BILL NUMBER: S5406

SPONSOR: MYRIE
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the election law, in relation to
proceedings with respect to designating and nominating petitions

 
PURPOSE:

New York Election Law § 16-102 provides for the statute of limitations
for proceedings with respect to designating and nominating petitions,
opportunity to ballot petitions, any proceeding in supreme court by any
aggrieved candidate, or chairman or any party committee or any person
who has filed objections. Currently, if a proceeding to invalidate a
petition is brought, there is no opportunity to seek validation by the
respondent, unless it is instituted in a separate proceeding within the
same time limits. Thus, a candidate would have to anticipate an oppo-
nent's challenge, in order to thoroughly validate his or her own peti-
tion. This bill would allow a validation proceeding to be brought within
three business days after the proper service of a timely invalidation
proceeding.

 
              

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill amends § 16-102(2) of the election law to specify
that a proceeding may be brought within three business days after the
proper service of pleadings for a timely invalidation proceeding.

Section 2 of the bill is the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

In the Matter of Suarez v. Sadowski, (48 N.Y.2d 620 (1979)), the Court
of Appeals held that the respondent could not put forth evidence seeking
to validate signatures on his underlying petition that had been previ-
ously found invalid by the Board of Elections, but which were not the
signatures at issue in the court proceeding. The majority cited that no
cross-petition to validate had been filed and that petitioner hadn't
been alerted by way of notice in the proceeding that respondents
intended to seek validation, finding that it would be 'manifestly unfair
to suddenly confront them with the necessity of meeting" the respond-
ent's offer of proof. In his dissent, Judge Gabrielli stated that the
court's decision "needlessly complicates that speedy process for the
resolution of disputes concerning the validity of designating petitions
which is contemplated" in the election law, and that requiring a candi-
date to bring his or her own proceeding to validate or serve a respon-
sive pleading of some undisclosed nature is neither "contemplated or
authorized by the Election Law." Acknowledging the obvious and sometimes
painful time constraints for election proceedings, Judge Gabrielli also
reasoned that such a proffer should be allowed under section 16-116 of
the election law and that the validity of all signatures on the
petitions should be at issue in any invalidation proceeding.  Notwith-
standing this sound interpretation, the majority's ruling, that a sepa-
rate petition to validate must be brought, has endured. This bill would
allow for limited three-day expansion of the statute of limitations
where a proceeding to invalidate a petition has been commenced, in keep-
ing with the spirit of Judge Gabrielli's analysis.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: A.8243 of 2017-18

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.