|
Samuel H. Sloan
920 Belmont Avenue
Brooklyn NY 11208
(718) 277-6957
samsloan@samsloan.com
August 30, 2004
Board of Elections
32 Broadway
New York NY 10004
Re: Opportunity to Ballot in Conservative Party Primary
Dear Honorable Sirs:
I happened by coincidence to be attending a hearing of the Board of
Elections on Thursday, August 10 on another matter when I observed
Jerry Kassar, Chairman of the Kings County Conservative Party, stand
up along with his lawyer and make a heated and vociferous objection to
an Opportunity to Ballot petition. Not being familiar with this
situation, I said nothing at that time.
A few days later, I was researching the law on another election matter
when I came across the case of Davis v. Dutchess County Board of
Elections (1989 2d Dept.) 153 AD 2d 716, 544 NYS 2d 683 wherein the
Second Department held: "Chairman of Party cannot challenge
Opportunity to Ballot Petition".
This principle was reaffirmed in a decision by the Fourth Department
only two weeks ago. In Soda v. Dahlke, decided August 18, 2004, that
court held: "Section 16-102 (1) specifies the persons who may commence
a proceeding pursuant to that statute. Its plain language directs that
a "chairman of a party committee" may not bring a proceeding to
invalidate a designation."
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_06380.htm
It is clear that Gerard Kassar is the Chairman of a Party Committee.
http://brooklynconservativeparty.com/ContactUs.html
Notwithstanding that, he appeared before this Board of Elections along
with the General Counsel of the Conservative Party and together they
strenuously objected to the Opportunity to Ballot petition which had
been filed. There were no other objections.
This means that Jerry Kassar acted improperly in appearing before this
board to make his objections and the board itself acted improperly in
hearing his objections.
Accordingly, this New York City Board of Elections is required by law
to reinstate this Opportunity to Ballot petition.
Furthermore, I heard Jerry Kassar state at the hearing that the
Opportunity to Ballot petitions were insufficient because Section 137
had not been complied with. However, there is no such provision of New
York Election Law, so his contention is entirely without merit.
The reason I am interested in this matter is because on or about May
10, 2004 I appeared before a Screening Committee of the Conservative
Party chaired by Jerry Kassar. I fully admit that they gave me a hard
time about some of my positions on the issues. The y did not like the
fact that I am not completely Right-to-Life, that I am against the
Patriot Act and that I want the US Military to Withdraw from Iraq.
Nevertheless, they later told me that they would make me their
candidate provided that the Republican Party did the same, which
seemed to be the case at that time.
The Republican Party did vote to nominate me but changed their minds a
few days later. A few more days after that, Jerry Kassar told me that
they had settled on another candidate, somebody that I knew. He
declined to reveal who that person was. I did not think much about
this other than to wonder who this mystery candidate might be. I was
startled to discover after the petitioning period had ended six weeks
later that their mystery candidate was Mariana Blume. Anybody who
knows Mariana Blume will understand why this was startling. Mariana
Blume is a person whom nobody who knows her would vote for. She
nominated herself to be the Republican Party candidate, but nobody
voted her except that she voted for herself. It is obvious that the
Conservative Party made her their candidate just to block me from
running for election. This, combined with their objection to the
Opportunity to Ballot Petition, is obviously for the purpose of
preventing any contested election from taking place for the Tenth
Congressional Seat. I find the conduct of the Conservative Party to be
disgraceful and everybody I know who knows Mariana Blume agrees with
me on this point. The Board of Elections should not allow such a vile
scheme to prevail.
The subject section of New York Election Law states:
Election Law 16-102. Proceedings as to designations and nominations,
primary elections, etc. 1. The nomination or designation of any
candidate for any public office or party position or any independent
nomination, or the holding of an uncontested primary election, by
reason of a petition for an opportunity to ballot having been filed,
or the election of any person to any party position may be contested
in a proceeding instituted in the supreme court by any aggrieved
candidate, or by the chairman of any party committee or by a person
who shall have filed objections, as provided in this chapter, except
that the chairman of a party committee may not bring a proceeding with
respect to a designation or the holding of an otherwise uncontested
primary.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c31/a45.html
The operative provision is the last paragraph, which states: "the
chairman of a party committee may not bring a proceeding with respect
to a designation or the holding of an otherwise uncontested primary."
In the case presented here, there will be only one candidate and
therefore there will be no primary, if this Opportunity to Ballot
petition is denied. This provision of law was obviously passed by the
state legislature to insure that elections be contested whenever
possible. There are also federal constitutional questions which arise
when the State or City Board of Elections creates a situation where
there is only one candidate on the ballot and therefore there is no
election.
Accordingly, the Decision by the Board of Elections denying the
Opportunity to Ballot Petition must be reversed, the petition must be
granted and therefore the Conservative Party Primary Election must be
held on September 14, 2004.
Respectfully Submitted,
Samuel H. Sloan
|
| |
| |
|
