477 F.Supp.3d 19
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Fourteen NYC voters and four candidates challenged New York Election Law § 8-412 after absentee ballots in the June 23, 2020 primary were invalidated for lacking a USPS postmark (or having a late postmark). Plaintiffs allege they mailed ballots on June 22–23.
- Governor Cuomo’s 2020 executive orders expanded absentee voting and required postage-paid return envelopes; the Legislature later amended § 8-412 to relax the postmark deadline prospectively.
- USPS policy generally postmarks election mail, but testimony revealed thousands of absentee envelopes were not postmarked due to routing/mechanical/human errors, disproportionately affecting Brooklyn.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction directing the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) to order local boards to count absentee ballots received by June 30 regardless of timely postmarking.
- After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on First Amendment and Equal Protection claims and granted a statewide preliminary injunction limited to: count otherwise valid absentee ballots received by June 24 regardless of postmark, and those received on June 25 so long as they are not postmarked after June 23.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Voters and candidates assert injury from likely invalidation of timely-mailed absentee ballots; relief would redress injury. | State argues candidates lack personal injury and State not causally responsible for USPS actions. | Plaintiffs (voters and candidates) have Article III standing; one plaintiff suffices and injuries are fairly traceable to State inaction. |
| Sovereign immunity / Ex Parte Young | Seek injunctive relief against state officers to prevent continuing constitutional violations. | NYSBOE claims Eleventh Amendment bar. | Claims against NYSBOE as an entity barred; relief permitted against state officers in their official capacities under Ex Parte Young and against City defendants. |
| Necessary parties / Rule 19 & USPS joinder | Nationwide relief requested but USPS and all local boards not necessary because NYSBOE can direct local boards; candidates can intervene. | Defendants contend many parties (local boards, all candidates, USPS) are required. | Court exercises discretion under Rule 19: absent parties not required; USPS not necessary; equity favors proceeding. |
| Younger abstention | Federal relief appropriate despite parallel state suits challenging canvass. | Defendants urge abstention because of overlapping state proceedings. | Younger abstention not applicable; Sprint limits Younger to narrow categories and federal court may proceed. |
| Merits — injunction (First Amendment & Equal Protection) | Enforcing § 8-412 will discard many timely-mailed ballots (especially received June 24–25), burdening voting rights; arbitrary, unequal treatment across boroughs; strict scrutiny applies and postmark rule is not narrowly tailored. | State invokes interest in ensuring ballots cast by Election Day and administrative feasibility; argues errors are USPS inadvertence and not purposeful state action. | Court finds irreparable harm, clear likelihood of success on First Amendment and Equal Protection claims (systemic effect and arbitrary disparities), equities/public interest favor relief; issues narrow remedy: count ballots received June 24, and June 25 if postmarked not later than June 23. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting/association rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (balancing test and strict scrutiny for severe burdens on voting)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000) (equal protection requires consistent standards in vote counting)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (permits injunctive suits against state officers)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (ballots deliberately sent then refused to be counted can violate voters’ rights)
- Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (U.S. 2013) (limits Younger abstention categories)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard including balance of equities and public interest)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requirements)
- Conn. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. OSHA, 356 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2004) (constitutional injury supports irreparable harm finding)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (traceability/redressability principles for causation)