Matter of Spano v. Onondaga County Bd. of Elections, 12 N.Y.3d 751 (2009)
New York’s Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Election Law § 16-106 to review a Board of Elections’ decision to invalidate absentee ballots after the initial canvass has been completed.
Summary
This case addresses whether the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction to review a decision by the Board of Elections to invalidate absentee ballots. Spano, a candidate for Town Justice, sought a court order to recanvass absentee ballots after the Board invalidated several, leading to his opponent’s apparent victory. The Court of Appeals held that because the challenge occurred *after* the initial canvass, the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction under Election Law § 16-106 to review the Board’s determination and potentially order a recanvass. This decision clarifies the scope of judicial review in election disputes, particularly concerning absentee ballots.
Facts
Spano was a candidate for Town Justice supported by the Democratic and Working Families Parties. His opponent, backed by the Republican, Independence, and Conservative Parties, seemingly won the election. During the Board of Elections’ canvass of paper ballots, including absentee ballots, the Board invalidated five absentee ballots that favored Spano because they contained intentional, extrinsic marks. Spano’s representatives objected to the invalidation, but the Board upheld its decision, resulting in Spano’s opponent unofficially winning by a two-vote plurality. Spano then filed a petition seeking a court order to require the Board to demonstrate why a recanvassing of the invalidated absentee ballots should not occur.
Procedural History
Spano filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking an order to show cause for a recanvass. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, finding that the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Election Law § 16-106 to review the Board of Elections’ decision to invalidate absentee ballots after the initial canvass has been completed.
Holding
Yes, because Election Law § 16-106 vests the Supreme Court with subject matter jurisdiction in a proceeding instituted by a candidate to contest the canvassing or refusal to canvass absentee ballots, provided the proceeding is brought within twenty days after the election or the Board’s alleged erroneous determination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Election Law § 16-106(1) grants the Supreme Court subject matter jurisdiction in proceedings initiated by a candidate contesting the canvassing of absentee ballots, as long as the action is brought within twenty days of the election or the Board’s decision. The Court emphasized that Spano’s petition was filed within 20 days of the Board’s invalidation of the absentee ballots. The court distinguished this case from Testa v. Ravitz and Matter of Larsen v. Canary, which held that Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to conduct its own canvass *before* the Board of Elections has completed its canvass. Here, the Board had already completed its canvass, so the Supreme Court’s review did not interfere with the Board’s initial statutory duty. The Court stated, “Contrary to the Appellate Division’s view, Supreme Court did have subject matter jurisdiction over this special proceeding, brought pursuant to Election Law § 16-106 (5).” The Court further clarified that Supreme Court has the authority to “direct a recanvass or the correction of an error.” The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory framework for election disputes, ensuring that candidates have a means to challenge potentially erroneous decisions by the Board of Elections after the initial canvass is complete.