New York Law Review

Matter of McGee v. Korman, 70 N.Y.2d 255 (1987): Challenging Statute Constitutionality Requires Adequate Record and Notice

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Matter of McGee v. Korman, 70 N.Y.2d 255 (1987)

A court should not strike down a statute as unconstitutional unless the challenge is properly raised and supported by an adequate record, and the Attorney General has been notified, ensuring full representation of the state’s interests.

Summary

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of New York Election Law § 6-136(2)(b), which requires candidates for office in New York City counties to obtain 5,000 signatures, while candidates for the same office outside the city need only 2,000 signatures if the county has over 250,000 residents. The Appellate Division declared the statute unconstitutional based on equal protection grounds, a claim raised for the first time on appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a constitutional challenge requires an adequate record, proper notice to the Attorney General, and that the statute’s invalidity must be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of affording the State’s chief legal officer the opportunity to defend the constitutionality of state laws.

Facts

Lee Holzman, Hansel McGee, and Lorraine Backal filed petitions to run for Surrogate of Bronx County. The Board of Elections invalidated McGee’s petition for insufficient signatures. McGee and Backal challenged the 5,000-signature requirement as unduly burdensome due to a shortened period for collecting signatures. The Supreme Court invalidated Backal’s petition and dismissed McGee’s petition.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court rejected the initial constitutional argument. On appeal, the Appellate Division declared Election Law § 6-136(2)(b) invalid on equal protection grounds, reversing the Supreme Court and directing Backal and McGee’s names to be placed on the ballot. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court’s judgments.

Issue(s)

Whether a court can declare a state statute unconstitutional on grounds of equal protection when that argument was first raised on appeal, without proper notice to the Attorney General, and without an adequate factual record developed in the lower courts.

Holding

No, because a constitutional challenge requires an adequate record, proper notice to the Attorney General, and the statute’s invalidity must be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality afforded to statutes, stating that

More ARTICLES