Orange County Legislature authorizes federal lawsuit opposing state election-timing law

The Orange County Legislature voted 15-5 on Sept. 4, 2025, to authorize the county attorney to commence additional federal litigation opposing recently enacted state legislation that requires elections for certain county offices to be held in even-numbered years.

The resolution, placed on the agenda after a procedural challenge, directs the county attorney to join or initiate federal court action arguing the state law infringes on local home rule. Legislator Benton introduced the measure; Legislator Faggione seconded it. The final roll call recorded 15 ayes and 5 nos.

Why it matters: supporters said the measure defends local control over election timing and avoids an imposed statewide schedule, while opponents called the litigation a costly diversion from urgent local needs such as childcare and social services.

Supporters framed the vote as a defense of local self-government. Legislator Benton argued the change was decided in Albany rather than locally and said, “the things that matter best for Orange County are decided here in Orange County.” Legislator Benelli, who urged colleagues to let the item go on the agenda for fuller debate, said the issue warranted a public discussion.

Opponents said the lawsuit would consume limited county resources. Legislator Ramos said during debate, “I think this is yet another frivolous lawsuit and waste of taxpayer money.” Legislator Menudo said the law “actually disenfranchises voters,” arguing the change could make ballots harder for some voters to follow. Legislator Luhan urged that the issue first be examined in committee, saying, “We could have had a conversation about it in committee.”

Procedural history: a separate procedural roll call on whether to overrule the chairman's initial ruling about placing the matter on the agenda produced a 5-14 result, allowing the item to be taken up. After debate, the resolution passed on a roll-call vote: 15 ayes, 5 nos. The clerk recorded individual votes during the final roll call (see action record).

Next steps: the resolution authorizes the county attorney to commence federal litigation; the motion does not identify a timetable or dollar limit for the litigation. The county attorney's office, not present in detail during the discussion, will carry out the authorized action as written in the resolution.

The vote reflects a division among legislators over priorities and the proper use of county resources, with supporters citing home rule and opponents pointing to competing local fiscal and social service needs.