Matter of Rose v. D’Apice, 38 N.Y.2d 790 (1975)

When reviewing challenges to signatures on election designating petitions, courts should not invalidate signatures based on minor inconsistencies or alterations without evidence of fraud or impropriety.

Summary

This case concerns a challenge to a designating petition for a candidate in an election. The Board of Elections initially invalidated some signatures, but Special Term invalidated additional signatures, finding some were duplicates and others were altered. The Appellate Division reversed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that without proof of fraud or impropriety, signatures should not be invalidated based on minor inconsistencies like the use of different pens or overwriting of dates. The court emphasized that challenges to signatures require evidence of actual wrongdoing beyond mere technical irregularities.

Facts

A designating petition for a candidate contained 98 signatures, with 44 needed to place the candidate’s name on the ballot. The Board of Elections invalidated 52 signatures, leaving 46 valid signatures. A challenge was filed, and Special Term invalidated 15 additional signatures: one for an uncontested reason, four duplicates, and ten for alleged alteration of dates.

Procedural History

Special Term annulled the Board of Elections’ action and invalidated the designating petition. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the ten signatures allegedly tainted by alteration of date on the designating petition should be invalidated.
2. Whether, in addition to the Board of Elections invalidating one set of duplicate signatures, the other set of duplicate signatures should also be invalidated.

Holding

1. No, because the record lacked evidence of any actual alteration or impropriety regarding the dates on the signatures. 2. No, because without proof of impropriety or fraud, only one set of duplicative signatures should be deleted; the Board of Elections had already invalidated one set.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the allegedly altered dates, the Court of Appeals examined the original designating petition and found no basis to invalidate the signatures. The court observed that the dates were completed with two different pens, and in some instances, the word “June” was written over the numeral “6.” The court stated, “Where there is no inconsistency in the overwriting and no evidence as to significant differences of times or circumstances of the writings, there is no inference of impropriety or fraud.” The court deferred to the Appellate Division’s implicit determination that the alleged alteration was not improper, citing deference to the Appellate Division on mixed questions of fact and inference, referencing People ex rel. MacCracken v Miller, 291 NY 55, 61. On the issue of duplicative signatures, the court agreed with the Appellate Division that only one set of the signatures should be deleted without further proof of impropriety or fraud, citing Election Law § 136, subd 8. The court noted that one set had already been invalidated by the Board of Elections. Ultimately, the court determined that the candidate’s designating petition had 45 valid signatures, exceeding the required 44.