Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Torres v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
No. 1:04-cv-01129-JG-SMG (E.D. N.Y. filed, Mar. 18, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55589
Description
Voters and Candidates Challenge New York’s System for Selecting Major Party Candidates for Supreme Court Judicial Positions
Abstract
Candidates who had unsuccessfully sought to run as major party
candidates for New York supreme court judgeships, potential
candidates deterred by the insurmountable barriers to running
without major party endorsement, and several New York voters
deprived of the ability to vote for their candidates of choice sued
the New York State Board of Elections for violating the First and
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in board’s
system for determining major party candidates for supreme court and
the state’s trial courts. As described in the complaint,
state election law delegates extraordinary authority to the
Democratic and Republican parties to determine how judicial
district nominating conventions are run, resulting in what
plaintiffs call sham elections both at the conventions and in the
general elections. Plaintiffs charge that candidates and convention
delegates are handpicked by party leaders and that challengers to
the party-backed candidates have no meaningful alternate routes to
major party ballot lines. Plaintiffs charge that the system
severely burdens candidates’ and voters’ fundamental
right to vote and associational right under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments without any compelling or important state
interest. Plaintiffs allege that the system violates the equal
protection clause by imposing virtually insurmountable burdens on
challenger candidates for supreme court while imposing much lesser
burdens on candidates for other local and statewide offices.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief; injunctive relief allowing the
state legislature to enact a new system; alternate injunctive
relief mandating direct primary elections for supreme court and a
method to gain a place on the ballot by petition; and costs and
fees.
