New York Law Review

Tag: Election Irregularities

  • Stevenson v. Nine, 28 N.Y.2d 152 (1971): Burden of Proof for Challenging Election Irregularities

    Stevenson v. Nine, 28 N.Y.2d 152 (1971)

    An unsuccessful candidate seeking to overturn an election based on irregularities bears the burden of proving that the irregularities were of such a nature as to establish the probability that the election result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes.

    Summary

    In a Democratic primary election, Edward Stevenson lost the nomination for Assemblyman to Louis Nine by a narrow margin. Stevenson challenged the election results, alleging numerous irregularities, including ineligible voters, undated signatures, and excessive votes. The Special Term found a significant number of irregularities, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding insufficient evidence that these irregularities would have changed the election outcome. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that Stevenson failed to meet his burden of proving a probability that the election result would have been different without the irregularities. The Court emphasized that simply showing a mathematically close election is insufficient to justify a new election.

    Facts

    In a Democratic primary election for the 78th Assembly District, 5,507 voters participated. Edward Stevenson received 642 votes, losing to Louis Nine, who received 715 votes. Another candidate, Albert Brooks, Jr., received 502 votes. Stevenson challenged the election, alleging irregularities.

    Procedural History

    Stevenson initiated a proceeding in Special Term seeking a new primary election. Special Term, after a hearing, found 263 election irregularities. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Stevenson failed to prove the irregularities would have changed the election outcome. Stevenson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an unsuccessful candidate challenging an election based on irregularities must prove that the irregularities were of such a nature as to establish the probability that the election result would be changed by a shift in, or an invalidation of, the questioned votes.

    Holding

    Yes, because an unsuccessful candidate has the burden of proving that the irregularities were of such a nature so as to establish the probability that the result of the election would be changed by a shift in, or an invalidation of, the questioned votes.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the irregularities were not sufficient to warrant a new election. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the unsuccessful candidate to demonstrate that the irregularities were significant enough to likely alter the election’s outcome. The Court distinguished the case from instances of fraud or misconduct, characterizing it as a matter of irregularity common in elections. The Court stated that “the mere showing that an election was mathematically close is not enough to justify a new election.” The Court cited several precedents, including Matter of De Martini v. Power, Matter of Ippolito v. Power, Matter of Straus v. Power, Matter of Acevedo v. Power, and Matter of Badillo v. Santangelo, to support its holding that a close election alone is insufficient grounds for ordering a new election without sufficient evidence linking specific irregularities to a probable change in the result. The court implicitly adopts a policy of judicial restraint in overturning election results absent a clear showing of prejudicial error.

  • Matter of Ippolito v. Power, 22 N.Y.2d 594 (1968): Standard for Invalidating Election Results Due to Irregularities

    Matter of Ippolito v. Power, 22 N.Y.2d 594 (1968)

    A new election will only be ordered when irregularities render it impossible to determine who rightfully was elected, and not on the mere possibility that the results could have been changed.

    Summary

    This case addresses the standard for invalidating an election due to irregularities. The unsuccessful candidate in a Democratic Committee election sought a new election, alleging irregularities. The lower courts ordered a new election based on the possibility that the irregularities could have altered the outcome. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a new election is only warranted when irregularities make it impossible to determine the rightful winner, and the party challenging the election bears the burden of proving that the irregularities are significant enough to change the probable result.

    Facts

    In a primary election for the State Democratic Committee, the appellant won by a plurality of 62 votes out of 5,250 votes cast. The respondent, the unsuccessful candidate, challenged the election results, alleging 136 irregular votes. No fraud was alleged or found.

    Procedural History

    The Special Term ordered a new election, reasoning that the small difference of 62 votes could be altered in a new election. The Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously affirmed the Special Term’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the identified irregularities were sufficient to render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was elected, thus warranting a new election under Election Law § 330(2).

    Holding

    No, because the irregularities were not sufficiently large in number to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that a new election is an extraordinary remedy. The court stated that invalidation should not be directed based on a “mere mathematical possibility that the results could have been changed.” The court highlighted the burden on the party challenging the election results to demonstrate that the irregularities are substantial enough to suggest a probable change in the outcome. Applying this standard, the court found that even if all 136 irregular votes were cast against the winning candidate, it was not probable that the outcome would be reversed. The court reasoned that to overturn the election, 99 of the 136 irregular votes (approximately 72.8%) would have to be cast in favor of the losing candidate, which the court deemed highly improbable given the absence of any evidence of fraud. The court distinguished the case from situations where the possibility of a changed result was less remote, concluding that a valid determination of the election was not rendered impossible by the irregularities. As stated in the ruling, the burden lies with the party attempting to impeach the results to show that the “irregularities are sufficiently large in number to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes”.