Dietl v. Board of Elections

56 Misc. 3d 848, 52 N.Y.S.3d 844
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 12, 2017
StatusPublished

This text of 56 Misc. 3d 848 (Dietl v. Board of Elections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dietl v. Board of Elections, 56 Misc. 3d 848, 52 N.Y.S.3d 844 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2017).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Debra A. James, J.

By show cause order dated January 25, 2017, petitioner commenced this proceeding, which the court, having deliberated, has determined is one pursuant to Election Law § 16-108.

Election Law § 16-108 (1) states in pertinent part:

“1. The supreme court, by a justice thereof within the judicial district . . . in a proceeding instituted by any voter to whom registration has been unlawfully refused, shall compel, by order, the registration of such voter, and, in a proceeding instituted by any voter duly qualified to vote in this state, or by the state board of elections, shall, by order, direct the cancellation of the registration of any person who shall unlawfully be registered, and shall order the board of elections or other official charged with the conduct of registration to carry out such order.”

Petitioner Richard Dietl, also known as “Bo” Dietl, moved his residence to the City of New York, County of New York, from Albertson, County of Nassau, in and around August 2016.

According to his petition, petitioner announced to various news media that he intended to move from Nassau County, where he was enrolled in the Republican party, to New York City and register and enroll in the Democratic party.

The following allegations of the petition are not in dispute.

1. On August 24, 2016, petitioner signed a voter registration form, which on August 25, 2016, he filed with respondent Board of Elections in the City of New York. The voter registration form contains a statement, which is mandated by the Election Law, that “I do not wish to enroll in a political party,” which is followed by a box for checking off “No Party.” Petitioner placed no mark in that box, i.e., he kept it blank.

2. The form also contains the statement “I wish to enroll in a political party,” and petitioner checked the box marked “Democratic party.” However, petitioner also checked the box “Independence party.” To the left of those statements are instructions that state:

“Political party

‘You must make 1 selection

[850]*850“Political party affiliation is optional but that, in order to vote in a primary election of a political party, a voter must enroll in that political party, unless state party rules allow otherwise.”

3. On his voter registration form, petitioner also completed the part of the registration form captioned “Voting information that has changed Skip if this has not changed or you have not voted before” by filling in the address of his former residence in Nassau County.

In his petition, petitioner alleges that in late November 2016, he learned that the Board recorded petitioner as a registered voter but deemed his enrollment in a political party “blank,” i.e., not enrolled in any political party. Petitioner also alleges that his representative contacted the Board, who was told that the enrollment on his registration could be corrected by his filing of an “Affidavit and Application to the Board of Elections for Correction of Enrollment,” and the Board provided petitioner with the form to be used.

Petitioner completed the affidavit and application, which he filed with the Board on December 27, 2016. He attached to such affidavit, an article dated August 25, and one dated August 26, 2016, in the New York Post and New York Daily News, respectively, which reported petitioner’s statements that he had enrolled in the Democratic party.

On January 6, 2017, the Board issued a letter to petitioner denying his application to correct his enrollment in a political party (denial).

Such denial stated in pertinent part:

“The last sentence of Section 5-306 (2) of the Election Law provides clear guidance to all Boards of Election. It states Tf the records of any board of elections within the state show the applicant to have been enrolled during such five year period in any party other than the one with which he requests to be enrolled, or have been registered but not enrolled, the application for correction of enrollment shall be denied.’ ”

The Board reasoned that, assuming arguendo that petitioner had furnished “a certified transcript of his enrollment from the other County(s) Boards of Elections, with the necessary identifying information,” as required in such section 5-306 (2), which he had not, as petitioner, in any event, had stated in his affidavit that as a resident of Nassau County, he was enrolled [851]*851in the Republican party for the prior five years, “correction” of his enrollment was not permitted.

Petitioner now seeks an order of this court compelling the Board to register him as enrolled in the Democratic party, or alternatively as enrolled in the Republican party. Petitioner argues that in denying his application to correct his enrollment from “blank” to enrolled in the Republican party, the Board violated the clear mandate of Election Law § 5-302 (3). Section 5-302 provides that when a voter checks more than one party box, but sets forth the address of his prior registration in that registration form, the enrollment in the party listed in that prior registration should be entered as his enrollment. He argues that with the advent of a statewide voter registration database, the exception set forth in Election Law § 5-302 (3) should not be construed to apply to prior registrations only within the City of New York, or the same county.

With respect to his alternative plea that the court compel the Board to enter his voter registration as enrolled in the Democratic party, petitioner urges the court to consider his clear intention to enroll in the Democratic party, which he manifested via his contemporaneous public statements, and that his was a “simple mistake” in filling out the registration form that should be excused, as among the bases to grant such relief.

The Board opposes the petition, asserting that in accordance with Election Law § 5-210 (9), within 21 days of the receipt of petitioner’s new voter registration application, the Board processed such application and sent the required notice of approval to petitioner at his New York City residence address. According to the Board, in accordance with the statutory mandate, the notice advised the petitioner “to notify the board of elections if there is any inaccuracy” (id.). The Board contends that petitioner never informed the Board of any inaccuracy until approximately 17 weeks after he filed his registration form, i.e., four months after the Board purports to have notified him of his “blank” enrollment. The Board argues that applying the various provisions of the Election Law that govern the factual allegations and documentary evidence that is not refuted, it properly registered petitioner as not enrolled in a political party in the first instance, and lawfully denied his application for a correction of such enrollment, which mandates dismissal of the petition at bar.

[852]*852Discussion

In accordance with Election Law § 5-302 (3), as petitioner stated under oath in the registration form filed with the Board that he was previously registered in Nassau County, the Board processed him as a “new voter” within New York City.

With respect to the registration application form for a “new voter” within New York City, Election Law § 5-302 (3) states,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rosario v. Rockefeller
410 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Matter of Rubeor v. Town of Wright
134 A.D.3d 1211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Fotopoulos v. Board of Elections
381 N.E.2d 337 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Lombardi v. Power
39 Misc. 2d 615 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 Misc. 3d 848, 52 N.Y.S.3d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dietl-v-board-of-elections-nysupct-2017.