Matter of Wallace v. Power, 22 N.Y.2d 771 (1968)

A party enrollment remains valid when a voter, through no fault of their own, is given and completes an incorrect form by the Board of Elections, especially when the prior enrollment was not officially cancelled until after the filing of a designating petition.

Summary

Wallace, an enrolled Democrat, moved within his Senate district. He requested a transfer of his enrollment with the Board of Elections but was provided a new enrollment form instead. He signed it. Subsequently, he filed a designating petition for Senator, and his enrollment was challenged. The court held that his enrollment was valid because the Board provided the wrong form, his previous enrollment was not canceled until after he filed his petition, and the situation was distinguishable from cases of lapsed enrollment due to failure to vote. Therefore, his designating petition was valid.

Facts

Wallace was a long-time enrolled Democrat who voted in the 1967 general election.
Between January 1967 and March 1968, he moved within the 11th Senate District.
On March 28, 1968, he requested a transfer of his enrollment at the Board of Elections due to his change of address.
The Board provided him with a new enrollment form instead of a transfer form, which he signed.
His prior enrollment was not canceled by the Board until after May 14, 1968, when he filed a designating petition for the Democratic nomination for Senator.

Procedural History

Wallace filed a designating petition for the Democratic nomination for Senator.
The validity of his enrollment was challenged.
The Appellate Division’s decision was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether Wallace’s enrollment as a Democrat was valid, despite signing a new enrollment form instead of a transfer form after moving within the same Senate district.

Holding

Yes, because the Board of Elections provided the incorrect form, and his prior enrollment was not officially canceled until after he filed his designating petition. The court distinguished this from cases involving lapsed enrollment due to failure to vote.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Wallace was entitled to a transfer of enrollment under Election Law § 187, subd. 8.
The Board of Elections erred by providing him with a new enrollment form, which is typically used when a registration has lapsed due to a failure to vote. The court emphasized the distinction from cases where enrollment lapses due to failure to exercise the franchise. Those lapsed enrollments are “not reinstated until after the next general election”.
The court highlighted that Wallace’s prior enrollment remained active until officially canceled by the Board of Elections, which occurred after he filed his designating petition. This fact was crucial in distinguishing this case from typical lapsed enrollment situations.
Because Wallace took appropriate action by appearing before the Board and requesting a transfer, the error of the Board should not invalidate his enrollment. The court emphasized that the prior enrollment “continued until changed or until it lapsed pursuant to law”.
The court implicitly considered the policy implications of invalidating Wallace’s enrollment due to the Board’s error, potentially disenfranchising a candidate who acted in good faith. The Court of Appeals sought to ensure that the mistake of the Board of Elections did not negatively impact the petitioner’s eligibility.
Judge Scileppi dissented, presumably adopting the reasoning of the Appellate Division, which is not detailed in this memorandum opinion.