Matter of Carr v. Ulster County Bd. of Elections, 71 N.Y.2d 78 (1987)

The opportunity to ballot remedy, which allows for a write-in campaign, is available only to cure technical, but not fatal, defects in designating petitions.

Summary

This case clarifies the scope of the “opportunity to ballot” remedy under New York election law. The Court of Appeals held that this remedy, which allows voters to write in a candidate’s name on the ballot, is appropriate only when a designating petition suffers from technical flaws, not fundamental deficiencies that render it invalid. The court reasoned that allowing the remedy in cases of significant flaws would undermine the petition process and potentially disenfranchise voters. The dissent argued that the majority’s holding narrowed the scope of the opportunity to ballot and frustrated the purpose of protecting the electorate from disenfranchisement.

Facts

Two designating petitions were filed for a primary election for the office of Civil Court Judge. Both petitions were invalidated. Combining the number of valid signatures from both invalidated petitions, a sufficient number of valid signatures existed to support a single petition or a petition for a write-in ballot.

Procedural History

The lower courts, relying on Matter of Hunting v Power, directed a write-in ballot. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the opportunity to ballot remedy was not appropriate in this case.

Issue(s)

Whether the opportunity to ballot remedy is available when designating petitions are invalidated due to deficiencies that are not merely technical.

Holding

No, because the opportunity to ballot remedy is available only to cure “technical, but fatal defects in designating petitions.”

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the opportunity to ballot remedy is not a tool to overcome fundamental flaws in the designating petition process. The court stated that the remedy is meant to address minor technical issues, not to circumvent the requirements for validly nominating a candidate. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established procedures for designating candidates to ensure fairness and order in elections.

The dissenting judge argued that the decision substantially narrowed the rule in Hunting v. Power, stating that combining the number of valid signatures contained in the two invalidated petitions, a sufficient number of valid signatures exists to support a single petition, or a petition for a write-in ballot under Election Law § 6-164. The dissent stated that the important policy reason underlying the Hunting rule is protecting an interested electorate from disenfranchisement, and that the intent to “nominate some candidate” is manifest.