Opinion
4312-04.
Decided August 4, 2004.
JOHN CIAMPOLI, ESQ., Attorney for Petitioners Albany, New York.
JAMES E. LONG, ESQ., Attorney for Respondent Candidate and Party Chairman Albany, New York.
STANLEY ZALEN, ESQ., Attorney for Respondent State Board Of Elections Albany, New York.
Petitioners challenge the Independence party designating petition and the Democrat party certificate of authorization concerning the candidacy of Sandra Oxford. The court will consider each in turn.
The respondent Sandra Oxford (Oxford) filed designating petitions with the respondent New York State Board of Elections (Board) to be a candidate of the Democrat Party, Independence Party and the Working Families Party for the office of State Senator from the 42nd Senate District in the September 14, 2004 Primary Election of such parties. This senate district encompasses all or parts of four counties: Ulster, Orange, Sullivan and Delaware.
Oxford had previously been enrolled as a member of the Green Party through the 2002 gubernatorial election and is apparently now an enrolled member of the Independence Party.
INDEPENDENCE PARTY:
Petitioner Mary Silano (Silano), who is an enrolled member of the Independence Party, filed general objections and specifications of objection challenging the validity of Oxford's Independence Party designating petition. The basis for her challenge was that the filed designating petition did not contain a sufficient number of valid signatures of qualified voters of the Independence Party to constitute a valid designating petition for the office of State Senator for the 42nd Senate District.
The Board has not yet made a determination with regard to petitioner Silano's objections and specifications.
On the return date of the instant proceeding, however, counsel for Oxford stipulated that if the Independence Party designating petition were presented to the court and the number of signatures therein counted, that the number of such signatures would be inadequate or less than the legally required number of valid signatures of qualified enrolled voters in the Independence Party to constitute a valid designating petition.
Based upon this stipulation, the court denied Oxford's motion to delay the court's decision in this matter until the Board is scheduled to meet and rule upon objections in this and other matters. This meeting of the Board is not scheduled to be held until after this court is required, by scheduling orders of the Third Department Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, to have completed all decisions in Election Law proceedings.
The court rules that based upon the stipulation of an insufficient number of valid signatures on the disputed designating petition, the Independence Party designation of the Oxford is invalid and that her name should be removed by the Board as a candidate of that party for the office of State Senator for the 42nd Senate District in the 2004 General Election.
DEMOCRAT PARTY:
Petitioner Gregory Gilman (Gilman), who is enrolled in the Democrat Party, filed general objections and specifications challenging the designating petition of the Democrat Party naming the Oxford as that party's candidate for State Senator for the 42nd Senate District.
The objections included a challenge to Oxford's name as it appeared on the petition and cover sheet and a second challenge to the description of Oxford's residence address as it appeared on the petition sheets. These two objections were withdrawn at the conclusion of the proceeding.
The remaining challenge to the Democrat designation of Oxford arose out of the authorization of her candidacy by the Democrat Party as required by section 6-120 of the Election Law, because Oxford is not an enrolled member of the Democrat Party.
A certificate of authorization was timely filed with the Board which was signed by respondents Timothy Hill (Hill) and Jonathan Jacobson (Jacobson), as the Democrat Party County Chairmen for Sullivan and Orange Counties, respectively.
The certificate stated that: "[A]t a meeting of the New York State 42nd Senate District Committee of the Democratic Party held on the 13th day of July, 2004, a quorum being present, said committee, by majority vote of the members present, did consent and authorize the nomination/designation of Sandra Oxford. . . ." (Matters in italics were handwritten entries on a preprinted form) It turns out that for several months prior to July 13, 2004, the respective four Democrat County Chairmen of Ulster, Sullivan, Orange and Delaware Counties had been discussing and communicating to each other their support for the candidacy of Oxford as their senate candidate in the 42nd Senate District.
Inasmuch as Oxford was not an enrolled member of the Democrat Party and was a resident of Sullivan County, the task of preparing the certificate of authorization fell to Hill, the Sullivan County Democrat Chair. Hill attended a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Orange County Democrat Committee of July 13, 2004, and while there executed the certificate of authorization with Jacobson, the Orange County Democrat Chair.
