Matter of Independent Citizens v. Barbera, 49 N.Y.2d 747 (1980)
New York Election Law § 6-134(2) does not require each volume of a multi-volume nominating petition to begin with page one, so long as the sheets are consecutively numbered from the start of the first volume through the end of the last, providing assurance against fraud.
Summary
This case addresses whether a nominating petition filed in multiple volumes must be invalidated if each volume does not begin with page one. The New York Court of Appeals held that consecutive numbering of sheets from the beginning of the first volume through the end of the last complies with Election Law § 6-134(2), which aims to prevent fraud. The court emphasized that the consecutive numbering, combined with other statutory requirements, sufficiently safeguards the integrity of the petitioning process, even if individual volumes aren’t paginated independently.
Facts
The Independent Citizens of Guilderland filed a nominating petition in four volumes to support their candidates for town office. Instead of each volume starting with page one, the sheets were numbered consecutively across all four volumes, beginning with the first volume and continuing through the last.
Procedural History
The lower court invalidated the petition because each volume did not begin with page one. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Election Law § 6-134(2) requires each volume of a nominating petition to begin with page one, or whether consecutive numbering of sheets throughout all volumes satisfies the statute’s requirements.
Holding
No, because consecutive numbering beginning with page one of either the sheets or the volumes of a petition, together with the other requirements of the section, provides assurance against fraud in connection with the collection of signatures for designating petitions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals interpreted Election Law § 6-134(2) in light of its purpose: to prevent fraud in the petitioning process. The court acknowledged that the Legislature, through a 1978 amendment, restored the requirement of consecutive pagination beginning with page number one. However, the court reasoned that requiring each volume to begin with page one was not the only way to achieve the statute’s objective. The court stated, “Consecutive numbering beginning with page one of either the sheets or the volumes of a petition, together with the other requirements of the section, provides assurance against fraud in connection with the collection of signatures for designating petitions.” The court emphasized that consistent numbering across all volumes, combined with other safeguards in the law, adequately protects against fraudulent practices. The court focused on a practical interpretation of the statute, prioritizing the prevention of fraud over a rigid, technical reading of the pagination requirement.