Seawright v. Bd. of Elections in N.Y., No. 56, No. 58

• Decision Date: 21 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 56, No. 58
• Citation: 150 N.E.3d 848,127 N.Y.S.3d 45,35 N.Y.3d 227
• Parties: In the Matter of Rebecca SEAWRIGHT, Respondent, v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN the CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. Louis Puliafito, Intervenor–Appellant. In the Matter of Louis Puliafito, Appellant, v. Board of Elections in the City of New York, Appellant, and Rebecca Seawright, Respondent. In the Matter of Ola Hawatmeh, Appellant, v. New York State Board of Elections, Respondent, James Goblet, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

35 N.Y.3d 227

150 N.E.3d 848

127 N.Y.S.3d 45

In the Matter of Rebecca SEAWRIGHT, Respondent,

v.BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN the CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

Louis Puliafito, Intervenor–Appellant.

In the Matter of Louis Puliafito, Appellant,

v.Board of Elections in the City of New York, Appellant, and Rebecca Seawright, Respondent.

In the Matter of Ola Hawatmeh, Appellant,

v.New York State Board of Elections, Respondent,James Goblet, et al., Respondents.

No. 56, No. 58

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 21, 2020

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

In Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections in the City of New York , the Appellate Division, First Department, held that – in light of the "unique circumstances" created by the COVID–19 pandemic – the candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance did not constitute a fatal defect ( 183 A.D.3d 472, 123 N.Y.S.3d 603, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02900 [1st Dept. May 14, 2020] ). In Matter of Hawatmeh v. New York State Board of Elections, the Appellate Division, Third Department, rejected the First Department's approach and reached the opposite conclusion, holding that – notwithstanding the "unprecedented circumstances created by the COVID–19 pandemic" – the candidate's belated filing of a certificate of acceptance was a fatal defect ( 183 A.D.3d 1109, 123 N.Y.S.3d 763, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02907 [3d Dept. May 15, 2020] ).¹

We granted leave to resolve this departmental split. We now reverse in Seawright and affirm in Hawatmeh .

I. Seawright

On March 19, 2020, incumbent New York State Assembly Member Rebecca Seawright, a registered Democratic Party member, filed a petition designating her a candidate for the office of Member of the Assembly for the 76th Assembly District on the Democratic Party primary ballot. Seawright's designating petition consisted of two volumes, each longer than 10 pages, and accordingly, under rules promulgated by the New York State Board of Elections (the "State Board") and the Board of Elections in the City of New York (the "City Board"), an accompanying cover sheet was required (see 9 NYCRR 6215.1 [b]; id. at 6215.1[e][3]; City Board Rule C1). Seawright failed to file a cover sheet prior to the March 20 deadline, which was established by statute on March 18 (see L 2020, ch. 24, § 1).

On March 19, Seawright also filed a petition designating her a candidate for the same office on the Working Families Party primary ballot. Because she was not a member of the Working Families Party, Seawright was required to file a certificate accepting this designation ( Election Law § 6–146[1] ). Seawright failed to file a certificate of acceptance by March 24, the deadline imposed by Election Law § 6–158(2) and chapter 24 of the Laws of 2020.

The City Board invalidated (1) Seawright's designating petition for the Democratic Party primary on the ground that she failed to timely file a cover sheet, and (2) Seawright's designating petition for the Working Families Party on the ground that she failed to timely file a certificate of acceptance. Seawright then commenced proceedings to validate her designating petitions. Louis Puliafito moved to intervene in Seawright's proceedings and also commenced separate proceedings, seeking to invalidate each of Seawright's two designating petitions. Seawright's filings noted that she was ill with "COVID symptoms" and was "ordered to quarantine" during the weeks surrounding the statutory deadlines.

Following a hearing, Supreme Court granted Seawright's petitions to validate and denied Puliafito's petitions to invalidate. The City Board and Puliafito appealed, and the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed (see Matter of Seawright , 183 A.D.3d 472, 123 N.Y.S.3d 603, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02900 ). Emphasizing the "unprecedented circumstance of a statewide health emergency," the Court determined that "the belated filing of these specific documents is not a fatal defect" ( id. at 472–73, 123 N.Y.S.3d 604, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02900, *1 ).

Hawatmeh

Ola Hawatmeh is a prospective Conservative Party candidate for the office of Member of the United States House of Representatives for the 19th Congressional District. From March 14 to March 24, 2020, Hawatmeh underwent prescheduled, out-of-state cancer

treatment. On March 20, a petition was filed to designate Hawatmeh a Conservative Party candidate in the 19th Congressional District primary. Because she was not a member of the Conservative Party, Hawatmeh was required to file a certificate of acceptance ( Election Law § 6–146[1] ). She failed to file the certificate by the recently established March 24 deadline (see Election Law § 6–158[2] ; L 2020, ch. 24, § 1), and the State Board determined that Hawatmeh's designating petition was invalid because the certificate of acceptance was not timely filed.

