Credico v. New York State Board of Elections
751 F. Supp. 2d 417
E.D.N.Y2010Background
- Credico is a United States Senate candidate in New York, nominated by the Libertarian Party and the Anti-Prohibition Party, both independent bodies.
- Under NY Election Law § 7-104.4(e), if multiple independent bodies nominate a candidate, the ballot placement is affected; the Board proposed placing Credico on one line unless he designated otherwise.
- Credico requested placement on both the Libertarian and APP ballot lines; the Board refused.
- Plaintiffs (Credico, Libertarian Party, APP, and Richard Corey) filed a § 1983 action seeking to declare § 7-104.4(e) unconstitutional and for a preliminary injunction to place Credico on both lines.
- Judge Dearie concluded the Board is immune as a state actor, but the Commissioners may be enjoined under Ex parte Young; the court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcing § 7-104.4(e).
- The court ordered the ballot be certified to place Credico on both the Libertarian Party and APP lines for the November 2, 2010 election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 7-104.4(e) violates First Amendment/Equal Protection as applied. | Credico argues the burden on minor parties is unconstitutional. | Board argues the provision furthers ballot clarity and orderliness. | § 7-104.4(e) is unconstitutional as applied; injunction granted. |
| Irreparable injury and likelihood of success on the merits. | Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm to political speech/association; likelihood of success established. | State interest justifies the ballot structure and potential burdens are permissible. | Irreparable injury shown and substantial likelihood of success on merits. |
| Whether Ex parte Young permits injunctive relief against the Commissioners despite Eleventh Amendment immunity. | Relief against state actors in official capacity is appropriate. | Board immunity bars claims against state officials. | Ex parte Young allows injunctive relief against Commissioners in their official capacities. |
| Whether New York's interest in ballot design justifies § 7-104.4(e). | Interest does not justify creating confusion or blank spaces on ballots. | Interest in an orderly ballot supports § 7-104.4(e). | State interest insufficient to justify the burden in this context; balance favors plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Alliance Party v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 861 F. Supp. 282 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (balancing First Amendment rights against state ballot regulations)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1997) (reaffirmed that ballot regulations are subject to exacting scrutiny when burdens are severe)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (ballots serve to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression)
- Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2008) (weigh burdens against state interests with attention to exacting standards)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (non-discriminatory, reasonable ballot regulations receive less-than-strict scrutiny)
- Dillon v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 2005 WL 2847465 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (context for preliminary injunction standard in election cases)