Marchant v. New York City Board of Elections
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98900
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed a pro se complaint on August 23, 2011 seeking injunctive relief to place Everly D. Brown on the Queens County District Attorney Democratic Primary ballot.
- Brown’s designating petition contained approximately 7,510 signatures, but the Board later found only 2,389 valid signatures after objectors challenged signatures and addresses.
- The Board determined Brown was not placed on the ballot; Brown pursued state court action which was denied, with appeal awaiting in September 2011.
- Plaintiffs allege the Board violated rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, HAVA, and NVRA by invalidating signatures due to mismatched addresses.
- Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction to validate the petition and add Brown to the ballot, plus damages and declaratory relief; the show-cause hearing occurred on August 30, 2011.
- Judge Townes later denied the preliminary injunction, finding no adequate likelihood of success on the merits and noting procedural/posture issues, with consideration of claim preclusion and due process arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim preclusion viability | Plaintiffs argue privity with Brown warrants federal review. | Board argues state court judgment may preclude federal claims if privity exists. | Court finds insufficient information to determine privity; claim preclusion not established. |
| Due process viability of signature review | Due process rights were violated by pre-deprivation hearing failures and denied opportunity to rehabilitate signatures. | Rivera-Powell pre-deprivation hearing in state proceedings suffices; no due process violation shown. | Rivera-Powell controls; plaintiffs failed to show substantial likelihood of due process violation. |
| Equal protection challenge to signature rules | Board's signature requirements and party-witness rule discriminate against certain groups. | Election laws are neutral and applied uniformly without intentional discrimination. | Court finds no clear or substantial likelihood of equal protection violation. |
| Irreparable harm and likelihood of success standard | Infringement of voting rights constitutes irreparable harm and warrants injunction. | Regulatory election laws impose non-constitutional burdens; state interests justify restrictions. | No irreparable harm recognized for constitutional injury; likelihood of success not demonstrated; injunction denied. |
| Balance of hardships | Adding Brown to ballot would remedy voters' rights and restore electoral options. | Massive logistical burdens and potential disruption to county-wide election processes would be substantial. | Hardships do not tip decisively in plaintiffs' favor; laches and practical burdens support denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera-Powell v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) (pre-deprivation process sufficiency governs due process claims)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (election regulations noted as not absolutely restricting voting rights)
- Oneida Nation of New York v. Cuomo, 645 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for preliminary injunction against government action in public interest)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (claim preclusion privity requires identity of interest and coordinated strategy)
- New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (party-witness rule and party participation rights upheld)