Two Lawsuits Aim to Keep RFK, Jr. Off the Ballot in New York State

Posted on by June 25, 2024

Here is a story about a lawsuit filed in Nassau County.

Here is a story about a lawsuit filed in Dutchess County.

Here is a link to the Complaint in the Dutchess County litigation.  

The Dutchess County lawsuit fails to note that, while Kennedy and Nicole Shanahan, his VP running mate, both live in California, one of them could move to another state before January 6, 2025, which would allow them to receive California electoral votes, in the event that they won the presidential election in that state.

Given the numbers presented in the USA Today article about the Nassau County lawsuit, the Kennedy/Shanahan ticket would need a signature validity rate of only 30.79% in New York. The suit alleges that only 21.31% of the petition signatures are valid.

The Dutchess case is Cartwright v Kennedy, 52389/2024.  The Nassau case is Smith v Kennedy, 000427/2024.

Comments

Two Lawsuits Aim to Keep RFK, Jr. Off the Ballot in New York State — 100 Comments

  1. Yes, but not in time to have those electors count towards the CNN debate.

  3. It depends how biased the judges hearing the lawsuits are. Some judges are fair, while others are totally compromised by their partisanship and either ignore basic facts (such as the existence of the First and Fourteenth Amendments) or even outright admit they are propping up the two-party system.

  4. “The suit alleges that only 21.31% of the petition signatures are valid.”
    That’s quite a claim. Ohio’s SoS chucking out 60% of No Labels signatures was already ridiculous.

  8. Entirely possible in NYC depending on collection methods. However, most likely they did have enough valid. What percentage from upstate? Lots of ways to get tripped up up there too – township/Boro, signoffs, etc.

  9. I’ve often wondered about this. When petitioning for a statewide campaign in New York is it really best to concentrate your activities in the City? It seems like you’d get a lot of signatures from people who have moved, aren’t registered, are from another state, etc…

  10. The easy way to deal with these lawsuits is file a statement in a Nevada District Court (Any one of them
    by RFK Jr.) Under NRS 41.193 & NRS 41.195. The down side it cost $5 and the jurat must be in-person before a clerk of that court. The law has been in effect since 1 October 1979.

    One can have more than one resident.
    The issue is being an inhabitant of different states on a certain date between the candidate for POTUS and VPOTUS.

  11. One RFK Jr., was born in the District of Columbia. Therefore USGS BULLETIN 1212 of 1966 would be helpful here.

    Also the content of the phone call of 28 September 1964 between a lawyer at the US Department of State and the author of that Bulletin, viz., Franklin K. Van Zandt of the United States Department of the Interior.

    I learned of that 1964 phone call from
    the lawyer at the US Department of State to F. K. Van Zandt in the summer of 1970, while I was a student at the University of Hawaii. I passed the notes of that 1970 phone call to US Senator Hirum Fong (R-Hawaii), who passed them on to Alphonzo Tarabochia.

    Then they were used in a senate hearing in all three parts on 1 – 2 February 1973.

  12. Surprised nobody’s suing over allegations that RFK petitioners misrepresented what they were doing, including to NYT reporters they tried to get signed.

    THAT lawsuit, if filed, would actually have some legs.

  13. RFK became out of the loop on 3 September 1964. The effective date of UNCLOS I of 1958 was 10 September 1964. That was what caused the phone call on 28 September 1964 to F. K. Van Zandt.

  14. Just me: no. There is nothing deceptive about not naming which independent candidates unless they lied or concealed when asked . It’s a standard pitch used everywhere all the time for all third parties and independents getting on the ballot. It’s not a lie and not misrepresenting anything.

    Ny slimes was being exceptionally slimy with that one.

  15. Just Me,

    Please explain in more detail, I do not understand you post.

  16. He’s referring to a gutter trash piece of partisan yellow journalism by the NY Slimy fishwrap paper aka “Times;” some independent contractors for Kennedy just said they were getting independent candidates on the ballot without explaining which ones. Absolutely not a story.

