Previous 44 / 48 Next

- 18 - Nos. 56 & 58 we emphasized that “there [wa]s simply no valid explanation for the premature meeting and filing” (id. at 458-459). Pierce, therefore, comported with the legislature’s revised direction to interpret the Election Laws liberally, keeping in mind substantial compliance and the prevention of fraud. In contrast, Ms. Seawright’s filing delays – presenting no risk of fraud or harm to the integrity of the electoral process – are just the sort of hypertechnical errors the legislature rejected as reasons to bar ballot access. Ms. Seawright cured the technical violations to her designating petitions on April 2 when, after having been quarantined, she filed a single cover sheet and a certificate of acceptance. There were no allegations of fraud, her designating petitions demonstrated that voters want her on the ballot, and she timely filed her designating petitions despite the truncated and advanced filing deadlines – all while COVID-19 wreaked havoc on New York City. By striking Ms. Seawright from both the Democratic Party and Working Families Party ballots, the majority has endangered the right of voters to cast their votes effectively, a precious freedom that should not be lightly treaded upon. The reforms to New York Election Law in the 1990s – and the Governor’s and legislature’s recent enactments7 – were intended to protect against this exact circumstance and ensure that no 7 Indeed, by issuing Executive Order 202.2, Governor Cuomo sought to preserve our democratic institutions and provide candidates access to the ballot despite the unique and difficult circumstances of the pandemic. In addition to dramatically reducing the number of required signatures a candidate needed to obtain in order to appear on the June 23 ballot, the Order allowed for electronic applications for absentee ballots in some elections – such measures show the Governor’s commitment to prevent candidates from being struck from the ballot during the pandemic and to prevent voters from being disenfranchised as a result. Chapter 24 of the Laws of 2020, duly enacted by the legislature on March 18, serves the same purpose: by truncating the political calendar and advancing the deadline to file by two weeks, chapter 24 guarantees that the primary ballots will be ready by June 23 and - 18 -

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