Matter of Hargett v. Green, 41 N.Y.2d 913 (1977)
Undated and uninitialed alterations to material information on a designating petition, even if resulting in the correct information, require the signatures associated with those alterations to be invalidated.
Summary
This case concerns the validity of a designating petition for an election. The petition initially contained 1,925 signatures, exceeding the required 1,349. The court addressed the validity of signatures in light of errors by a subscribing witness and, critically, undated and uninitialed alterations regarding the number of signatures witnessed and errors in assembly and election districts. The Court of Appeals held that an additional 245 signatures must be invalidated due to these errors and alterations. As a result, the petition lacked the requisite number of signatures, rendering it invalid.
Facts
The designating petition in question contained 1,925 signatures, with 1,349 signatures needed for validation. A challenge was brought against the petition’s validity. Special Term deleted 468 signatures; this deletion was not appealed. The case centered on errors made by a subscribing witness and undated, uninitialed alterations in two critical areas: the number of signatures witnessed and errors in assembly and election districts. While these alterations were conceded to have resulted in accurate information, they were not dated or initialed by the witness who made the changes.
Procedural History
The case began at Special Term, where 468 signatures were deleted from the designating petition. This decision was not challenged on appeal. The Appellate Division’s order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether undated and uninitialed alterations to a designating petition concerning the number of signatures witnessed and errors in assembly and election districts require invalidation of the signatures, even if the alterations resulted in correct information.
Holding
Yes, because alterations to material categories on a designating petition that are neither dated nor initialed invalidate the associated signatures, regardless of whether the alterations ultimately reflect correct information.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on precedent, specifically Matter of Marcatante v. Lundy, to support its holding. The court emphasized that the legal deficiencies caused by the undated and uninitialed alterations could not be excused simply because the altered information was ultimately correct. The court focused on maintaining the integrity of the petition process and preventing potential fraud or manipulation. The court stated that 45 signatures must be stricken for errors by a subscribing witness, and an additional 200 signatures were eliminated due to undated and uninitialed alterations in the number of signatures witnessed and errors in assembly and election districts.