  17. FORMER PETITIONER,

    Thanks! What color sheets were used on the petitions and the number of signature spaces per sheet? I have not handled petitions in New York since 2017.

  18. No idea. I think maybe Jim Riley knows. I last handled NY petitions over a decade earlier than you.

  20. What was the fold over trick? Visual illustrations would help. It may have just been a binder clip or rubber bands to hold the papers in place.

  21. The New York Times reported that signature gatherers were folding over the portion of the petition that displayed Kennedy’s name under the clasp on their clipboards, leaving only the list of electors visible and stating generically that the petition was for “independent candidates” or “the progressive movement.” The Kennedy campaign excluded all petitions that showed signs of this folding to prevent being challenged on these grounds later. They still had to pay the signature gathering companies, which is why they now assert they have standing to challenge the petitioning law as onerous. The companies in question were Meridian Strategies and Dark Horse Strategies, which are said to be tied to DNC and state Democratic Party figures.

  23. Again, visual aid would help. Saying independent candidates generically is a standard pitch and not in any way deceptive. There’s no way to determine if the fold over was deceptive from the verbal description.

    Any voter was free to ask which candidates. If any petitioner then lied that’s on the petitioner individually. From there you need additional proof of organised deception.

    I have yet to see anything worth a green penny in what ny slimes slimed up.

    If someone comes up with some photos of how petitions were folded, we may have something to at least look at.

  28. The problem I have seen in past NY elections is the practice of ten signatures per sheet. My view in NY is create the form of one signature per sheet. However I have not seen that practice done in New York. Since
    NY law does not prevent using color paper for independent candidate when asking the petitioner ask them there party affiliation and use the correct color. it does help.

  29. They overstipulated out of excessive caution. The image needs expanded to include bottom of board. You don’t want the papers sticking out with signature spaces below the bottom of the board.

    And yeah, electors as the real candidates could be a valid argument, but not needed IF there wasn’t a persistent pattern of lying when asked point blank which candidates.

  30. One signature per sheet is really dumb. Ten also causes a lot of time wasted paper shuffling. 30 is pretty decent.

  31. FORMER Petitioner,

    If one signature is bad out of let say ten. Then the whole sheet is rejected in NY State. Therefore if just one the most signature rejected is only one. However you also do not want blank spaces on the petitions.

  32. I have keep a candidate of the ballot
    in past elections over bad petition collection in a California Statewide race rejecting all signature collect in Kern County after the.county election staff approved the signatures because they took duplex petition sheets and reprinted them on signal sided sheets.

  33. That’s false. All signatures are facially accepted. They can be challenged, in which case it’s line by line. Find one thing from elections dept or court about rejecting 9 good signatures if one isn’t valid.

    If you mean rejecting based on forgery, improper affidavit, etc – pattern of forgery throws out a circulator’s work regardless of how many pieces of paper it takes up.

    You have a half a point regarding affidavits, but think it thru. Someone who screws up the sign Off will screw it up on average the same percentage of the time. Actually if anything they will screw it up more the more times they gave to do it.

    Imagine having to do hundreds of affidavits per day – while trying to stop more people and trying to keep them from screwing up their part – or at the end of a long hard tiring day. Or filling out THOUSANDS at a time in front of a notary at the end of the week.

    Writing the same things over and over and over and…. Yeah. More screw ups with more pages.

    The affidavit shouldn’t even be needed. Many states do not require one.

  34. Having to shuffle papers AND doing an affidavit EVERY TIME you get a signature?! What a nightmare. I went through this hell on Florida amendments. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy’s. No, it did not cut down on fraud or paperwork errors. It increased them.

    At least by the time I did it we could rubber stamp the affidavit. I heard horror stories from old timers from before that was allowed. Truly horrible, wasteful, inhumane, pointless torture.

  35. INCUMBENT MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER RULING CLASS WANTS NOOOO OPPOSITION IN SO-CALLED ELECTIONS.

