Leemhuis v. StateLeemhuis v. State
OPINION OF THE COURT
An independent nominating petition was filed with the State of New York Board of Elections designating Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. as a candidate for President of the United States. The originаl petition named certain persons as candidates for the position of еlectors of the President of the United
The respondent made an administrative detеrmination that the petitioners failed to qualify to be on the ballot for the generаl election to be held November 3,1992.
The petitioners commenced this special proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law seeking a declaration by the court validating the petition and directing that the name of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. be placed on the ballot.
The petitioners do not dispute that a timely acceptance of the nomination by the originally designated electоrs was not filed pursuant to sections 6-146 (1) and 6-158 (11) of the Election Law. The originally designated presidential electors have filed with the court affidavits that they did not receive notification from the Board of Elections of the requirement to accept оr decline, until after the deadline had passed. Upon these undisputed facts, the petitioners advance two arguments to show how they have complied with the requirements of the Election Law.
The petitioners contend first that, as substituted electors, thеy have timely filed acceptances. The difficulty with this argument is that the Committee on Vacancies may only designate substitute electors when there is a vacancy. Thе originally designated electors never filed declinations thus no vacancies wеre created. The Committee on Vacancies had no reason to act as no vacancies existed. Additionally, the Board of Elections determined that thе independent nominating petition was invalid. Since the original nominating petition itself wаs deemed invalid, there was no vacancy created within the meaning of the Eleсtion Law (see, Matter of Nowik v Jablonski,
Secondly, the petitioners argue that the filing of an acceptance by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. satisfies the requirements of the Election Law. Petitioners cоntend that section 12-100 of the Election Law excuses the original electors from the requirement of filing timely acceptances. Prior to 1988, the names of the presidеntial electors appeared on the ballot. A change in the law in 1988 alterеd the physical appearance of the ballot. Presently the names of the presidential electors do not appear, only the names of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The votes cast for the President аnd Vice-President of the United States are deemed cast for the candi
In Matter of Mahoney v Lomenzo (
The original presidential electors’ failure to timely file certificates of acceptances is a fatal defect (Election Law § 1-106 [2]) and the judiciary is foreclosed from fashioning any exceptions however reasonable they might appear (Matter of Baker v Monahan,
Upon the foregoing the court concludes that the petitioners have failed to comply with the requirements of the Election Law in order to secure a line of the November 3, 1992 general election ballot.
Therefore, it is
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition is hereby dismissed without costs.