New York Law Review

Tag: voting machines

  • Matter of Cooke v. Lomenzo, 18 N.Y.2d 187 (1966): Ballot Position Drawing Rights for Multiple Nominations

    Matter of Cooke v. Lomenzo, 18 N.Y.2d 187 (1966)

    A candidate nominated by multiple parties for the same office is not automatically entitled to a separate ballot position drawing for each party if it creates a risk of voter confusion or voting machine malfunction; the practical limitations of voting machines can override the statutory right to a drawing.

    Summary

    Cooke, a candidate cross-endorsed by the Democratic and Conservative parties, sought a separate drawing for ballot position within the Democratic party after already participating in a drawing for the Conservative party line. The New York Court of Appeals denied his request, holding that while Election Law generally provides for such drawings, the practical limitations of voting machines—specifically the risk of malfunction or voter confusion—justified denying a second drawing. The court emphasized the need to balance a candidate’s right to a ballot position drawing with the integrity and functionality of the electoral process.

    Facts

    Petitioner Cooke was nominated for the position of Justice of the Supreme Court by both the Democratic and Conservative parties. He participated in a drawing for ballot position on the Conservative Party line. Subsequently, he requested a separate drawing to determine his position on the Democratic Party line. The Secretary of State refused, arguing that separate drawings would create a ballot arrangement that could cause voter confusion or lead to voting machine malfunctions, given the existing machine limitations and the number of candidates.

    Procedural History

    The petitioner sought an order compelling the Secretary of State to conduct a drawing for ballot position on the Democratic Party line. The lower court denied the request. The Appellate Division affirmed. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a candidate nominated by more than one party is entitled to a separate drawing for ballot position for each party nomination under Election Law § 104(1).
    2. Whether the Secretary of State can deny a candidate’s request for a ballot position drawing based on the practical limitations of voting machines, specifically the potential for voter confusion or machine malfunction.

    Holding

    1. No, a candidate is not automatically entitled to a separate drawing for each party nomination.
    2. Yes, the Secretary of State can deny the request because the practical limitations of voting machines and the potential for voter confusion outweigh the candidate’s right to a separate drawing in this specific context.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court acknowledged the general right to a ballot position drawing under Election Law § 104(1). However, the court emphasized that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the practical realities of administering elections, including the capabilities of voting machines. The court noted the Secretary of State’s argument that separate drawings could lead to a ballot arrangement that would cause voter confusion or potentially malfunction the voting machines. The court deferred to the Secretary’s expertise in administering elections and found that the potential for disruption outweighed the candidate’s right to a separate drawing. The court reasoned that the primary goal is to ensure a fair and accurate election, and this goal could be compromised by forcing a ballot arrangement that strained the limits of the voting machines. The court distinguished the right to a drawing from situations involving fundamental constitutional rights, noting, “We are not dealing here with denial of franchise or other basic right, but with a mechanical administration of an election.” The dissenting opinion argued that Section 104(1) mandates a drawing for each party nomination and that the Secretary of State failed to demonstrate that a workable ballot arrangement was impossible.

  • Rice v. Power, 19 N.Y.2d 474 (1967): Recanvass Procedures and the Reliability of Voting Machine Totals

    Rice v. Power, 19 N.Y.2d 474 (1967)

    In election disputes, a recanvass conducted by the Board of Elections supersedes the original canvass by election inspectors, unless there is reliable evidence demonstrating that the Board’s recanvass was mistaken, or that the integrity of the original tally is demonstrably more reliable, especially when dealing with paper ballots.

    Summary

    This case concerned a contested election for district delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The recanvass by the Board of Elections showed a narrow lead for Santangelo. The court reviewed the recanvass, focusing on a disputed voting machine and several paper ballots. The central issue was whether the court should accept the Board of Elections’ recanvass, which showed different vote totals than the original canvass by election inspectors. The Court of Appeals held that the Board of Elections’ recanvass generally supersedes the original canvass, absent compelling evidence of error in the recanvass, particularly for machine votes. For paper ballots, greater scrutiny of the original tally’s integrity is warranted. The Court modified the Appellate Division’s order to reflect a tie between the candidates.

    Facts

    In the 1966 election for district delegates, Rice and Santangelo were separated by a small number of votes. A voting machine showed a discrepancy between the original tally by election inspectors (16 votes for Rice) and the Board of Elections’ recanvass (26 votes for Rice). Additionally, two paper ballots credited to Santangelo in the original count were not credited during the recanvass. A referee examined the voting machine months later and found missing safety devices. Records showed that the Board of Elections did send two military ballots to the district, and the inspector’s tally showed two were counted for Santangelo.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court reviewed the recanvass, deducted 10 votes from Rice based on the voting machine discrepancy, and credited Santangelo with two paper ballots. The Appellate Division affirmed these findings. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the 10 votes shown on the voting machine during the Board of Elections’ recanvass should be credited to Rice, despite the original tally by election inspectors showing a lower number.
    2. Whether the two paper ballots originally credited to Santangelo should be counted for him, even though they were not credited during the Board of Elections’ recanvass.

    Holding

    1. Yes, the 10 votes should be credited to Rice because the Board of Elections’ recanvass supersedes the original canvass unless there is reliable evidence showing the Board was mistaken.
    2. Yes, the two paper ballots should be credited to Santangelo because there was sufficient evidence in the records and inspectors’ testimony to support the accuracy of the original canvass.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court emphasized that the statute (Election Law § 274) expressly places the responsibility to recanvass the vote on the Board of Elections, and their recanvass supersedes the original canvass. To overturn the Board’s recanvass, there must be reliable evidence showing the Board was mistaken. In this case, the voting machine showed 26 votes for Rice during the recanvass, and there was no evidence demonstrating a mechanical probability of a change in the machine between the canvass and the recanvass. The absence of a “lockout” device on the machine did not prove that votes were improperly changed after the election, because if the machine had been used post-election, it would have been reflected on the protective and public counters, which remained consistent. The Court noted, “[t]he normal legal presumption attaches to the reliability of a superseding canvass over the original one.”

    Regarding the paper ballots, the Court acknowledged the fragility of paper ballots compared to voting machines. They noted that “[u]nless there is some substantial attack on the integrity of the contemporaneous tallies and returns of the inspectors of election whose duty it is to examine and count the ballots, they should be accepted by the court.” Since the records of the Board of Elections showed that two military ballots were returned and the original canvass showed two military ballots counted for Santangelo, the Court found sufficient support for the accuracy of the original canvass.

    The Court modified the order to reflect a tie, recognizing the practical implications of the historical reliance on original election district canvasses in the context of paper ballots, and the reliability of the machine totals observed during the recanvass.