New York Law Review

Tag: Absentee Ballots

  • Matter of Stewart v. Chautauqua County Bd. of Elections, 14 N.Y.3d 143 (2010): Validating Ballots with Technical Defects and Establishing Residency Requirements

    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.

  • Matter of Spano v. Onondaga County Bd. of Elections, 12 N.Y.3d 751 (2009): Jurisdiction to Review Canvassed Ballots

    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.

  • Gross v. Albany County Board of Elections, 3 N.Y.3d 251 (2004): Strict Compliance with Election Law Absentee Ballot Rules

    3 N.Y.3d 251 (2004)

    Absentee ballots collected in violation of both a federal court order and Article 8 of the New York Election Law are invalid, even in the absence of fraud or intentional misconduct, when the board of elections deviates from the statutorily prescribed protocol for determining voter eligibility.

    Summary

    This case concerns the validity of absentee ballots in a special general election for the Albany County Legislature. The Albany County Board of Elections, misinterpreting a federal court order, sent absentee ballots to voters who had requested them for a previous election without requiring new applications as required by the Election Law. The New York Court of Appeals held that these absentee ballots were invalid because the Board’s actions circumvented the Legislature’s procedure for ensuring the validity of absentee votes, violating both the Election Law and the federal court order. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with election laws to protect the integrity of the ballot, even when the voters acted in good faith.

    Facts

    Due to litigation, a special election was ordered for Albany County Legislature seats. The federal court ordered that voters who had applied for absentee ballots for the previous election be sent ballots for the special primary election without needing new applications. However, for the special general election, the court ordered that the process for obtaining and counting absentee ballots be governed by Article 8 of the New York Election Law. Contrary to this order, the Albany County Board of Elections sent absentee ballots to voters who had requested them for the previous election, without requiring new applications demonstrating their eligibility to vote absentee in the special general election.

    Procedural History

    Candidates objected to the counting of absentee ballots, alleging non-compliance with the federal court order and Article 8 of the Election Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the non-compliant absentee ballots should not be canvassed. The Appellate Division affirmed. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals due to a dissent in the Appellate Division.

    Issue(s)

    Whether absentee ballots collected in violation of a federal court order and Article 8 of the Election Law should be invalidated, even in the absence of fraud or intentional misconduct, when the board of elections failed to adhere to the application requirements for determining voter eligibility.

    Holding

    Yes, because the Board of Elections failed to follow the statutory requirements for determining voter eligibility for absentee ballots. The court found that the board’s error was not a minor technicality, but a substantive deviation from the law that compromised the integrity of the election process.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the Election Law, stating that “Broad policy considerations weigh in favor of requiring strict compliance with the Election Law . . . [for] a too-liberal construction. . . has the potential for inviting mischief on the part of candidates, or their supporters or aides, or worse still, manipulations of the entire election process.” The Court reasoned that the Board’s failure to require new absentee ballot applications circumvented the process designed to ensure that only qualified voters cast absentee ballots. Voters never articulated why they couldn’t vote in person on election day, and the Board lacked a basis to conclude they were qualified to vote absentee. The Court distinguished this case from situations involving minor technical errors, emphasizing that the Board’s error was central to the process of determining voter qualification. The Court rejected the argument that the voters’ good faith reliance on the Board’s actions should excuse the violation, reasoning that such an exception would effectively nullify election officials’ obligation to adhere to the law. The dissent argued that the voters should not be disenfranchised due to the Board’s error and that the error was ministerial. The majority rejected that characterization, stating the board was interpreting and implementing a federal court order, thereby exercising judgment. The court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, invalidating the absentee ballots.