Previous 8 / 48 Next

-7- Nos. 56 & 58 The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly presented uniquely challenging circumstances for Seawright and Hawatmeh – among countless other candidates for public office. Nonetheless, as in our prior cases, we remain constrained by the express directive of the Election Law: the complete failure to file, by the applicable deadline, either a cover sheet with a designating petition or a certificate of acceptance constitutes a “fatal defect” (Election Law § 1-106 [2]). The First Department’s analysis, employed in Seawright, Mejia (___ NY3d ___ [decided herewith]), and Mujumder (___ NY3d ___ [decided herewith]), directly conflicts with that well-established statutory mandate.2 Notably, while several of the legislature’s directives have been expressly suspended or modified in response to the public health crisis (see e.g. Executive Order 202.2 [March 14, 2020] [reducing signature gathering requirements for designating petitions]; Executive Order 202.7 [March 19, 2020] [allowing for notarization via “audio-video technology”]), and the legislature has itself modified the filing deadlines applicable in these appeals (see L 2020, ch 24), candidates have not been relieved from the consequences of a late filing. Nor have any measures been implemented that purport to confer judicial discretion or equitable authority to fashion further relief. “The time requirements for filing papers set forth in the Election Law are mandatory and absolute,” and we are “without authority or Our dissenting colleague asserts that the decisions below relied on “extraordinary and unusual facts” that are “unlikely to re-appear in our lifetimes” while simultaneously contending that the First Department simply applied a straightforward, decades-old interpretation of the Election Law (Wilson, J., dissenting op at 9, 15-16). Even if both propositions could somehow be true, neither undermines the important goals of fairness and equality that are served when we resolve “conflict[s] among the departments of the Appellate Division” (22 NYCRR 500.22 [b] [4]). 2 -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