    HOW MANY SUPER-RICH TOP COMMIES/FASCISTS IN REAL CONTROL OF THE USA ???

    1-5 / 1-10 ???

    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  36. “If one signature is bad out of let say ten. Then the whole sheet is rejected in NY State” That is INSANE, omg. What a corrupt state!

  37. Too bad Thomas W Jones died. He could file a frivolous lawsuit and get laughed outog court.

  39. Per others asking, Unity details what I was talking about. I knew they were way over the required number; didn’t know they had excluded those signatures. That part makes sense.

    That said, the idea that those petitions are part of “standing” is … questionable IMO.

    What’s really stupid, onerous, etc.? Even though Kenny Boy Paxton continued a back-door fight this spring, here in Tex-ass, electronic petition gathering is legal.

  41. @TLMNY,

    Larry Sharpe in his speech before the Libertarian National Convention said that campaigning in upstate was more effective in that you could actually talk to voters about their concerns. In NYC you could only campaign via mass media.

    I do not know if that translates to petitioning. If a circulator spends 15 minutes in earnest discussion with a potential signer, he might gain fewer signatures. The volunteer circulators were able to list meetings at parks, coffee shops, etc. In a smaller city or town, voters might seek out such an event. In a large city, life is often too busy.

  42. @AZ,

    Why was the White House having a Juneteenth celebration on June 10th?

  43. Democrats proving, yet again, that they hate Democracy and the Republic.

  45. @Just Me,

    The NYT article said that “more than half of dozen voters, including two New York Times reporters” had been approached by circulators. What are some numbers that are more than “half of dozen”? The article then went on to tell anecdotes about five named individuals, none of whom were Times reporters.

  46. Upstate is generally higher validity. The city is higher volume. Many circulators don’t have cars, or enough gas money, or their cars may be unreliable. It’s always easy to find busy foot traffic locations in the city, 24/7 and easy to hire street hustlers as subs.

    Upstate, finding busy locations that are steady, give permission or forgiveness is hard, especially if you don’t know your way around and face time pressured to get quick income, keep it rolling etc.

    If you get 5x as many people to each get 5x as many signatures at 1/5 the validity you still have 5x as many signatures.

    Best to mix it up, have people upstate and in the city. Different circulator do better in different kinds of locales. Stick your typical Brooklyn group home kid in a upstate cowtown, they don’t know how to talk to anyone (there are of course many exceptions, and many quick learners). Stick an Adirondacks hick in bed stuy, they might get mugged before they get one valid signature of a registered voter.

  47. @MS and FP,

    The example sheets on the NYSBOE web site have five signatures – but it says that is only an example to show formatting, and there can be more or less.

  50. We love democratcy! Democratcy is when Democrats rule everything always and forever. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile!

  51. Jim Riley, any idea about what Seidenberg is talking about with rejection of sheet if one Sig is invalid? Sounds like BS. NO petition would survive a challenge if that was the rule.

  52. Also, what size paper and how does it compare to board sizes? One possible reason for the fold other than trying to be deceptive in any way

  53. @Just Me,

    “Kenny Boy” was Ken Lay.

    Paul Pal Sleazy Ken is Ken Paxton.

    The district judge stayed his order.

    The judge said that “electronic signatures” are valid and ordered the plaintiffs and SOS to meet and figure out what he meant. The SOS said that they would accept signatures sign with a stylus (as are used in some counties). The SOS also argued that they do not have the right to issue regulations without legislative authority. I don’t know how you feel about separation of powers.

    The opinion was totally bozo.

    First the judge opined that SCOTUS precedent is that the flimsiest of post hoc rationalization makes any election regulation constitutional if it is said that it has something to do with ballot overcrowding, voter confusion, or modicum of support, so we was not going to address the substantive issues such as number of signatures, time to collect them, filing date, etc.