Thereafter, on the following day, July 14th, respondent John Parete (Parete), the Ulster County Democrat Chair, signed the certificate of authorization, "[i]n concurrence."
It does not appear to be in dispute that the authority to issue a certificate of authorization for the Democrat Party in a multi-county district lies with the county chairpersons of the counties that comprise, in whole or in part, the legislative or congressional district in question.
Gilman contends that the requirements of section 6-120 of the Election Law were not met because there was never a meeting of the county chairpersons held at which a quorum was present which granted the authorization to Oxford. Particularly, Gilman asserts that there was no meeting held on July 13, 2004 as claimed in the certificate of authorization.
Election Law, section 6-120, subd. 3, states that: "The members of the party committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which a designation or nomination is to be made, . . . may, by a majority vote of those present at such meeting provided a quorum is present, authorize the designation or nomination of a person as a candidate for any office who is not enrolled as a member of such party as provided in this section."
It has long been held by the courts that the meeting requirements of section 6-120 of the Election Law will be enforced. That is, not only must there be a meeting, but there must also be a quorum at such meeting and there must be a majority vote of those present. (See, Matter of Langley v. Erway, 57 Misc2d 1, affd 30 AD2d 711, appeal granted 22 NY2d 643 and affd 22 NY2d 781; Matter of Francisco v. Tutunjian, 144 Misc2d 574; Matter of Turso v. Sunderland, 242 AD2d 351). In each case, the failure to comply with the explicit statutory requirements resulted in the invalidation of the authorizations and the underlying candidacy that was being challenged in the proceeding.
In the instant case, it is clear from the stipulation recited in open court that there was no meeting of the four-member committee of county chairmen from the counties comprising the 42nd Senate District. The only possible meeting was the visit by Hill, the Sullivan County Chairman, to the Executive Committee meeting of the Orange County Democrat Committee, in order to have Jacobson execute the certificate.
Notwithstanding this circumstance, of course, the certificate itself incorrectly recites that there was a meeting held on July 13, 2004, that the members were present and that there was a quorum present and, finally, that there was a majority vote cast in favor of the authorization of Oxford.
As the respondent party chairmen point out in support of their position, their endorsement of the candidacy of the Oxford was unanimous and their support of her being the Democrat candidate for this senate race had been longstanding. In other words this was a good faith effort on their part to commit the Democrat Party to authorize Oxford as the Democrat candidate for the State Senate from the 42nd Senate District.
In addition, the court recognizes that the county chairmen of any political party one might choose in upstate New York render untiring efforts on behalf of bettering the democratic process and often get a thankless response from those who benefit most from their dedication. Indeed, the chairmen in this proceeding render valuable public service in their commitment to their party, their candidates and the elected officials they support.
The question, however, for the court to resolve, is how to reconcile an explicit statutory requirement that a majority vote be taken at a meeting at which a quorum was present to authorize a candidate who is not enrolled in the political party making the designation with the fact that in the instant case there was no meeting, there was no quorum and there was no majority vote taken.
It has long been held that courts in election matters do not have equitable powers. Sometimes, however, there is an attempt to strike a balance between a strict and liberal statutory construction in these cases. In the instant case, however, it seems inescapable that this court is powerless to fashion a remedy without defying or disregarding the clear statutory language of section 6-120 requiring a meeting and a properly conducted vote.
The court is constrained to grant the petition herein and declare that the certificate of authorization is void and the candidacy of Sandra Oxford for the Democrat Party nomination for State Senator for the 42nd Senate District is invalid. Oxford's name is to be removed by the Board as a candidate of the Democrat party for the office of State Senator for the 42nd Senate District in the 2004 General Election.
In view of the above, the court does not address or pass in any way upon whether there was a notice requirement in the Rules of the Democrat State Committee that applied to a meeting of county chairmen held for the purpose of authorizing the candidacy of a non-enrolled candidate for a multi-county office.
The relief herein is granted without costs.
All papers, including this decision and order, are being returned to counsel for petitioners. The signing of this decision and order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that section relating to filing, entry and notice of entry.
This constitutes both the decision and the order of the court.