LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

IN THE MATTER OF ROBIN L. LABRAKE et al. v RONALD J. DUKES ET AL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: IN THE MATTER OF ROBIN L. LABRAKE et al., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0104, Subscribing Witness, Election Law, Resident, Appellants, Designating Petitions, Respondents, Voter, Memorandum, Council Districts, Qualified Voter, Supra, Nominating Process, Judge, Ronald, Dukes, Publication, Appellate Division, Costs, Proceeding, Party, Candidates, City, Violation, United States, Ad2d, Political Subdivision, Challenging, Lerman, Internal Quotation Marks , ContentID: 120248678

Case Documents
1 2001-08-30 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120588
2 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ELECTION LAW
RESIDENT
APPELLANTS
DESIGNATING PETITIONS
RESPONDENTS
VOTER
MEMORANDUM
COUNCIL DISTRICTS
COURT
QUALIFIED VOTER
SUPRA
NOMINATING PROCESS
JUDGE
RONALD
DUKES
PUBLICATION
APPELLATE DIVISION
COSTS
PROCEEDING
PARTY
CANDIDATES
CITY
VIOLATION
UNITED STATES
AD2D
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
CHALLENGING
LERMAN
INTERNAL QUOTATION MARKS


   3 No. 176
   In the Matter of Robin L. LaBrake et al.,
   Appellants,
   v.
   Ronald J. Dukes et al.,
   Respondents.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 104

   August 30, 2001

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Thomas J. Spargo, for appellants.
   Patrick T. Morphy, for respondents.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

   Appellants brought a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102
   to declare invalid the designating petitions naming respondents Ronald
   J. Dukes and Theresa Franke as the Democratic Party candidates for the
   office of Member of the Troy City Council from the Second and Sixth
   Council Districts, respectively, in the September 11, 2001 primary
   election. Appellants asserted that, in violation of Election Law
   6- 132(2), numerous signatures were witnessed by subscribing witnesses
   who resided outside the Second and Sixth Council Districts.
   Respondents interposed the affirmative defense that the residency
   requirement violated the First Amendment of the United States
   Constitution. Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the petition. The
   Appellate Division affirmed (__ AD2d __), as do we.

   Election Law § 6-132(2) requires that a subscribing witness to a
   designating petition be (1) a duly qualified voter of the State,(1)
   (2) an enrolled voter of the same political party as the voters
   qualified to sign and (3) "a resident of the political subdivision in
   which the office or position is to be voted for." The only requirement
   challenged here is the third. Additionally, a subscribing witness is
   required to set forth his or her address in a signed Statement of
   Witness appended to the bottom of each sheet of a designating petition
   (see, Election Law § 6-132(2)).
SNIPPETS:
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Thomas J. Spargo, for appellants.
  • Patrick T. Morphy, for respondents.
  • The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
  • Appellants brought a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to declare invalid the
  • Appellants asserted that, in violation of Election Law § 6- 132, numerous signatures were
  • Respondents interposed the affirmative defense that the residency requirement violated the
  • Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the petition.
  • The Appellate Division affirmed (__ AD2d __),
  • Election Law § 6-132requires that a subscribing witness to a designating petition be a duly
  • Additionally, a subscribing witness is required to set forth his or her address in a signed
  • We agree with the courts below and with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
  • The requirement is therefore subject to strict scrutiny, and "must be narrowly drawn to
  • The requirement that the subscribing witness be "a resident of the political subdivision in
  • The State interest most commonly advanced as compelling in connection with such a requirement
  • Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
  • Election Law § 5-102, in pertinent part, requires that a qualified voter of the State be a
  •    |