Tiraco v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections

• Decision Date: 07 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–CV–2273 (KAM)(MDG).,12–CV–2273 (KAM)(MDG).
• Citation: 963 F.Supp.2d 184
• Parties: Joseph E. TIRACO, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Board of Elections in the City of New York; and Frank MacKay, Individually and as the presiding Officer of the Independence Party of the State of New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

963 F.Supp.2d 184

Joseph E. TIRACO, Plaintiff,

v.NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Board of Elections in the City of New York; and Frank MacKay, Individually and as the presiding Officer of the Independence Party of the State of New York, Defendants.

No. 12–CV–2273 (KAM)(MDG).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Aug. 7, 2013.

Jack Lester, The Law Offices of Jack L. Lester, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Joshua Benjamin Pepper, Christine Anne Ryan, Office of the Attorney General,New York, NY, Stephen Edward Kitzinger, New York Law Department, New York, NY, Timothy F. Hill, Sinnreich & Kosakoff LLP, Central Islip, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, District Judge:

On May 8, 2012, plaintiff Joseph E. Tiraco (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the New York State Board of Elections (the “State Board”) for alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the United States Constitution. ( See ECF No. 1, Complaint dated 5/8/12.) On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, adding the Board of Elections in the City of New York (the “City Board”) as a defendant and alleging a new claim for punitive damages against the State Board and the City Board (collectively, the “Boards”). (ECF No. 9, First Amended Complaint dated 6/20/12.) On August 28, 2012, after retaining counsel, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding Frank MacKay (“MacKay”) as a defendant, omitting his claim for punitive damages, and including additional factual allegations in support of his § 1983 claims. ( See generally ECF No. 23, Second Amended Complaint dated 8/28/12 (“SAC”).)

Presently before the court are the State Board's motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (“Rule 12(b)(1)”) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”) and the City Board's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 36, State Board's Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss (“State Mot.”); ECF No. 37, State Board's Memorandum of Law in Support (“State Mem.”); ECF No. 38; State Board's Reply (“State Reply”); ECF No. 39, City Board's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (“City Mot.”); ECF No. 40, City Board's Memorandum of Law in Support (“City Mem.”); ECF No. 41, City Board's Reply (“City Reply”); ECF No. 33, Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Dismiss (“Pl. Opp.”).) The State and City Boards' motions to dismiss are granted as set forth below, and Plaintiff's claims against the Boards are therefore dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND¹

I. New York Election Law

Subject to limited exceptions not applicable here, an individual seeking to run in a primary election must be designated as a candidate for party nomination “by designating petition.” N.Y. Elec. Law § 6–118. A designating petition must contain a certain number of signatures from enrolled party members. SeeN.Y. Elec. Law § 6–136. The number of required signatures varies depending on the public office to be filled. See id. As is relevant in this case, designating petitions for potential party candidates for the United States House of Representatives must be signed by the lesser of 5% or 1,250 of the enrolled voters of the party residing in the congressional district.²SeeN.Y. Elec. Law § 6–136(2)(g). In addition, New York Election Law provides for expedited judicial review of electoral disputes in New York Supreme Court to permit potential candidates who have been removed from the primary ballot to validate their designating petitions and thereby achieve ballot access. SeeN.Y. Elec. Law § 16–102 (establishing expedited state court proceedings in which political candidates may request the state court to validate designating petitions).

On February 9, 2012, Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the Northern District of New York reduced the number of statutorily required signatures for designating petitions for the 2012 federal primary election and also adopted an election schedule setting forth dates for the signature-gathering period for designating petitions. See Memorandum and Order at 6, United States v. New York, No. 10–CV–1214 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2012), ECF No. 64 (adopting New York State Board of Elections' Proposed Calendar at 10–16, United States v. New York, No. 10–CV–1214 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2012), ECF No. 61). Specifically, Chief Judge Sharpe reduced the number of required signatures from 5% to 3.75% of the enrolled voters of the political party residing in the congressional district. Id. Chief Judge Sharpe further ordered that the signature-gathering period for designating petitions would begin on March 20, 2012 and end on April 16, 2012. Id. On March 19, 2012, on the eve of the commencement of the signature-gathering period, a three-judge panel of the Eastern District of New York issued an order demarcating the revised congressional district lines within New York and appended to that order maps reflecting the revised congressional district lines. Favors v. Cuomo, No. 11–CV–5632, 2012 WL 928223, at *1, 2 n. 5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012). On February 28, 2012, all filings in Favors were made available to the public at no cost through free access to the PACER service. See Docket, Favors v. Cuomo, No. 11–CV–5632 (E.D.N.Y.).

