Previous 16 / 48 Next

-6- Nos. 56 & 58 executive orders that were issued beginning on March 7, 2020 and continue to this day, the Governor was at the time in the process of shutting down most activities in the state to combat the spread of COVID-19, which had proven to be extremely infectious and deadly1 (see Executive Order 202 [March 7, 2020]; Executive Order 202.5 [March 18, 2020]). In fact, two days later on March 20, 2020, the Governor publicly announced the “New York State on PAUSE” Executive Order and a 10-point plan to mitigate the pandemic, which included the directive that “[s]ick individuals should not leave their home unless to receive medical care and only after a telehealth visit to determine if leaving the home is in the best interest of their health” (Governor Cuomo Signs the ‘New York State on PAUSE’ Executive Order, New York State Governor [March 20, 2020], https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-new-york-state-pauseexecutive-order). As further described infra, in implementing this policy, the Governor relied on already-issued and subsequent executive orders to essentially direct individuals to shelter at home. At this time, it became clear that “[t]he state emergency caused by the coronavirus pandemic necessitate[d] a truncated political calendar for petitions related to 1 Between March 18, 2020 and April 3, 2020, New York saw the number of confirmed COVID-19 infections and deaths rise from 2,382 total cases and 16 total deaths to 102,863 total cases and 2,951 total deaths (Ben Axelson, Coronavirus timeline in NY: Here’s how Gov. Cuomo has responded to COVID-19 pandemic since January, Syracuse.com [April 14, 2020], https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/04/coronavirus-timeline-in-nyheres-how-gov-cuomo-has-responded-to-covid-19-pandemic-since-january.html). On March 18, 2020 alone, New York reported an increase of more than 1,000 positive COVID19 cases from the day prior, which illustrates the extent of infections raging across the state (As Testing Expands, Confirmed Cases of Coronavirus in N.Y.C. Near 2,000, New York Times [March 18, 2020], https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/coronavirusnew-york-update.html#link-4b523fc4). -6-

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