Michael R. Prestia, Ferdinand J. Iavarone, Catherine King, Thomas Scannapiego, Thomas Hogan, Helen J. Ghaney, Thomas Ghaney, Richard Doris, Joseph W. Pierce, and Maryellen Marx v. Terrence O'connor, Stephen H. Weiner, Weyman A. Carey, Ronald J. D'angelo, Gertrude Strohm, Michael J. Cilmi, Frederick M. Umane, Douglas A. Kellner, Crystal N. Paris, Vincent J. Velella, Individually and as Commissioner Members of the Board of Elections in the City of New York, Board of Elections in the City of New York, Richard Retcho, as Candidate or "Candidate Aggrieved" and Kevin Brawley, as Objector
Docket: 98-9336
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; May 14, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
In the case 178 F.3d 86, Michael R. Prestia and other plaintiffs, members of the Conservative Party of New York State, appealed a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which dismissed their complaint and denied their request for a preliminary injunction regarding the rejection of their petition for "opportunity to ballot" in the congressional primary election. The central question was whether the court's prior ruling in Rockefeller v. Powers, which found that New York's signature requirement for accessing the presidential primary ballot violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, also applied to the congressional primary ballot's similar signature requirement. The court concluded that the circumstances in Rockefeller were unique and did not apply to the current case, affirming that a requirement for signatures from five percent of the relevant voter group is generally constitutional. New York's election law mandates that both designating petitions and write-in petitions for congressional primaries must be signed by at least five percent or a maximum of 1250 registered party members in the district. The court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint, thereby affirming the legitimacy of the signature requirement under the state election law.
In July 1998, a write-in petition for the CP's congressional primary in New York's 7th District was submitted to the Board of Elections but rejected due to insufficient signatures (fewer than the required 140) and the absence of a designated committee for notices, violating N.Y. Election Law. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming these requirements infringed on their constitutional rights to free speech and association. The district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), leading to an appeal.
The appellate court reviews the dismissal de novo and assesses the constitutionality of the state's election laws by balancing any burdens on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights against state interests. A regulation that significantly restricts these rights must serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored, while reasonable restrictions generally require only that they align with important state interests. The state has a vested interest in ensuring a minimal level of support for candidates to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, justifying the 5% signature requirement for ballot access.
Precedents uphold this requirement as constitutional, citing cases such as Jenness v. Fortson. The plaintiffs’ argument draws from Rockefeller v. Powers, which found a different signature requirement unconstitutional based on specific circumstances that do not apply here.
The district court in Powers emphasized that, despite delegates being selected by district, candidates needed to allocate resources across all 31 New York districts, which hindered their ability to effectively mount petition drives. Historical data indicated that even well-funded candidates often lacked the resources to compete in every district, leading to many districts having limited or no electoral contests. The New York Legislature allowed political parties to choose between two signature requirements for the 1996 presidential primaries, indicating that while the Republican party favored a 5% requirement, a lesser threshold could still satisfy the state’s interest in demonstrating support for candidates.
The court concluded that the circumstances in Powers were unique to presidential primaries and not applicable to congressional primaries, where candidates focus solely on one district. The 5%/1250 signature requirement did not prevent viable candidates from participating or result in uncontested elections. Additionally, political parties could not select the lower 0.5%/1000 requirement in congressional primaries. The court affirmed that the signature requirement under N.Y. Elec. Law 6-136(2)(g) did not violate First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, thus upholding the district court's decisions to deny the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismiss the complaint.
The court also addressed the context of write-in opportunities, asserting that while they may reduce confusion, the absence of such options does not significantly impede voters' rights, especially when voters can petition for specific candidates. The court deemed the signature requirement constitutionally valid, regardless of a separate challenge regarding the requirement for a committee appointment on petitions. Finally, a motion to dismiss the appeal and impose sanctions for alleged fraud was denied due to disputed facts and the court's decision on the merits.
