Matter of Stewart v. Chautauqua County Bd. of Elections, 14 N.Y.3d 143 (2010)

Election boards must substantially comply with election law, and ballots should be counted if voter intent is clear, but residency for voting requires physical presence and intent to remain.

Summary

This case involves a dispute over several ballots cast in a Chautauqua County election. The New York Court of Appeals addressed the validity of an affidavit ballot, two optical scan ballots, and two absentee ballots. The Court held that one affidavit ballot was invalid due to the voter’s lack of residency in the district, but validated the two optical scan ballots that were initially rejected by the machine because the voters’ intent was clear. The Court also validated two absentee ballots despite a procedural error by the Board of Elections, finding substantial compliance with election law. The decision emphasizes voter intent when technical errors occur and clarifies residency requirements for voting purposes.

Facts

Robert Stewart and Leon Beightol were candidates for Chautauqua County Legislator. Disputes arose over the validity of certain ballots: (1) an affidavit ballot of J.K., challenged for residency; (2) two absentee ballots where the applications were allegedly incomplete when sent; (3) two optical scan ballots rejected by the scanning machine but manually counted. The absentee ballots were sent to voters R.Y. and W.Y. with instructions to return completed applications. Both voters complied.

Procedural History

Stewart initiated a proceeding challenging the affidavit ballot and absentee ballots. Beightol counterclaimed, seeking to validate the affidavit and absentee ballots. Subsequently, Beightol commenced another proceeding to invalidate the absentee ballots, arguing that absentee voter applications should not have been included in the return envelopes. The Supreme Court ordered the affidavit and absentee ballots counted, but not the optical scan ballots, resulting in a tie. The Appellate Division modified, invalidating the affidavit ballot but validating the optical scan ballots. Beightol appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether J.K.’s affidavit ballot should be invalidated due to lack of residency in the voting district.
2. Whether the two optical scan ballots, initially rejected by the machine, should be counted.
3. Whether the two absentee ballots should be invalidated because the Board of Elections sent the ballots before receiving fully completed applications and included extrinsic materials (applications) in the return envelope.

Holding

1. No, because J.K. did not maintain a fixed, permanent, and principal home in the district, and lacked significant attachments to the Chautauqua County address.
2. Yes, because the voters’ intent was clear, and the ballots were “non-machine processable as submitted by the voter[s],” requiring a manual count under applicable regulations.
3. No, because the Board of Elections substantially complied with election law, and the inclusion of absentee ballot applications did not invalidate the ballots as no marks on the ballots themselves identified the voters.

Court’s Reasoning

Residency requires physical presence with the intent to remain. The Court relied on People v. O’Hara, 96 N.Y.2d 378 (2001), stating that an individual must have “legitimate, significant and continuing attachments as [his or] her residence for purposes of the Election Law.” Because J.K. had a more permanent residence elsewhere and lacked significant ties to the Chautauqua County location, her affidavit ballot was invalid.

For the optical scan ballots, the Court looked to 9 NYCRR 6210.13 (A) (8), stating “If a ballot is ‘non-machine processable as submitted by the voter, [it] shall be manually counted by a bipartisan team of election inspectors and such vote totals shall be added to the canvass’”. Since the ballots were rejected by the machine, the Court validated them to ensure voter intent was honored.

Regarding the absentee ballots, while the Board of Elections deviated from the ideal procedure, they substantially complied with the law. Citing Matter of Gross v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 3 N.Y.3d 251 (2004), the Court distinguished this case, noting that the Board had a basis to determine the voters were entitled to absentee ballots. The Court also found that including the applications in the return envelope did not violate Election Law § 9-112(1) as it states extrinsic marks must appear on the ballot itself.

The Court emphasized that “[a] vote for any candidate or ballot measure shall not be rejected solely because the voter failed to follow instructions for marking the ballot.” This underscored the importance of counting ballots where voter intent is clear, even with technical imperfections.