Mintz v. Cuomo, 41 N.Y.2d 919 (1977)
When a candidate in Row A (the row assigned to the party with the most votes in the last gubernatorial election) requests a lottery to determine ballot position, changes in other rows necessitated by voting machine limitations do not invalidate the ballot, as candidates in lower rows do not have an absolute right to have their positions determined solely by order of certification.
Summary
This case addresses the issue of ballot position determination when multiple parties nominate candidates for the same office and a candidate in Row A (the row with the highest priority) requests a lottery for ballot position. The Court of Appeals held that changes in column positions in rows below Row A, necessitated by voting machine limitations following the Row A lottery, do not invalidate the ballot. The court reasoned that candidates in lower rows do not have an absolute right to have their ballot positions determined solely by the order of certification, as their positions are inherently dependent on the positions in Row A.
Facts
Ten candidates were nominated by the Democratic, Republican, Conservative, and Liberal parties for five vacancies in the office of Justice of the Supreme Court for the Eighth Judicial District. The State Board of Elections assigned ballot rows based on the parties’ gubernatorial vote count: Democratic (Row A), Republican (Row B), Conservative (Row C), and Liberal (Row D). Initially, candidates were positioned in each row based on their order of certification by their nominating convention. However, due to candidates receiving nominations from multiple parties and voting machine limitations (preventing a candidate’s name from appearing in more than one column), adjustments were necessary. Candidate Rogowski, in Row A, requested a lottery to determine ballot position, which shifted the initial order. This shift required further adjustments in Rows B, C, and D due to the voting machine constraint.
Procedural History
Candidate Mintz, whose position in Row B was affected by Rogowski’s lottery and subsequent adjustments, initiated a proceeding to compel the board to restore the ballot to its original format. Special Term dismissed Mintz’s application. The Appellate Division reversed, granting Mintz’s request. The Board of Elections and candidates Rogowski and Gossel appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether changes in column positions in rows below Row A, necessitated by voting machine limitations following a lottery requested by a candidate in Row A, invalidate the ballot, considering the statutory right to a lottery and the limitations of voting machines.
Holding
No, because candidates in rows below Row A do not have an absolute right to have their column positions determined solely by the order of certification; their positions are necessarily dependent on the positions assigned in Row A and the operational limitations of voting machines.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the procedure followed by the Board of Elections was consistent with the intent of the Election Law and was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The court distinguished this case from Matter of Cooke v. Lomenzo, noting that in Cooke, a lottery in a lower row would have dictated changes in Row A, which is impermissible. The court emphasized Row A’s unique position, where candidates’ column positions are initially assigned based on certification order. After Row A is established, cross-endorsements are aligned, and lower rows are arranged considering those endorsements. The court stated, “Row A occupies a unique position on election ballots where candidates have received multiparty indorsements… column positions in rows beneath Row A remain, where necessary, dependent upon positions assigned to candidates in Row A.” The court reasoned that Mintz, as a candidate in Rows B, C, or D, had no absolute right to have his column positions determined solely by order of certification; it was always contingent upon the positions in Row A. Therefore, allowing Rogowski to exercise his statutory right to a lottery in Row A did not violate Mintz’s rights, even if it resulted in changes to lower rows due to voting machine constraints. The court concluded, “Inasmuch as the column positions in Rows B and D assigned to Mintz were subject to the column positions assigned to candidates in Row A, irrespective of how that assignment was accomplished, it makes little sense to preclude a candidate in Row A from exercising a statutorily granted, and otherwise unqualified, right to have his column position in that row determined by lot.”