Previous 32 / 48 Next

-6- Nos. 56 & 58 The candidate at issue here, Rebecca Seawright, sedulously filed two petitions designating her as a candidate of both the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly in the 76th District on March 19 – a day before the final day to file and less than one day after the enactment of chapter 24. Both petitions contained more than the requisite number of signatures and were bound according to the Board of Elections regulations. During this period of time, Ms. Seawright was ill with COVID-19 symptoms, under a doctor’s care, and ordered to quarantine.3 Ms. Seawright did not file the cover sheet for her Democratic Party petition by March 20 (see Election Law § 6-134; 9 NYCRR 6215.1 [b], [c]).4 She also did not file a certificate of acceptance for the Working Families Party petition by March 24 (see Election Law § 6-146; Election Law § 6-158 [2]).5 Despite her doctor-ordered isolation and the lack of any notice from the Board of Elections, Ms. Seawright cured both deficiencies on April 2 when she filed a cover page for her Democratic petition and a certificate of acceptance for her Working Families Party petition. Judge Rivera’s dissenting opinion, in which I join, contains more detail about Ms. Seawright’s circumstances. 4 Because her Democratic Party petition consisted of more than 10 pages, it required a cover sheet whereas her Working Families Party petition did not (9 NYCRR 6215.1 [b]). 5 Only her Working Families Party petition required a certificate of acceptance under Election Law § 6-146 (1) (“if designated or nominated for a public office other than a judicial office by a party of which he is not a duly enrolled member . . . such person shall, in a certificate signed and acknowledged by him, and filed as provided in this article, accept the designation or nomination as a candidate of each such party or independent body other than that of the party of which he is an enrolled member, otherwise such designation or nomination shall be null and void”). 3 -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