Opinion
2011-08-16
In the Matter of Rachael RANCOURT, appellant,v.Melinda MAGILL, respondent-respondent, et al., respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Melinda Magill as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2011, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Clerk of the Town of Beekman, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Wood, J.), dated August 8, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To gain a position on the primary election ballot as a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Town Clerk of the Town of Beekman, Melinda Magill was required to obtain 145 valid signatures on her designating petition, representing five percent of the enrolled Republican Party voters in the Town of Beekman ( see Election Law § 6–136[2] ). The subscribing witnesses for Magill's designating petition attested that they obtained a total of 308 signatures. However, a review of the designating petition reveals that the subscribing witness statements overstated the number of signatures actually contained on each petition page. Notably, each of the pre-printed petition pages was missing signature line number six. In their affidavits offered in opposition to the petition to invalidate, the subscribing witnesses stated that they had relied upon the line number printed beside the last signature on each page to determine the total number of signatures on each page. Consequently, the subscribing witnesses inadvertently overstated, by one signature, the number of signatures on each page containing more than five signatures. The actual number of valid signatures on the designating petition collected by the subscribing witnesses totaled 292. Accordingly, Magill still submitted more than twice as many signatures as was necessary for her name to be placed upon the primary election ballot as a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Clerk of the Town of Beekman.
Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the overstatement of the signature totals on the designating petition is not such a gross irregularity as to warrant invalidation. Where, as here, there is no allegation of fraud and there was substantial compliance with the provisions of the Election Law, the inadvertent mistakes in the signature totals “should not be the basis for the elimination of the right to vie for public office” ( Matter of Staber v. Fidler, 110 A.D.2d 38, 39, 493 N.Y.S.2d 161, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 529, 493 N.Y.S.2d 288, 482 N.E.2d 1204; see
Election Law § 6–134[10]; Matter of Ruggiero v. Molinari, 112 A.D.2d 1071, 493 N.Y.S.2d 171, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 968, 494 N.Y.S.2d 108, 484 N.E.2d 137; Matter of Fox v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 112 A.D.2d 1063, 1064, 493 N.Y.S.2d 168, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 971, 494 N.Y.S.2d 108, 484 N.E.2d 137; Matter of Bland v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 112 A.D.2d 1053, 493 N.Y.S.2d 165, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 962, 494 N.Y.S.2d 107, 484 N.E.2d 136; Matter of Brown v. Sachs, 57 A.D.2d 583, 393 N.Y.S.2d 587; cf. Matter of Fromson v. Lefever, 112 A.D.2d 1064, 1066, 493 N.Y.S.2d 169, affd. sub nom. Matter of Barrett v. Scaringe, 65 N.Y.2d 946, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 483 N.E.2d 1149; see also Matter of Rancourt v. Kennedy, 87 A.D.3d 654, 928 N.Y.S.2d 736 [decided herewith] ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to invalidate and dismissed the proceeding.