Matter of Lerner v. Power, 54 N.Y.2d 743 (1981)

Omission of the “city or town” in the statement of a witness to a designating petition is a fatal defect because it violates a matter of legislatively mandated content, i.e., a matter of substance and not of form.

Summary

This case addresses the requirements for witness statements on designating petitions for elections in New York. The Court of Appeals held that the omission of the “city or town” in the witness statement on a designating petition is a fatal flaw. This is considered a substantive defect, not merely a matter of form, and therefore invalidates the petition. The decision emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with the Election Law’s requirements for designating petitions, particularly concerning the information provided by witnesses. The case was remitted to the lower court to consider a write-in option.

Facts

The case involved a challenge to designating petitions filed in Nassau County for an election. The specific issue was the failure of witnesses on the designating petitions to include the “city or town” in their statements as required by the Election Law. The petitioners argued that this omission invalidated the designating petitions.

Procedural History

The case originated in the Supreme Court, likely in Nassau County. The Appellate Division made a decision regarding the validity of the petitions. The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case back to the Supreme Court for consideration of the application for a write-in option.

Issue(s)

Whether the omission of the “city or town” in the witness statement on a designating petition constitutes a fatal defect that invalidates the petition.

Holding

Yes, because the designation of the “city or town” is a matter of legislatively mandated content and therefore a matter of substance, not form; omission to include the prescribed information is fatal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the requirement to include the “city or town” in the witness statement is a substantive requirement of the Election Law. The court relied on prior decisions, including Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772; Matter of Alamo v Black, 51 NY2d 716; and Matter of Higby v Mahoney, 48 NY2d 15, which emphasized the importance of adhering to the mandated content of designating petitions. The court reasoned that because the legislature specifically requires this information, its omission cannot be considered a mere technicality or matter of form. Failure to provide the “city or town” information undermines the purpose of the witness statement, which is to ensure the integrity of the petition process and the validity of the signatures. By deeming it a substantive defect, the court reinforced the principle of strict compliance with the Election Law. The court stated: “The designation of the ‘city or town’ in the statement of a witness to a designating petition is a matter of the legislatively mandated content of the petition, i.e., a matter of substance and not of form.” This strict interpretation serves to prevent potential fraud or irregularities in the petitioning process. The decision ensures that election procedures are followed meticulously. The Court then remitted the matter to the Supreme Court to consider the possibility of allowing voters to write in names of candidates, acknowledging that invalidating the petitions might leave voters without adequate choices.