Brooklyn's Democratic Party chairwoman proposed eleventh-hour bylaw changes that critics, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Chuck Schumer, say would erase the results of a June primary her allies lost.

Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, the chairwoman of the Brooklyn Democratic Party and a state assemblywoman representing Central Brooklyn, unveiled a package of rule changes last week that would reshape the party's internal power structure weeks before a convention where she is expected to be voted out. A reform group called the New Kings Democrats won 22 new district leader seats in the June primary, enough to oust Bichotte Hermelyn when the party picks its next leader in September. Her proposed changes would dilute that majority before it ever takes effect, the New York Post reported.

The changes would add more than a dozen new voting members to the party's executive committee, impose an 85% support threshold for any future amendments to party rules, and hand the chair near-unilateral control over judicial endorsements and the judge-selection process in Brooklyn. Taken together, the proposals would make it far harder for incoming reformers to govern even if they win the chairmanship, and nearly impossible for them to undo the new rules once locked in.

Bichotte Hermelyn framed the overhaul differently. In a video posted on the Brooklyn Democrats' official account on X, she said the changes were about "expanding participation." She told NY1 the goal was to create "a perception of inclusiveness." She did not return the Post's request for comment.

Mamdani and Schumer break ranks against the party chair

Mayor Mamdani, whose tenure has drawn scrutiny from critics across the political spectrum over policies ranging from a $70 million city-run grocery plan to proposed tax increases, sided firmly with the reformers on this fight. He issued a public statement opposing the proposed changes.

Mamdani did not hold back:

"I very much oppose these proposed changes, by the current Brooklyn Democratic Party chair. I oppose them because they are an attempt to circumnavigate the will of voters."

Schumer joined him the same day, warning the party against rewriting its own rules after voters had already spoken.

"Given the clear results of the June Democratic primary in Brooklyn, the party should not change the rules in the middle of the game."

New York Attorney General Letitia James and state Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs also publicly criticized the proposed changes, though the specifics of their statements were not detailed in the Post's reporting.

That a sitting mayor, a U.S. senator, a state attorney general, and the state party chair all lined up against a borough party chairwoman on the same day tells you how far Bichotte Hermelyn has pushed the boundaries of what even her own party will tolerate. This is not a Republican attack line. Every name on that list is a Democrat.

Reform group takes the fight to Brooklyn Supreme Court

Julio Peña III, a district leader who heads the New Kings Democrats and is widely presumed to be the next Brooklyn party chair, filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn Supreme Court seeking to block the rule changes before they could be voted on at a critical Tuesday night meeting. The suit demands a judge halt the changes outright.

Attorney Mark Hanna, a district leader aligned with the reform group, submitted a court affirmation laying out the legal argument. Hanna wrote that the proposal "would not merely administer existing rules; it would entrench a new voting threshold and restrict the incoming County Committee's ability to revise proxy-related rules."

In plain English: the current chair wants to lock the doors behind her on the way out.

Peña compared the maneuver to a dark chapter in Brooklyn Democratic politics. He warned that "Brooklyn can't turn back to bossism and the worst days of Vito Lopez." Lopez, the late former Brooklyn Democratic Party chair, attempted a similar move to pack the party's ranks back in 2010, though at a smaller scale. The comparison carries weight in Brooklyn, where Lopez's name is synonymous with machine politics at its most heavy-handed.

Mamdani himself has faced sharp criticism from business leaders and others over his governing philosophy. But even his harshest critics would have a hard time arguing with his position here: voters picked their district leaders in a primary, and the losing side should not get to rewrite the rules before the winners take their seats.

Judge recuses himself, leaving the case in limbo

The lawsuit hit an immediate procedural snag. Judge Kenneth P. Sherman recused himself from the case, stating that he "may be seeking re-nomination in the next election cycle, and said nomination may be impacted by the issues in this case." That recusal underscores just how deeply the proposed rule changes reach, the chair's bid to control judicial endorsements in Brooklyn is significant enough that a sitting judge felt compelled to step aside rather than risk the appearance of a conflict.

No replacement judge had been named in the Post's reporting, and it remained unclear whether the court would act before the Tuesday night vote on the changes.

The stakes are not abstract. Brooklyn's Democratic Party controls judicial endorsements that effectively determine who sits on the bench in one of the most populous counties in the country. Giving a single party chair near-unilateral authority over that process concentrates power in a way that should concern anyone who values clean government, regardless of party.

New York's ongoing struggles with governance and accountability make this kind of insider maneuvering all the more corrosive. When voters see party bosses overriding primary results, it reinforces the belief that elections are just theater, that the real decisions happen in back rooms.

An 85% threshold built to last forever

Of the three major rule changes, the 85% amendment threshold may be the most consequential. Under current rules, a simple majority of the county committee can amend the party's bylaws. Bichotte Hermelyn's proposal would raise that bar so high that even a commanding reform majority could not undo the new rules without near-unanimous support, support they would be unlikely to get from the very members the outgoing chair is trying to install.

Combined with the addition of more than a dozen new voting members to the executive committee, members who would presumably be loyal to the current leadership, the package amounts to a structural veto against the incoming majority. Win the primary, lose the party. That is the math Bichotte Hermelyn's critics see in the proposal.

Democrats who have faced warnings about internal power struggles within their own ranks now have a case study unfolding in real time in Brooklyn. The fight is not between left and right, it is between voters and a party apparatus determined to ignore them.

Mamdani, for his part, has drawn opposition from broad coalitions on other fronts. But on this question, whether primary results should mean something, he landed on the side of common sense. So did Schumer, James, and Jacobs. When that many Democrats tell their own party chair she has gone too far, the chair has gone too far.

Whether the courts act in time to stop the Tuesday night vote remains an open question. But the political verdict is already in. Bichotte Hermelyn's own party has told her, publicly and unmistakably, that voters, not bylaws drafted after the fact, should decide who leads.

If a party cannot respect the results of its own primary, it has no business lecturing anyone else about democracy.