Hawatmeh subsequently commenced a proceeding to validate the designating petition. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the State Board that Hawatmeh's certificate of acceptance was not timely filed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, with one Justice dissenting, holding that the Court had no discretion to excuse the late filing ( Matter of Hawatmeh , 183 A.D.3d 1109, 123 N.Y.S.3d 763, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02907, at *2 ). Although the Court was "sympathetic to the difficult situation that [Hawatmeh] was placed in due to the pandemic," it determined that "the equitable remedy that she seeks is unavailable" ( id. ).

II.

The Election Law provides that "[t]he failure to file any petition or certificate relating to the designation or nomination of a candidate for party position or public office or to the acceptance or declination of such designation or nomination within the time prescribed by the provisions of this chapter shall be a fatal defect" ( Election Law § 1–106[2] ). Applying the Election Law, we have repeatedly held that the failure to timely file required papers in connection with a designating petition, including a cover sheet or certificate of acceptance, is a "fatal defect" that cannot be excused (see e.g. Matter of Plunkett v. Mahoney , 76 N.Y.2d 848, 850, 560 N.Y.S.2d 276, 560 N.E.2d 575 [1990] ; Matter of Hutson v. Bass , 54 N.Y.2d 772, 773–774, 443 N.Y.S.2d 57, 426 N.E.2d 749 [1981] ; Matter of Baker v. Monahan , 42 N.Y.2d 1074, 1075, 399 N.Y.S.2d 643, 369 N.E.2d 1177 [1977] ; Matter of Carr v. New York State Bd. of Elections , 40 N.Y.2d 556, 558, 388 N.Y.S.2d 87, 356 N.E.2d 713 [1976] ). Strict compliance with the Election Law, we have held, "reduces the likelihood of unequal enforcement," emphasizing that "[t]he sanctity of the election process can be best guaranteed through uniform application of the law" ( Matter of Gross v. Albany County Bd. of Elections , 3 N.Y.3d 251, 258, 785 N.Y.S.2d 729, 819 N.E.2d 197 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Moreover, the provisions of the Election Law "make it crystal clear that the time limitations for filing are mandatory" and "foreclose the judiciary from fashioning exceptions, however reasonable they might" appear to be ( Matter of Baker , 42 N.Y.2d at 1074, 399 N.Y.S.2d 643, 369 N.E.2d 1177 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Accordingly, we have consistently mandated strict compliance with the time limitations imposed by the Election Law, notwithstanding a candidate's unique or extenuating circumstances (see Matter of Plunkett , 76 N.Y.2d at 850, 560 N.Y.S.2d 276, 560 N.E.2d 575 ; Matter of Hutson , 54 N.Y.2d at 774, 443 N.Y.S.2d 57, 426 N.E.2d 749 ; cf. Matter of Sheehan v. Aylward , 84 A.D.2d 602, 603, 444 N.Y.S.2d 260 [3d Dept. 1981], affd , 54 N.Y.2d 934, 445 N.Y.S.2d 138, 429 N.E.2d 816 [1981] ).

Though the Election Law has been amended over the years, these provisions and principles have never been "abandon[ed]" (see Wilson, J., dissenting op. at 256, 127 N.Y.S.3d at 64–65, 150 N.E.3d at 867–68). To the contrary, even after the 1992 passage of the Election Reform Act, we reinforced that untimely filings "dilute the integrity of the election process" and "jeopardize enforcement of the mandatory filing requirements set forth in the Election Law" ( Matter of Pierce v. Breen , 86 N.Y.2d 455, 458, 634 N.Y.S.2d 21, 657 N.E.2d 1304 [1995] ). To resolve any doubt, this Court confirmed that "[t]he Election Reform Act does not alter the strict filing provisions of Election Law § 1–106" ( id. at 459, 634 N.Y.S.2d 21, 657 N.E.2d 1304 ; see also Matter of Gross , 3 N.Y.3d at 258, 785 N.Y.S.2d 729, 819 N.E.2d 197 [discussing the importance of "strict compliance with the Election Law," which provides "no invitation for the courts to exercise flexibility in statutory interpretation"] ). Accordingly,

"[w]hat the Court of Appeals said 35 years ago is still apt: ‘It is wholly immaterial that the courts might reasonably conclude that what they perceive as the ultimate legislative objectives might better be achieved by more flexible prescriptions, prescriptions which might be judged by some to be more equitable. Whatever may be our view, the legislature has erected a rigid framework of regulation, detailing as it does throughout specific particulars’ " ( Matter of Avella v. Johnson , 142 A.D.3d 1111, 1113, 38 N.Y.S.3d 44 [2d Dept. 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Hutson , 54 N.Y.2d at 774, 443 N.Y.S.2d 57, 426 N.E.2d 749 ).

Our adherence to the legislature's strict compliance rule, in other words, remains intact.

The COVID–19 pandemic has undoubtedly presented uniquely challenging circumstances for Seawright and Hawatmeh – among countless other candidates for public office. Nonetheless, as in our prior cases, we remain constrained by the express directive of the Election Law: the complete failure to file, by the applicable deadline, either a cover sheet with a designating petition or a certificate of acceptance constitutes a "fatal defect" ( Election Law § 1–106[2] ). The First Department's analysis, employed in Seawright , Mejia v. Board of Elections in City of New...