    Instead he said that the Democrats and Republicans can use computers for certain things, and it violates equal protection for independents and minor parties to use paper for their petitions, non-withstanding that Republicans and Democrats use paper for their petitions – and there are lot more Republicans and Democrats who petition.

  55. @FP,

    No idea. I suppose there might be cases of fraud.

    In the Montana Green Party case, there were sheets purportedly collected by a male, which at least some of the signatures had been collected by a female. A couple of signers (who happened to be clerical workers for the Montana Democratic Party) had an extended discussion with the circulator and could recount the details of their interaction. I think all sheets which the male circulator had claimed to have witnessed were thrown out. In a case like that, the presumption might be that all signatures were fraudulent.

  56. The Dutchess County lawsuit is based a lot on the residence issue. It is pretty flimsy since the claim is that New York voters would not have signed the petition if they had known that RFKjr/Shanahan could not receive all the California electoral votes. If New York voters have a modicum of pride, they shouldn’t care what happens in LaLa Land (beyond them stealing the Dodgers and Giants).

    There are pages of itemized claims such as catsup stains and not using blue ink and missing dates, but no details beyond “many”. They probably just pasted from the “Challengers Guide to Invalidating Petitions” and will fill them in later when they actually look at the petitions. They were up against a deadline for challenging the petition. They are suing not only RFKjr, but the NYSBOE alleging that they are not properly scrutinizing the petition.

  58. Jim Riley : I know . That happens everywhere and is not mitigated by fewer sigs per page. A circulator collects X number of signatures. If they’re all thrown out due to pattern of fraud it doesn’t help anything if they take up ten times as many pages.

    As discussed earlier, filling out more affidavits for the same number of signatures creates more rejection due to erroneously filled out affidavits, not fewer.

    Seidenberg theory holds no water logically.

    It simply wastes circulator time flipping sheets and reorganizing clipboards more often and filing out endless affidavits. It doesn’t reduce fraud or affidavit error or improve validity. Quite the opposite. It’s also environmentally unfriendly. Giant waste of paper, gas for transportation, etc etc.

    There is ZERO valid reason for one signature firms.

    Ten is already too few. Fairly sure I’ve seen 60 per page which worked just fine.

    Also, get rid of circulator affidavits. They are useless make work crap. It should make zero difference who collected signatures. If the post office or a lamp post or empty table collected them if they were passed back and forth or people came and went manning a table with multiple clipboards all day or left on store counter with many different employees etc etc.

    Affidavits don’t make for any of these or many other scenarios.

    They are simply not needed. Many states don’t have them and do just fine. They are nothing of value. Simply another technicality to strike otherwise perfectly good sigs and thwart will of voters with death by thousand technicality cuts.

  59. @Fp,

    Once upon a time, Texas required each signature to be notarized* The concept was that the voter was taking an oath. It was possible to have a mass oath taking.

    *technically the requirement is that it is a person authorized to administer oaths. Notaries may be the most available.

    Now the circulator is required to point to a statement and recite it. The affidavit is to confirm that the circulator pointed it out to the signer. Only one affidavit is required for a set of sheets collected by a circulator.

    The statement is in the form of an oath, “I know that …”. On the petition form for convention candidates, the statement is FALSE. Yet the signer is expected to acknowledge that the purpose of his signing will make it happen. The affidavit only confirms that he executed the sham (Oh wah tagu siam)

  60. I knew all that besides some of the last paragraph. But there are also states where there’s no sign off for anyone but voters. I’m sure you know that. It works just fine.

    Icymi earlier: what size are ny petition sheets and how do they compare to standard board sizes. That may or may not explain the fold.

  61. JIm RIley,

    It is not limited to notary public in New York State to take jurat oaths.

    Now you have no restriction as to using white or color paper on the petition by party

    One signature pure sheet is safest way of getting the maximum.approval in NYC

  62. It’s not. I’ve already explained why. You have not explained how or why I’m wrong on any of that. Your logic fails. You also discount the negative effect on production entirely. It’s actually a major factor. All the time rearranging boards and papers and filling out affidavits = way fewer sigs, less incentive to bust it out, less incentive to go on that job versus others, more incentive to leave before the end. Result is more failure even if you were correct.

