Matter of Ippolito v. Power, 22 N.Y.2d 594 (1968)
A new election may be directed when irregularities are sufficiently numerous to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes.
Summary
This case addresses the standard for ordering a new election based on irregularities under New York Election Law § 330(2). The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to order a new primary election, finding that the number of suspect votes (101) was significant enough, compared to the winner’s slim margin (17 votes), to create a probability that the irregularities could have affected the outcome. The court emphasized that while evidence of fraud isn’t necessary, the irregularities must be substantial enough to cast doubt on the validity of the original result.
Facts
In a Democratic primary election for District Leader, the winning candidate received 1,422 votes, while the losing candidate received 1,405 votes, a difference of only 17 votes. There were 101 suspect or invalid votes due to various irregularities, including discrepancies between the public counter on the voting machine and the number of signed voter registration cards (68 votes), blank or missing party enrollments (19 votes), unsigned voter registration cards (7 votes), one irregular card, and Conservative party members signing in during the Democratic primary (6 votes).
Procedural History
The unsuccessful candidate brought a proceeding under Section 330 of the Election Law seeking a new election. Special Term granted the order for a new election. The Appellate Division affirmed by a divided vote. The successful candidate appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the irregularities in the primary election were of such a nature and extent as to render impossible a determination as to who was rightfully elected, thus justifying the ordering of a new election under Election Law § 330(2).
Holding
Yes, because the number of suspect votes was large enough relative to the small margin of victory that it was probable that a shift or invalidation of those votes would change the outcome of the election.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Election Law § 330(2) allows a court to direct a new election if the original election “has been characterized by such frauds or irregularities as to render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was elected.” The Court noted that the statute uses the term