Matter of Holtzman v. Power, 39 N.Y.2d 778 (1976)
The mandatory ballot rotation provision in New York City primary elections applies to all offices, including statewide offices like U.S. Senator, unless the statute explicitly limits the provision.
Summary
This case addresses the interpretation of New York Election Law § 242-a(7), specifically whether the ballot rotation requirement in New York City primary elections extends only to offices exclusively within the city’s geographical jurisdiction, or also to statewide offices like U.S. Senator. The Court of Appeals held that the rotation requirement applies to all primary elections in New York City, including those for statewide offices. The court emphasized the absence of the word “wholly” in subdivision 7, contrasting it with other subdivisions, and gave weight to the interpretation of the agency responsible for administering the statute.
Facts
Appellant Holtzman argued that the ballot rotation rule in New York City primary elections should not apply to the election for U.S. Senator, a statewide office. Holtzman had received the number one ballot position in a statewide draw. If the New York City ballot rotation rule applied only to offices exclusively within the city, he would retain the number one position in New York City. The Secretary of State conducted the draw to determine ballot positions statewide under Election Law § 104(2). The core dispute centered on the interpretation of Election Law § 242-a(7).
Procedural History
The lower courts ruled against Holtzman’s interpretation, finding that the ballot rotation provision applied to the U.S. Senate primary election in New York City. Holtzman appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Election Law § 242-a(7), which mandates ballot rotation in New York City primary elections, applies only to offices whose geographical jurisdiction is exclusively within New York City, or whether it extends to statewide offices such as United States Senator.
Holding
No, because the Legislature’s omission of the word “wholly” in subdivision 7, in contrast to its inclusion in subdivisions 1 and 4, indicates a broader scope for subdivision 7, encompassing statewide offices in New York City primary elections.
Court’s Reasoning
The court focused on statutory interpretation, specifically the significance of the word “wholly” in subdivisions 1 and 4 of the statute, which was absent in subdivision 7. The court reasoned that this omission indicated that the legislature intended a different scope for subdivision 7, one that included statewide offices. The court stated, “We agree with the courts below that the failure of the Legislature to include the explicit and critical adverb, ‘wholly’ in subdivision 7 as it did in subdivisions 1 and 4 points to the conclusion that the scope of subdivision 7 is different from that of subdivision’s 1 and 4. To hold otherwise would be to attribute no significance to the inclusion of the word ‘wholly’.” The court also gave weight to the interpretation of the statute by the agency responsible for its administration, citing Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 Y 2d 434. The court concluded that the mandatory rotation provision of subdivision 7 extends to all primary elections held in New York City, including those for statewide offices like U.S. Senator.