II. Plaintiff's Attempt to Secure Ballot Access in March 2012

During the signature-gathering period for the 2012 federal primary election, Plaintiff, a registered and longstanding member of the Independence Party of the State of New York (the “Independence Party”), attempted to secure ballot access to run for congressional office as the Independence Party candidate for the 6th Congressional District in Queens, New York. ( See SAC ¶¶ 10–11, 40, 44.) In or around March 2012, Plaintiff circulated petitions to obtain signatures of enrolled Independence Party members, as required by New York Election Law. ( See id. ¶ 40.) To facilitate his signature-gathering efforts, Plaintiff requested the Boards to provide him with: (a) a map of the 6th Congressional District setting forth the Election Districts and Assembly Districts; (b) the Independence Party enrollment book for the 6th Congressional District; (c) the number of enrolled Independence Party voters in the Congressional District; and (d) the number of signatures needed to qualify for ballot access as a candidate for Congress. ( See id. ¶¶ 44–45.)

The Boards did not provide Plaintiff with the requested items and instead advised Plaintiff that the requested items “were not expected before Mid–May.” ( Id. ¶ 45(d).) The Boards also informed Plaintiff that “they did not know the number of enrolled Independence Party voters in the [6th] Congressional [D]istrict and would not have the required information during the entire petition cycle.” ( Id. ¶ 45(e).) Plaintiff thereafter repeated his requests for the aforementioned items, but the Boards insisted that the requested items were not available at the time of Plaintiff's requests. ³ ( Id. ¶ 46.)

By the end of the signature-gathering period, Plaintiff obtained 532 signatures, even without the items requested from the Boards. ( See id. ¶ 55.) Nevertheless, the City Board removed Plaintiff from the federal primary ballot after a hearing because it determined that only 277 of the collected signatures were valid, falling short of the 314–signature requirement. ( See ECF No. 33, Exh. A, Transcript of Special Proceeding in Tiraco v. Wang, No. 12–CV–8953 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. May 7, 2012) (“State Court Tr.”), at 34, 38–39) ⁴; see also “Active Enrollment 2012 with Signature Requirements,” New York State Board of Elections, http:// www. elections. ny. gov/ NYSBOE/ law/ Total County Enrollment Sig Requirements 2012 Congress. pdf (last visited 8/7/13) (indicating that 314 signatures were required to obtain ballot access as Independence Party candidate in the 6th Congressional District).

On May 7, 2012, after his removal from the federal primary ballot, Plaintiff commenced a special expedited proceeding in New York Supreme Court pursuant to N.Y. Elec. Law § 16–102 in an effort to validate his designating petition and to reinstate his name on the ballot. ( See generally State Court Tr.) During that special proceeding, Plaintiff argued that the City Board failed to provide the minimum number of required signatures to obtain ballot access, failed to distribute electoral district maps, and failed to maintain personal voter registration records. (State Court Tr. 2–5.) The state court, however, declined to consider these arguments because Plaintiff did not properly raise such arguments in his pleadings and failed to name the State of New York as a party in the state court proceeding thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's constitutional claims. ( See id. at 7, 34, 37–38.) Accordingly, the state court dismissed Plaintiff's petition to validate and denied his request for reinstatement to the primary ballot in light of his failure to obtain the required 314 signatures. ( See id. at 37–39.) After the state court's dismissal of his petition, Plaintiff commenced the instant § 1983 action in federal court.

III. Plaintiff's Claims

Based on the foregoing factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts that the Boards discriminatorily administered New York State Election Law and thereby violated his constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 1, 59–64.) Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that the Boards “intentionally withheld, failed to disclose and/or negligently withheld relevant and material information necessary for Plaintiff ... to achieve ballot access.” (SAC ¶ 48.) Plaintiff further asserts that the Boards burdened his associational rights by discriminatorily providing the requested information to candidates favored by the...