New Yorkers shouldn’t be surprised to encounter clipboard-toting City Council candidates or campaign volunteers starting Tuesday — despite an ongoing lawsuit that sought to halt the start of the petitioning process for the upcoming elections.

Late Monday, a judge in Manhattan state Supreme Court refused a request filed by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund to delay the start of the petitioning process — the first step to securing a spot on the ballot.

The group filed a lawsuit against the New York City Districting Commission last Friday, arguing that the newly drawn Council district lines do not allow for “fair and effective representation” of the city’s racial and language minority groups.

Specifically, the group wants the court to order the commission to create a new “opportunity district” for Asian American voters in Richmond Hill and Ozone Park, Queens and halt the start of the petitioning process until new maps could be drawn.

Instead, Justice Leslie Stroth set a hearing date for March 7, a week into the petitioning process.

By late Tuesday afternoon, Stroth filed a motion to recuse herself from the case citing her own upcoming re-election campaign. A spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration was looking into when a new justice would be assigned and how that might impact the hearing scheduled for next week.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said they are still committed to fighting for new district lines.

“Illegal City Council lines cannot stay in effect and must be redrawn as soon as possible,” said Jerry Vattamala, the AALDEF's democracy program director. “We will continue to fight for the community and intend to provide fair and effective electoral representation to them as soon as possible, as is required by the city charter.”

But some say the timing of the lawsuit may pose a problem for candidates in the upcoming election.

“Courts are reluctant to interfere in the electoral process this close to an election,” said Ali Najmi, an election attorney from Queens who is not linked to the current litigation and is representing several incumbent councilmembers in this year’s election. “However, there is another City Council election in two years and it is conceivable that if a court finds their claim meritorious then relief could be granted in advance of the 2025 election.”

All 51 Council seats are up for election this year with incumbents and some newcomers competing to represent would-be constituents in newly drawn districts, the result of a process that happens every 10 years following the latest census count. Any primary races will be conducted using ranked-choice voting.

But before candidates can vie for votes, they must first score a spot on the ballot. The first step in that process involves collecting signatures from voters who live within the new district lines and are registered for the party line the candidate is seeking.

Some election attorneys warn that there is also a question over the number of signatures candidates need to collect.

Under city law, the number is 450, while state law says it’s 900. A campaign will typically gather more than the required number of signatures to ward off challenges from potential primary opponents seeking to knock its candidate off the ballot.

In a tweet last fall, election attorney Howard Graubard said a decision on an unrelated case over a proposed noncitizen voting law could mean Council candidates need to gather more signatures.

In that decision, Justice Ralph Prozio of Staten Island struck down the city’s new law that would expand voting rights in local elections to noncitizens that were legally allowed to live and work in New York City, arguing the state constitution and state election law take precedence over the city’s law. The city is currently appealing that ruling.

In a follow-up with Gothamist this week, Graubard said he stands by his earlier analysis. “Any candidate who files based on the 450 figure is probably not being prudent,” he said.

Primary petitions must be filed by April 6. The primary is June 27.

This story has been updated to reflect Justice Leslie Stroth's recusal from the case.