The Brooklyn Democratic Party and reformers brought their heated battle over party leadership to court on Tuesday.
In a packed courtroom, Judge Jill Epstein heard arguments on controversial changes to party bylaws that would likely allow sitting chair Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn maintain control of the party.
Bichotte Hermelyn’s position had been at risk after district leaders aligned with reform group New Kings Democrats won a majority of District Leader seats in the June primary. The reformers planned to vote longtime district leader Julio Peña III into power at the party’s organizational meeting later this fall.
Late last month, Bichotte Hermelyn called a closed-door meeting of the outgoing executive committee — including several lame duck members who either lost their elections or opted not to run again — to vote on a series of bylaw amendments, including one that added dozens of voting positions to the party’s executive committee, nullifying the reformers’ newfound majority. The amendments passed by a slim margin, 21-19, with one abstention.
Reformers immediately filed suit, hoping to get the new rules thrown out.
Mark Hanna, a longtime District Leader and election attorney representing the reformers, argued that both the meeting and the vote were “unlawful,” and violated both state election law and Brooklyn Democratic Party bylaws.
His argument was predicated on a state election law that says county committee members — a.k.a. district leaders — “shall hold office until the next election at which members of the committee are elected.”
A party bylaw in effect at the time of the Aug. 25 meeting also stipulates that “only persons elected as State Committee members … are authorized to vote” on the executive committee. The suit argues that the outgoing executive committee members, having lost their positions on the State Committee, were not eligible to vote.
“This is something they can’t do,” Hanna said. “They don’t have voting authority, and both the state laws and bylaws provide for that.”
Per state law, county committees are required to have an organizational meeting to elect new leadership between Sept. 17-Oct. 7.
“Until such organization meeting, the existing county committee shall exercise all legal authority,” the law reads. “Upon the conclusion of such organization meeting, the new county committee shall assume all legal authority vested in the previously organized county committee.”
The line stipulating that the existing committee maintains legal authority was added in 2019, when the primary election was moved from September to June, meaning newly-elected district leaders did not formally take office for several months after winning their elections.
The Brooklyn Democratic Party says that law means outgoing executive committee members were within their rights to cast their votes at the Aug. 25 meeting.
It was all “properly done,” said party lawyer Amy Marion, “because pursuant to law they had authority [to vote.]”
Hanna disagreed, citing a 2024 appellate court decision handed down after outgoing Assembly Member Eddie Gibbs sued the Manhattan Democratic Party for holding an election after the primary but before the organizing meeting.
The court overturned that election, citing past cases where the court ruled that “Upon the election of their successors at the primaries, the outgoing members were no longer empowered to ‘exercise functions in substantial matters.’”
Though the existing committee holds legal authority until the organizing committee, Hanna argued, they should only act in emergency situations, or to fill sudden vacancies.
“It doesn’t mean they should act in all ways … or [make] substantial changes,” he said.
The reformers’ lawsuit also claims that the Aug. 25 meeting was called without a majority vote required by the party’s bylaws, and was therefore a public meeting subject to Democratic State Committee rules, “which require that all public meetings at all levels of the Democratic Party of New York be open to all party members and that the time and place for all public meetings be publicized fully and in such manner as to assure timely notice to all interested persons.”
The meeting was held “essentially in secret,” Hanna said, and was not open to party members.
“They don’t want people to know the kinds of things that are going on in there,” he said.
Multiple reports state that the meeting was closed to the public and to press, and people inside taped pieces of paper to the windows to prevent people outdoors from peeking in during the vote.
Marion disputed the allegations of a “cloak and dagger secret meeting.”
“That is not what happened here at all,” she said, adding that the vote was “expanding democracy” by allowing more party representatives to vote.
She said it was “improper” for so many outside elected officials — including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Mayor Zohran Mamdani — to publicly voice opposition to Bichotte Hermelyn’s rule changes, and accused the reformers of “politicizing” the case by including the pols’ quotes in their court filings.
Epstein, whose began her 14-year Supreme Court term in January after winning the support of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, said that she does not care about what politicians have said, and that their opinions will not influence her decision.
“The only thing I’m going to apply is the law,” she said.
Marion noted that the party had filed a motion to dismiss the reformers’ lawsuit altogether on Sept. 7, a day before the twice-delayed hearing.
The suit, she said, left off the names of a number of people whose votes and voting rights would be impacted by the decision, including people who were newly granted the right to vote in the amended rules. Those people are entitled to appear in court, Marion said.
She pointed to a 2022 case where an appellate court tossed out a ruling against the Brooklyn Democratic Party because the original lawsuit “challenged the authority and actions of the Executive Committee … but failed to join the Executive Committee.”
Marion argued that that the reformers were asking Epstein to “legislate from the bench” by hearing the case.
“This issue is very easily decided by your honor dismissing because necessary parties were not named,” she told Epstein.
Hanna said all necessary parties are included. The suit individually names outgoing committee members who took part in the vote, he said, but not those who were re-elected. However, he said, the suit names the Kings County Democratic County Committee and the Executive Committee — which includes all members of those committees, even if they are not individually named.
A party divided
Epstein did not issue a ruling on Tuesday, but is expected to make a decision within the next several days. No matter which way she rules, the case is expected to head to the appeals court in the next few weeks. The issue must be settled before Oct. 7 deadline to hold the organizational meeting.
Paul Newell, a lawyer helping to represent the reformers, said the case has significant legal implications. If the new rules are upheld, Bichotte Hermelyn will have significant control over who is chosen to fill the new voting positions and is likely to have influence over a process that will add 21 new voting members later this year, according to New York Focus.
“If a chair can appoint more members of the governing body than are actually elected by the voters of Brooklyn, it is fundamentally impossible for Brooklyn Democrats to ever govern their party ever again,” Newell said. “This will be the permanent end of small-D democratic governance of the Democratic Party.”
The case has split the party. At a rally last week, newly-elected district leader Akel Williams said it was a “travesty” that they had to go to court “simply because our party leader and some other folks in leadership decided that they wanted to steal the will of the voters.”
But, after the hearing, district leader Anthony Jones, who supports Bichotte Hermelyn, led a group of people in a chant of “We are the community!”
He believes the judge will rule in the party’s favor.
“I think that the rules are good. This is what the community looks like, and we want to make sure that all the representatives of the community, by increasing the numbers, we’re going to be able to get stay-at-home moms, stay-at-home dads, senior citizens, people from different ethnicities and different backgrounds,” he said.
Jones said the New Kings Democrats create “havoc and disunity,” and are unwilling to work with other members of the party.
“One of the things I want to say to New Kings Democrats: Respect Mommy,” he said, apparently referring to Bichotte Hermelyn.
The post Brooklyn Democratic Party, reformers battle over rule change in court first appeared on The Ocean Avenue News – oceanavenuenews.com.



