Delgado v. Sunderland, 98 N.Y.2d 420 (2002)

The exclusive remedy for challenging the results of a general election based on voting machine malfunctions and contesting title to public office is a quo warranto action brought by the Attorney General, not a summary proceeding under the Election Law or a declaratory judgment action.

Summary

Following a general election, Delgado contested the results, alleging a voting machine malfunctioned, costing him votes. The Supreme Court converted the Election Law proceeding to a declaratory judgment action and ordered a new election in one district. The Appellate Division modified, ordering a city-wide election. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a quo warranto action, commenced by the Attorney General, is the exclusive remedy for challenging general election results based on alleged voting machine malfunctions. This prevents uncertainty in office holding and ensures an initial investigation by the Attorney General.

Facts

In the November 6, 2001, general election for City of White Plains Common Council seats, a voting machine in the 18th Election District jammed. Delgado, a candidate, alleged the malfunction cost him votes, placing the election of Hockley, who finished ahead of Delgado, in doubt. After a recount, Hockley was ahead by 47 votes.

Procedural History

Delgado initiated an Election Law article 16 proceeding seeking impoundment and recount. After the recount favored Hockley, Delgado moved to be declared the winner or for a new election. Hockley moved to dismiss, arguing for a quo warranto action. The Supreme Court denied the motion, converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action, and ordered a new election in the 18th District only. The Appellate Division modified, ordering a city-wide election between Hockley and Delgado. The Court of Appeals then reversed.

Issue(s)

Whether a summary proceeding under Election Law article 16 or a declaratory judgment action is a proper vehicle for challenging the results of a general election based on voting machine malfunctions and contesting title to the public office, or whether a quo warranto action is the exclusive remedy.

Holding

No, because the proper vehicle for challenging the results and contesting title to the public office of the purported winner where a voting machine malfunctioned is a quo warranto action, now codified in Executive Law § 63-b.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that any action taken by the Supreme Court regarding a general election challenge must be expressly authorized by the Election Law. The Court stated, “[Supreme Court’s] only powers are (1) to determine the validity of protested, blank or void paper ballots and protested or rejected absentee ballots and to direct a recanvass or correction of any error in the canvass of such ballots * * * and (2) to review the canvass and direct a recanvass or correction of an error or performance of any required duty by the board of canvassers.” Because the voting machine malfunction created a disputed issue of fact not resolvable by recanvassing, a quo warranto action, initiated by the Attorney General, is the exclusive remedy. The Court reasoned that this process allows for an investigative and screening function by the Attorney General. The Court also highlighted policy concerns of leaving a contested office vacant during protracted litigation. The Court distinguished lower court decisions and clarified that a declaratory judgment is not an available alternative remedy in this context. The court cited Matter of Mullen v Heffernan, affirming that “The remedy for a failure of a voting machine to record votes cast * * * is vested solely in this court in a plenary action brought by the People of the State… [The candidate] has a remedy in quo warranto and it is [the] only remedy”.