Matter of Muldoon v. Herricks, 39 N.Y.2d 183 (1976)

A candidate who intentionally files multiple designating petitions for incompatible party positions, misleading voters and precluding them from signing other petitions, invalidates all such petitions, barring the candidate from running for any of the positions.

Summary

This case concerns the validity of designating petitions filed by candidates for multiple County Committee positions. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that when candidates intentionally file designating petitions for multiple, incompatible party positions, thereby misleading voters and precluding them from signing petitions for other candidates, all such petitions are invalidated. The court reasoned that such practices are injurious to the rights of the electorate and should not be tolerated, even if declination of some candidacies might technically allow a single candidacy to survive.

Facts

Several candidates filed designating petitions to run for multiple positions within the County Committee. These positions were incompatible, meaning that an individual could not simultaneously hold more than one. The petitioners challenged the validity of these designating petitions, arguing that the multiple filings misled voters and restricted their ability to support other candidates.

Procedural History

The case originated as a proceeding under Section 330 of the Election Law. The Appellate Division initially ruled that while the multiple candidacies were improper, the candidates could still stand for at least one office if the other incompatible candidacies were eliminated. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted the petition, invalidating all of the respondents’ designating petitions.

Issue(s)

Whether designating petitions filed by candidates for multiple, incompatible County Committee positions should be invalidated in their entirety when the multiplicity of candidacies is intentional and misleading to voters.

Holding

Yes, because the multiplicity of inconsistent candidacies is injurious to the rights of the electorate and misleading to voters, and the petitions were permeated with a defect intentionally introduced by the circulators and candidates.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the intentional filing of multiple, incompatible candidacies is a practice “injurious to the rights of the electorate” and “fraudulent and deceptive.” The court emphasized that voters who signed the offending petitions must be assumed to have been misled as to the candidates’ intentions to serve if designated and elected. Furthermore, the petitions were misleading by suggesting that the listed candidates intended to run together, and they unlawfully precluded those who signed them from signing petitions for other candidates for the same office, as per Election Law, § 136, subd. 8. The court explicitly overruled prior case law (Matter of Ryan v. Murray and Matter of Trongone v. O’Rourke) to the extent that those cases permitted a single candidacy to survive when multiple candidacies were initially filed. The court concluded that the petitions were “permeated with the defect intentionally introduced into them by the circulators and those candidates who participated in the circulation.” Therefore, all designating petitions filed by the candidates were invalidated, preventing them from running for any of the positions.