  63. The FEC recently has said that CNN would be in violation of illegal campaign contributions if RFK jr was kept off the debate stage

    Why isn’t this being reported on here or Iin mainstream media networks/articles???

  64. To David:

    There is not much question that the “mainstream media” are all in for Joe Biden and consider RFK, Jr. as a threat.

  65. Depend which ones, JTB. Fox and associated media are Trump sycophants, for instance. Talk radio is mainly Trumpy, except NPR. Most legacy establishment media are Beijing Biden . Social media and podcasts, highly mixed. The information gatekeeper monopoly has mostly broken down and continues to break down. Way less consensus and control of flow than late 20th century.

  68. WHAT PCT OF MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER INCUMBENTS HAVE NOOO OPPOSITION IN PRIMARY / GENL ELECTIONS ???

  69. I see no such news anywhere.I don’t think FEC said this. Or maybe it was some random dude with the initials FEC or something.

  71. I dont know why ballot-access.org isn’t t reporting this development with the FEC

  72. Who is Jeff Dornik and why should I believe him? Any links to what the FEC actually said?

  74. Really Ballot-access.org wants to hide this?

    Nice try to attempt to suppress the evidence.Eventually people will catch on your deliberate attempts to suppress information

    Here’s a source from RFK Jr’s campaign manager Amarylis Fox

    https://x.com/amaryllisfox/status/180071891657202thus?

    Here’s a source from one RFK Jr’s Campaign Advisors Stefainie Spear

    https://x.com/StefanieSpear/status/1800606400651170138

    Here is a source from the Kennedy campaign website

    https://www.kennedy24.com/fec_cnn_debate_violate_campaign_finance_laws_kennedy?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1c1vVWf2lCIH8SnNrcwHTu0RwE01qrCVf9dfgPsUDDUWOHgDV-re72gAE_aem_AcanC9RXepcJyVd2uxBSZV0najYt90OouhBHt4qkjeDq1kjudnKxvo1sDs4ulO8109RVZDADD5NE-d02agSIjrwV

    Here is a source from Island local News network in Hawaii

    https://youtu.be/uS3wEQGuqbc?si=6TZp4-QWme3hAnh5

    Here is a source from Newsmax

    https://youtu.be/n0f62QtzfmU?si=3aWZuUoo6EPd0lg8

  82. I’m not familiar with any of these alleged news sources. Can anyone post a direct link to what the FEC actually allegedly said?

  85. Fat Checkers

    The island news is a well recognized local News network in Hawaii?

    Wtf are you talking about dude?

  86. Not seeing anything matching such a description at fec.g0v/updates/ (it’s not letting me post the correct link) regardless of what gets posted at suss X and uTube accounts. If there’s a release not yet posted there, where did they post it?

  87. I want people to know that fat checkers or whoever is running this site is blocking our free speech

    That is pretty F’d up by not allowing people to post links here its clear you don’t want the public to know what’s going on

    Check out Kemnedys campaign manager Amarylis Kennedy on X as well as Stephenia Spear on X who posted on this

    The information is out there

    Anyone else feel free to try and post the link on here as the modslerator is deliberately suppression free speech and engaging in censorship

  88. I’m not from Hawaii and I have no idea how well recognized it is or by whom. If they are not full of it, there should be something at the original source – government website. Please point to it. I looked, and I do not see it.

  89. I don’t run this site and have no idea why some links don’t post, but if the Fec said it , it should be on their site . I’ll check it again later to see if it’s just a posting lag. Misinformation often gets posted , reposted and picked up on social media and tube sites. I’ll believe it when I see it at fec d0t gov.

