New York State Appellate Division Upholds New York’s May Petition Deadline for Independent Candidates

Posted on by

On September 16, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the trial court and ruled that New York’s new May petition deadline for independent petitions is constitutional. In the Matter of the Application of Byron W. Brown v Erie County Board of Elections, CAE 21-01234.

The four-page opinion says that the state interests in the May deadline are: (1) “ensuring the integrity and reliability of the electoral process; (2) promoting political stability at the expense of factionalism; (3) upholding the state’s administrative duty to meet federal deadlines for the mailing of overseas and military ballots.”

Therefore, voters in the November 2021 election for Mayor of Buffalo will see only one candidate on their ballot, Democratic nominee India Walton. It is preposterous to say that the state’s interest in the “integrity of the electoral process” is enhanced by giving voters a ballot with only one name on the ballot. It is also absurd to say that the May deadline is needed for administrative reasons. The overseas absentee ballots do not need to be mailed until 45 days before the November election, which means by September 17. New York had an August petition deadline for all the years before 2019 in which the 45-day rule existed, and had no trouble mailing out the ballots on time.

A parallel case on the May petition deadline is pending in the federal courts, but on September 16, the Second Circuit stayed the order of the U.S. District Court that had ordered independent candidate Byron Brown on the ballot. See this story, which came out before the Second Circuit had issued its stay.

Comments

New York State Appellate Division Upholds New York’s May Petition Deadline for Independent Candidates — 56 Comments

  1. Terrible decision. They should at least lower the petition signature requirement, and/or increase the amount of time for signature gathering.

  2. Same as RED commie ballots — ONE candidate on ballots.

    Par for RED commie NY State – full of RED commie *judges*.

  4. Here we have fake name idiot “Aiden” who uses a fake name and an IP anonymizer pointing out minor errors. Shut the hell up you pretentious prick!

  6. The Case Against Censorship, Systemic Racism, Communist-style Elections, Double Standards and Gerrymandering (LPLAC Regions 62,63,64,65)
    http://www.allpartysystem.com/day-to-day.php
    James Ogle [One] writes:
    If a black candidate got 1/11ths of the votes should they win one of the 11 SF City Council seats?
    If a white candidate got 1/11ths of the votes should they win one of the 11 SF City Council seats?
    If Libertarians won 1/11th of the votes should the Libertarian get one of 11 SF City Council seats?
    If Greens won 1/11th of the votes should the Green get one of 11 SF City Council seats?
    If a woman attains 1/11th of the votes in SF should they win one of eleven SF City Council seats?
    If Republicans win 1/11th (9%) of the city votes at-large should they win one of the eleven SF City Council seats
    Yes.
    And that’s exactly what the new guidelines for the LNC being proposed now will do in any election;
    http://Www.allpartysystem.com/e-aps-1.php
    Unfortunately all eleven seats in SF are single-winner election districts under ranked choice voting (RCV) so that the threshold is 50% plus one vote, and the Ds win 100% of all the seats, just like the LNC bosses win 100% of all seats. That’s where the biggest group always elects each seat one at a time or across the board under slate voting.
    The LNC also uses slate voting so that the execs always win across the board by snuffing out competition.
    The Ds in SF bring multiple players and the single transferable vote (STV), where the vote just single transfers to the Democratic winners, 100% of the time. That’s exactly how the Libertarian Party dictatorship treats outsiders within the LNC. The bosses always pick who wins from the inside and wins 100% top down one at a time.
    Nobody likes dictators.
    The winning strategy is to be able to attract votes by working with others who aren’t like you, while sitting at the same table as equals, and by using friendly civil conversation.
    * * *
    From: Chair of California LP
    Date: Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 5:16 PM
    James, no one on this email recipient list is going to write bylaw amendments for you, and in looking at your starting document, it frankly has nothing to do with the LPCA or our Bylaws. If you would like to offer an amendment to change the LPCA convention voting systems you will need to start with the LPCA Bylaws (not your all party thingy) and write something up that can be presented to the delegates. But that means that you need to do the work because none of us are going to do the work for you.
    My suggestion is if you have others you’re working with you, you have them help you do this, but PLEASE stop sending emails to the LPCA for help!
    I don’t know how many different ways I need to say this. You are conflating several things here; you are lumping together platform planks, bylaws, and your organization.
    To be clear, what you are proposing are NOT Bylaws amendments. The Libertarian Party of California IS NOT a part of your “Republican Green 1Libertarian Caucus.”
    * * *
    NOTE: My starting document has been submitted and the delegates don’t get to see this:
    http://Www.allpartysystem.com/e-aps-1.php
    * * *
    Starchild wrote:
    Not sure what you mean by “one-party thresholds” in the context of internal party elections – of course they’re about one party!
    In the Libertarian Party, we go by ideas and their merits – we don’t judge people based on their ethnic or gender status. It sounds like you want the LP to discriminate based on ethnicity, gender, and other non-chosen characteristics. That would be against libertarian philosophy which requires treating people as individuals.
    I have no interest in trying to establish quotas or representation based on gender. I want people who are strongly pro-freedom to represent
    If you want more proportional representation, or ranked-choice voting, those are goals many Libertarians can get behind. I would suggest focusing on something like that and leaving all the racist stuff out of it.
    I wonder to what extent you really support what the party is about though. I don’t hear you talking a lot about freedom, or the ideas in our platform. Are you in the Libertarian Party to support our goal of a world set free in our lifetimes, or just to promote your own ideas about voting?
    * * *
    NOTE: My starting document has been submitted and the delegates don’t get to hear about everyone gets more liberty to self-categorize, be at the table, and treated with equality and respect:
    http://Www.allpartysystem.com/e-aps-1.php
    * * *
    James Ogle [One] repeats the question and answers for the Chair of California LP and Starchild:
    If Libertarians won 1/11th of the votes should the Libertarian get one of 11 seats?
    Unfortunately all eleven seats in SF are single-winner election districts under RCV so the threshold is 50% plus one vote and the Ds win 100% of all the seats just like the LNC.
    The LNC also uses slate voting so that the execs always win across the board by snuffing out competition.
    The Ds in SF bring multiple players and the single transferable vote just single transfers to the Democratic winner 100% of the time. That’s exactly how the Libertarian Party dictatorship treats outsiders within the LNC and then nobody likes Libertarians because they’re dictators.
    Pure proportional representation will award any faction, one of eleven SF City Council seats, but the Chair and Starchild both insist that the current SF elections where Ds win 100% of all eleven seats is fine and good. When I point out that only the biggest party wins the LP likes that fine.
    The United Coalition says; No way. The one-party and two-party voting systems are unacceptable. America is a melting pot.
    We will never settle for a one-party system like the LNC dictators protect.
    We must remove all those who object to competitive elections on all six geo-levels for the leadership positions. The way we do this is with the competition of elections, three or more members of our team must vie for two or more seats on all the executive elections.
    The Libertarian Party bosses are protecting their own status, by snuffing out new voices who might think, proclaim or register to vote differently from them.
    The Libertarian Party boss message is; “we already know that no one wants to hear new ideas and we snuff out your rights to make sure.”
    Even when outsiders with new ideas and new friends try to come to support, be part of or try to join the LNC, they are snuffed out as threats.
    * * *
    end

