Blaikie v. Wagner, 13 N.Y.2d 132 (1963)
A system of limited voting, where voters can only vote for a subset of available candidates for multiple at-large positions, does not violate the New York State Constitution as long as the limitation applies equally to all voters.
Summary
This case addresses the constitutionality of a New York City Charter provision that employs a limited voting system for electing councilmen at large. The Charter allowed each voter to vote for only one borough-wide candidate, even though two at-large councilmen were to be elected from each borough. The Court of Appeals upheld the provision, finding that it did not violate the state constitution’s guarantee of the right to vote. The court reasoned that the constitutional provision was primarily intended to prevent voter discrimination, not to dictate the specific mechanisms of elections. The court distinguished this case from previous cases by highlighting that the limited voting system applied equally to all voters, ensuring no individual was unfairly disenfranchised.
Facts
In 1961, New York City voters approved a new City Charter that included a provision (Section 22) for electing 10 councilmen at large, two from each borough. The Charter stipulated a “limited voting” system whereby each voter could only vote for one candidate for councilman at large in their borough. The intention behind this system was to facilitate the election of minority representatives. Several candidates appeared on the ballot, but each voter could only select one.
Procedural History
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 22 in the lower courts. The Special Term found the provision unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a limited voting system, which restricts voters to voting for only one candidate in a borough-wide election where two councilmen at large are to be elected, violates Article II, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to vote for all elective officers.
Holding
No, because the purpose of Article II, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution is to ensure that all qualified voters are treated equally and to prevent electoral discrimination, not to dictate the specific mechanisms by which elections are conducted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied heavily on its prior decision in Johnson v. City of New York, 274 N.Y. 411, which upheld proportional representation, another form of limited voting. The Court reasoned that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution was designed to remove voter disqualifications based on personal attributes like poverty or class, ensuring that all qualified citizens have the same voting rights. It was not intended to regulate the mode of selecting elective officers. The court emphasized that the limited voting system in Section 22 applied equally to all voters within each borough. The court stated,