Davis v. Sullivan County Democratic Committee
| Decision Date | 26 July 1965 |
| Citation | 261 N.Y.S.2d 697,47 Misc.2d 60 |
| Parties | Monroe R. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. SULLIVAN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE and Francis A. Hanofee, Chairman, Sullivan County Democratic Committee, Defendants. ; Special Term, Albany County |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Monroe R. Davis, Woodridge, for plaintiff.
Rosen & Rosen, Monticello (Henry Temes, Woodridge, of counsel), for defendants.
Plaintiff a committeeman from the First Election District of the Town of Fallsburgh in Sullivan County and a member of the defendant Sullivan County Democratic Committee, has instituted an action for a declaratory judgment seeking to have Section 12 of the Election Law declared unconstitutional insofar as it relates to the method in which the county committee of political parties in the State of New York shall be constituted, further to have the section of the Rules of the Democratic Committee establishing the method in which members to it be designated be declared unconstitutional, and to enjoin and restrain the defendants from calling any meetings or convening any convention of the Sullivan County Democratic Committee unless the committeemen attending such meeting or convention cast their votes under a system of weighed voting as ordered by this Court. Defendant Chairman of the Sullivan County Democratic Committee opposes the granting of a temporary injunction principally upon the grounds that the complaint in the action fails to state a cause of action and that all proper parties are not in the action.
The Court has given the required notice to the Attorney General and his right of intervention has been protected as provided by Executive Law, § 71 and CPLR 1012(b).
The function of this Court at the present time is to determine whether or not there are sufficient grounds to grant a temporary injunction pending the trial and determination of the main action. The granting of the relief sought would require a showing of the usual requisites of this drastic provisional remedy.
The Court will address itself first to what it considers to be the most vital of these requisites: i. e., the showing of a clear right to relief in the main action (Park Terrace Caterers, Inc. v. McDonough, 9 A.D.2d 113, 191 N.Y.S.2d 1001). Plaintiff's success in the main action depends upon the adequacy of the grounds upon which he attacks the constitutionality of Section 12 of the Election Law. He urges that the pertinent portion of that statute violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 1 and Section 11, art. I of the New York State Constitution in light of new case law precedent. The highest court in our country recently enunciated a principle of Constitutional Law that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution requires that seats in State Legislatures be apportioned substantially on a population basis and that political equality can mean only one thing--'one person, one vote'. (Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562, 563, 565, 566, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821; cf. WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568; Maryland Com. for Fair Rep. v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595; Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678, 84 S.Ct. 1441, 12 L.Ed.2d 609; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed.2d 620; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assem. of Colo., 377 U.S. 713, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 12 L.Ed.2d 632; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663). Since the decision of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, several courts have held that the 'one person, one vote' rule is applicable to the apportionment of elected members of legislative bodies of governmental units below the level of State Legislatures (Matter of Goldstein v. Rockefeller, 45 Misc.2d 778, 783, 257 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1001; Bianchi v. Griffing, D.C., 238 F.Supp. 997; State ex rel. Sonneborn v. Sylvester, 26 Wis.2d 43, 132 N.W.2d 249; Brouwer v. Bronkema, Circuit Court, Kent County, Mich., Sept. 11, 1964, Searl, J.; Seaman v. Fedourich, 45 Misc.2d 940, 943, 258 N.Y.S.2d 152, 155; Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, D.C., 234 F.Supp. 945; Shilbury v. Board of Supervisors of County of Sullivan Supreme Court, Sullivan County, 46 Misc.2d 837, 260 N.Y.S.2d 931, decided July 21, 1965.)
The thrust of plaintiff's argument upon which the relief must depend is the application of this 'one person, one vote' principle of law to the method of electing committeemen to comprise the defendant Sullivan County Democratic Committee. Section 12 of the Election Law provides that '[t]he county committee of each party shall be constituted by the election in each election district within such county of at least two members and of such additional members, not in excess of two, as the rules of the county committee of the party within the county or the statement filed pursuant to section eighteen may provide for such district, * * * Each member of a county committee shall be an enrolled voter of the party residing in the assembly district from which or in the assembly district containing the election district in which such member is elected.'
It appears that the County of Sullivan is composed of fifteen townships having the number of election districts and the number of enrolled democrats that voted in the last election as hereinafter set forth:
TOWN NO. OF VOTING DISTRICTS NO. OF ENROLLED
DEMOCRATS
Bethel 3 443
Callicoon 3 510
Cochecton 1 207
Delaware 2 602
Fallsburgh 6 2443
Forestburg 1 141
Fremont 2 343
Highland 2 391
Liberty 9 1815
Lumberland 1 77
Mamakating 4 584
Neversink 3 398
Rockland 6 575
Thompson 8 2302
Tusten 1 242
Hence, it is obvious and undisputed that the Town of Fallsburgh, with the largest Democrat enrollment has a disproportionate vote in the county committee.
Plaintiff contends that 'county committees of political parties are semi-public bodies established by laws passed by the State Legislature, and are bodies that control the nomination of elected officers of the state and political subdivisions thereof, and directly and indirectly control the political destiny of the state and country.' Even assuming those conclusions as fact, it is extremely doubtful that their assertion and acceptance compels the grouping of this entity with those to which the 'one person, one vote' rule has been applied. These, or any other assertions in this Court's opinion, could not alter what is a difference not in degree, but in kind.
The term 'committee' as defined in the Election Law, § 2(10) is any committee chosen to represent the members of a party in any political...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacKenzie v. Travia
...650; Lynch v. Torquato, 3 Cir., 343 F.2d 370, 372; Kail v. Rockefeller, May 1, 1967, D.C., 275 F.Supp. 937; Davis v. Sullivan Co. Dem. Comm., 47 Misc.2d 60, 261 N.Y.S.2d 697. There is no provision of law permitting or requiring the application of a weighted voting system to such a joint Mot......