  7. Thanks for your great and consistent reporting on these cases. Is it still possible for Brown to appeal the decision, or is this final?

  8. Yes, it is good that this blog has commenters, in spite of all of the annoying, and sometimes nasty, troll posts.

  9. The Mayor can certainly keep his federal case alive. There is no decision from the 2nd circuit on the constitutionality of the deadline. There is only a stay of the US District Court decision that enjoined the deadline. He can go back to the US District Court and ask that the law be declared unconstitutional. He would probably win in US District Court because the judge has already said the law is probably unconstitutional. Then the state would probably appeal to the 2nd circuit, which has not yet said anything except that the US District Court decision is stayed.

    He could also appeal his state court decision to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. However there is no rational reason to do anything else in state court, which has already shown itself very hostile to him. But nothing the Mayor does in this lawsuit in the future will result in him being put on the ballot. The ballots have now been printed without his name, or they are in the process of being printed.

  11. Should be standard court remedy [when courts fail BEFORE election days] —

    NEW election — paid for by statist losers.

  12. RE — James Orlando Ogle on September 16, 2021 at 9:37 pm —

    National LP and State LPs have SEPARATE Bylaws and Platform Committees.

  14. Andy at 10:25 on 17th. Many or most of those being YOU and your associated trolls who are most likely, probably definitely but definitely probably ALSO, YOU!

  15. JOOgle is part of the JOO conspirecy to RUN everything!!!

    GOOgle is the GOO of SATAN.

    JOO GOO . SATAN = JOO! go ogle her and GIT R DUN!!

    WWW = 666 HEbrew ALPHAbet (W = 6) SOREus SOROS AsshOLe USEnet

    series of tUBes ALGORE-RHYTHM Macarena

    MICRO(SOFT)PENIS GATES of hell

    whoseSPACE

    SKYnet FAUX FAUCI virUS zUcKerBERG and TWITter ..

    IBM = IRRITABLE BOWEL MOVEMENT!

    amaZION

    tESLa

    NUTscape

    APPLE = downfall in garden of EDEN
    SOURCE : SNAKE = SOROS = SYNAGOG = SATAN

    NUTflix

    HoBO

    GET IT YET?? NEED MORE??

    SAVE YOURSELVES IF U STILL CAN, TIME RUNNING SHORT TO UNPLUG FROM SATANIC JOO MATRIX!!

  16. Wtf? Ogle is Satan? Ogle is JOO? JOOS RUN EVERYTHING? JOOS IS SATAN AND INTERNET IS A SERIES OF TUBES GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!!! WWW= 666 UNPLUG NOW

  17. Aiden James is not a fake name. How does fake name Tony Dana know who uses a fake name? Much less an ip anonymizer? Whatever the FUCK that is suppose 2B?

  18. TONY DANA? FFForget that guy. He is just another of many troll characters, invented and plaid by ANDY NO LAST NAME!

  23. Did the Alabama hillbillies abandon your dumbass? Did they steal all your bitcoin and shove it up your ass?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.