Matter of Ippolito v. Power, 22 N.Y.2d 594 (1968)
A new election will only be ordered when irregularities render it impossible to determine who rightfully was elected, and not on the mere possibility that the results could have been changed.
Summary
This case addresses the standard for invalidating an election due to irregularities. The unsuccessful candidate in a Democratic Committee election sought a new election, alleging irregularities. The lower courts ordered a new election based on the possibility that the irregularities could have altered the outcome. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a new election is only warranted when irregularities make it impossible to determine the rightful winner, and the party challenging the election bears the burden of proving that the irregularities are significant enough to change the probable result.
Facts
In a primary election for the State Democratic Committee, the appellant won by a plurality of 62 votes out of 5,250 votes cast. The respondent, the unsuccessful candidate, challenged the election results, alleging 136 irregular votes. No fraud was alleged or found.
Procedural History
The Special Term ordered a new election, reasoning that the small difference of 62 votes could be altered in a new election. The Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously affirmed the Special Term’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the identified irregularities were sufficient to render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was elected, thus warranting a new election under Election Law § 330(2).
Holding
No, because the irregularities were not sufficiently large in number to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that a new election is an extraordinary remedy. The court stated that invalidation should not be directed based on a “mere mathematical possibility that the results could have been changed.” The court highlighted the burden on the party challenging the election results to demonstrate that the irregularities are substantial enough to suggest a probable change in the outcome. Applying this standard, the court found that even if all 136 irregular votes were cast against the winning candidate, it was not probable that the outcome would be reversed. The court reasoned that to overturn the election, 99 of the 136 irregular votes (approximately 72.8%) would have to be cast in favor of the losing candidate, which the court deemed highly improbable given the absence of any evidence of fraud. The court distinguished the case from situations where the possibility of a changed result was less remote, concluding that a valid determination of the election was not rendered impossible by the irregularities. As stated in the ruling, the burden lies with the party attempting to impeach the results to show that the “irregularities are sufficiently large in number to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes”.