Previous 17 / 48 Next

-7- Nos. 56 & 58 the June 2020 primary election” (Mem in Support, L 2000, ch 24). This legislative action was part of a governmental effort to protect the public health and preserve the integrity of the electoral process by mitigating the spread of COVID-19, which included the Governor modifying the Election Law “to reduce [the] required number of signatures on petitions” to “1.5% of enrolled voters” or “30% of the stated threshold, whichever is less” and suspending the “gathering of signatures” “effective Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5 p.m.” (Executive Order 202.2 at 1 [March 14, 2020]). In addition, in several Executive Orders that affected all New Yorkers during this period and put the State on “pause,” the Governor required all non-essential state and local government employees to work from home beginning on March 17, 2020 (Executive Order 202.4 at 1 [March 16, 2020]) and all businesses and nonprofits not providing “essential” services to allow workers to work for home as much as possible beginning on March 20, 2020 at 8 p.m. (Executive Order 206.2 at 2 [March 18, 2020]). The Governor suspended Election Law § 8-400, which governs absentee ballots, and allowed voters to electronically obtain absentee ballots for elections prior to April 1, 2020 (Executive Order 202.2 at 1 [March 14, 2020]); postponed any Village elections on March 18, 2020 (Executive Order 202.5 at 3 [March 18, 2020]); and prohibited all non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size (Executive Order 202.10 at 4 [March 23, 2020]). Beginning March 14, 2020, the message from the executive and legislative branches to residents of New York was clear: stay home and cease all unnecessary physical interactions in order to contain the spread of COVID-19. By the Governor’s express orders and the legislature’s action, elections and the gathering of signatures to support an -7-

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Seawright v. Board of Elections & In re Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether late filings during the COVID-9 pandemic constitute unique circumstances that would permit remedy of the fatal defect when otherwise not provide in law.

Alleged Acts: On March 19, 2020 Seawright filed a petition for candidacy for the 76th Assembly District on the Democratic Party primary ballot. The petition itself consisted of more than ten pages and a coversheet was required for both. Seawright failed to file the coversheet by the March 20th deadline. Similarly, on March 19, 2020 Seawright filed a petition for the exact same office under the Working Families Party. This petition required a certificate accepting the designation because Seawright did not belong to that political party. Seawright failed to meet the march 24th deadline for this filing. The City Board invalidated both petitions based on the failure to file the required documents. On March 20, 2020 Hawatmeh filed a petition as a Conservative Party Member for the 19th Congressional District. From March 20-March 24, 2020 Hawatmeh was out of town for a prescheduled cancer treatment. Hawatmeh was not a member of the Conservative Party and was accordingly required to file a certificate accepting the designation. Hawatmeh failed to file by the March 24th deadline and the State Board designated the petition invalid.

Procedural history: The First Appellate Division determined that the COVID-9 pandemic presented unique circumstance and that the late filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance was not a constitute fatal defect. However, the Third Appellate Division reached the opposite verdict in In re Hawatmeh v. New York State Board of Elections.

Summary: New York’s Electoral Code requires that any failure to file “shall be a fatal defect.” The court mandates often upheld these strict deadlines, despite the circumstances of the potential candidate. The court stated that COVID-19 has impacted many candidates and although many legislative directives have been relaxed, the candidates must still timely file. The court state that the legislature must be the party to create exception to the law, should it need them, not the judicial system. Further, the cover sheets and firm could be submitted by an agent, so even if Seawright and Hawatmeh were unable, the forms could be filed by members of the campaigns. Alternatively, Executive Order 202.7 permitted audio-visual technology or mailed to the Board of Elections. More than 1,000 petitions were timely filed, many of whom experienced the same of similar circumstances.

Conclusion: The Court of Appeals reversed Seawright and affirmed Hawatmeh.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Health Concerns & Election Administration

Applicable Law(s): NYCRR 6215.1 [b]&[e}

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: May 21, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 40.73592033063037

Longitude: -73.99396234616334

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Seawright v. Board of Elections.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Seawright v. Board of Elections & In re Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

Primary Documents

Notifications