  90. @FP, The Libertarian Party (NY) and Green Party (NY) have their presidential petitions on line. They appear to be standard 8-1/2 x 11 sheet size. The Libertarian petition has space for 10 or 9 signatures depending on whether the witness is from New York (and registered) or not from New York or not registered. The witness affidavit for out-of-state witnesses is so long that they had to remove one signature line.

    The Green Party petition has room for 5 signatures. They appear to have used the sample form from the NYSBOE which shows five lines, but parenthetically says that there can be more lines or less.

    The Libertarian Party includes the names of the elector candidates, the Green Party does not. Despite the omission of that information, the Green Party form only has room for five fewer lines.

    The sample form on the NYSBOE website appears to be legal size (8-1/2 x 14).

    Here is the New York Times article on the RFK petition that includes a picture of the folded under top of the petition.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/09/us/politics/rfk-signatures-ny.html

    If the RFKjr form was similar to the Libertarian Party form, then the names and addresses of RFKjr and Shanahan would be above the names of the electors, and it would also include the name of the party. We The People and its emblem.

    The RFKjr website has printable petitions for volunteers to use, but once a state is finished that is taken off-line. From what I can see in the NYT photo it appears to be similar to the Libertarian petition.

    There is another picture in the NYT story. It appears the petition sheet is legal size. It hangs off the end of the clipboard 4 or so inches. So maybe they just followed the sample form on the NYSBOE website. It appears the signature lines are over the solid surface of the clipboard and it is the affidavit that is hanging off. The rolled under portion in the other picture is three or so inches. Maybe the circulators were told to fold it under so that the sheet would fit on the clipboard.

    It is possible that there was sabotage involved in the case reported in the NYT story. Or it could be a case of a less scrupulous circulator who hired some temps who wanted some cash.

    Incidentally, New York no longer requires a witness affidavit (i.e., sworn before a notary). It has an alternative statement which says that if the witness signs it, it is the equivalent of being sworn (e.g., you can probably be prosecuted for perjury).

  91. Jim Riley,

    When was the change in witness form to have taken place. My views on the subject was from 2017 in New York practice when I was helping Rocky de la Fuente in a mayor race in NYC.

  92. Jim Riley, your explanation bolsters my theory that the fold was in order to have all the signature blanks backed by board. Paper hanging off the bottom screws things up.

  93. It’s possible it was part practical and part nefarious, but at least part practical at a minimum.

  94. @Mark S,

    The option has been around since at least 2006 (See ELN 6-140). Actually the option is not between having the witness statement notarized, but rather having the voters appear before a notary or commissioner of deeds and signing the petition.

    In 2017, De La Fuente would have filed a designating petition to be the Republican nominee for mayor. News accounts at the time said that De La Fuente had 3314 valid signatures (with 3750 need). Several hundred signatures were determined to be forgeries.

  95. The NYSBOE has a hearing on prima facie sufficiency of petitions. This will result in rejection of some petition whose raw counts are low. Specific challenges will be heard later.

  96. JIM,

    I suggested to Rocky in 2017 we use Conmmmissioner of Deeds and skip the use of Noraries when ever possible

    Another problem was there were missing petitions with the records with put Rocky with a false total near 600 if I recall.

  99. https://www.kennedy24.com/fec_cnn_debate_violate_campaign_finance_laws_kennedy

    FEC: CNN Presidential Debate Violates Campaign Finance Laws if Kennedy Is Kept Off Stage
    June 11, 2024
    WASHINGTON, DC—JUNE 11, 2024—The Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) recent public statement regarding CNN’s presidential debate makes clear CNN will violate federal law absent the inclusion of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    As previously reported, Kennedy has filed an FEC complaint alleging CNN, Biden, and Trump flagrantly violated the Federal Election Campaign Act requirement that media broadcasters use “pre-established” and “objective” criteria to determine candidate participation. Failure to use objective criteria renders the debate a campaign contribution, subject to strict donation limits.

    MUCH MORE

  100. Omg – gross! The brain worm guy? We need to like, totally youth in Asia that dude already. Thank Gaia he’s not getting SS protection!

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.