Matter of Sweeney v. Board of Elections, 96 N.Y.2d 432 (2001)
Strict compliance with the Election Law is required for designating petitions, including accurately stating the town or city of residence for each signer, as these requirements constitute matters of substance, not merely form.
Summary
This case concerns a challenge to the sufficiency of a designating petition for a candidate for the House of Representatives. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ invalidation of the petition due to numerous instances where signers failed to accurately designate their town or city of residence. The Court held that strict compliance with Election Law § 6-130 is required, as the accurate designation of a town or city is a matter of substance, not form. The court distinguished this case from a federal case, which found a similar requirement unconstitutional, because no constitutional issues were raised or developed in the record in this case.
Facts
An objector challenged the designating petition of John Sweeney, a candidate for the House of Representatives. The objector claimed that the petition contained insufficient valid signatures because many signers failed to accurately designate their town or city of residence, as required by Election Law § 6-130.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court invalidated the petition, excluding 48 signatures and leaving the candidate with an insufficient number of valid signatures. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision with two justices dissenting. The candidate appealed to the Court of Appeals based on the two-justice dissent. The objector cross-appealed.
Issue(s)
Whether strict compliance with the requirement in Election Law § 6-130 to accurately state the town or city of residence for each signer on a designating petition is required for the petition to be valid.
Holding
Yes, because compliance with Election Law § 6-130 is a matter of substance, not form, and is therefore required for a designating petition to be valid.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its precedent in Matter of Frome v Board of Elections of Nassau County, which held that compliance with Election Law § 6-130 is required. The Court emphasized that the statute explicitly states that a designating petition must set forth the signer’s residence address, town or city, and date of signature. The Court noted that the Legislature amended the statute in 1996, eliminating other requirements but leaving the town/city designation intact, indicating its continued importance. The Court distinguished this case from Molinari v Powers, where a federal court found a similar requirement unconstitutional. The Court explained that in Molinari, the parties stipulated that the Election Law provisions imposed an undue burden on ballot access, and the record supported this finding. However, in this case, the parties did not raise similar constitutional issues or develop evidence to support such claims. Therefore, the Court had no basis to consider constitutional issues. The court emphasized that any amendment to the statute is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary. The court stated, “[A] designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” Furthermore, the court emphasized that, “compliance with the statute is required, as it constitutes a matter of substance and not of form.”