has to be diluted before its rights are violated.

New York was among more than a half-dozen mostly Democratic-controlled states that took action to protect voting rights after lawmakers became frustrated by new voting restrictions in some Republican-led states and the failure of voting rights legislation in Congress.

“When New York enacted the strongest voting rights law in the country, we knew there would be challenges,” state Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a bill sponsor, said in a statement Friday. “I disagree with the court's legal reasoning and expect this decision will be overturned on appeal.” (AP)

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)