Mayor Eric Adams’ re-election campaign submitted faked and fraudulently obtained petition signatures in his effort to secure a spot on the November ballot as an independent candidate, a Gothamist investigation has found.
Gothamist reviewed signatures submitted from across New York City and found people who said their names were forged, as well as people who said they were deceived into signing the petitions. In at least three instances, the campaign turned in signatures from dead people.
Under state law, Adams needed to submit at least 7,500 signatures from voters who wanted him on the general election ballot as an independent. The tactic enabled the incumbent mayor to avoid a crowded Democratic primary race that was shaping up as a referendum on the federal corruption charges he once faced and his growing ties to President Donald Trump.
The Adams campaign hired several companies to deploy employees across the city and gather signatures of registered voters in New York City who supported the mayor’s re-election.
Signature gatherers were required to sign a form pledging that each signature they collected was from the person whose name appeared on the sheet. But an executive from one company said he also warned the Adams campaign that it should run additional quality control measures – a suggestion he said the campaign rejected. In response to Gothamist’s inquiries, the campaign said it expected the companies it hired to follow the law but nevertheless pledged to now conduct its own review of the signatures….
Category Archives: ballot access
Alaska Supreme Court Finally Explains Its Ballot Access Order from September 2024 in Divided Decision
Alaska Democratic Party v. Beecher:
This case concerns a challenge to the Alaska Division of Elections’ inclusion of Eric Hafner — a federal prisoner in New York — as one of the four candidates on the 2024 general election ballot for the United States House of Representatives. Hafner finished in sixth place during the open primary under rankedchoice voting, but the Division elevated him to appear on the general election ballot after two of the top-four primary candidates timely withdrew. The Alaska Democratic Party and Anita Thorne, a registered Democrat (collectively ADP), argue that Hafner cannot be elevated to the general election ballot because Alaska law allows a single replacement for a withdrawn candidate: the fifth-place candidate in the primary election. The superior court rejected ADP’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.
Due to the time-sensitive nature of election appeals, we affirmed the superior court in a short order dated September 12, 2024. We now explain our reasoning in full, holding that the laws establishing ranked-choice voting require successive replacements on the general election ballot if more than one top-four primary candidate timely withdraws and additional primary candidates are available as replacements.
The majority relied in part upon Alaska’s particularly strong use of the democracy canon.
From the single-justice dissent:
“Fifth” has a clear meaning — the one that comes after the fourth. And the statute fixes its application to “the candidate . . . in the primary election.” The “candidate who received the fifth most votes in the primary election” therefore clearly means the candidate who received the next highest number of votes in the primary election after the candidate who received the fourth highest number. I fail to see “the facial ambiguity in the statute”2 that the court identifies as the reason to undertake its circular journey through principles of statutory interpretation to arrive at its starting point of the ambiguity it posited. I respectfully dissent.
Cuomo Continues Campaign for Mayor, Despite Primary Loss
WSJ:
Andrew Cuomo isn’t giving up yet on his political comeback.
The former governor plans to mount a competitive campaign in the general election for mayor of New York City after his surprise loss in the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani….
Cuomo’s name will appear on the general election ballot under the independent “Fight and Deliver” party he created as a backup plan in the event he lost the primary.
The general election will be a rematch between Cuomo and Mamdani and will also feature Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent. Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee, and independent Jim Walden will also be on the ballot.
NYT reports that Cuomo has pledged to drop out if he’s not the highest-ranked challenger to Mamdani by mid-September, and will encourage Mamdani’s other challengers to do the same.
Musk’s new “America Party” faces many hurdles, but the first one is its name
As I highlighted last month, I am deeply skeptical of any third political party venture that purports to represent some middle-of-the-road interests in the United States. Rick P. rightly asks some questions about the party now quasi-“officially” launched by Elon Musk, the “America Party.” But one problem with this new party will be its name.
New York, for instance, expressly prohibits a political party from having “American” or part of that name in a party title.
California has a provision that provides, “The designated name shall not be so similar to the name of an existing party so as to mislead the voters, and shall not conflict with that of any existing party or political body that has previously filed notice pursuant to subdivision (b).” The American Independent Party is ballot-recognized in the state of California.
These are just two state ballot label laws that jump to mind where problems might arise. And while there might be “ballot speech” interests in how political parties choose to identify themselves, there are more material problems if they risk voter confusion with names substantially similar to existing parties. (UPDATE: Richard Winger helpfully reached out to note that Americans Elect had a candidate on the California ballot in 2014, an argument that the risk of voter confusion seems unlikely. Likewise, in 1896 the California Supreme Court allowed the National Democratic Party and the Democratic Party on the ballot.)
Of course, political parties do use different names in different states (think the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota for the Democratic Party). But for a nascent political party, the branding is certainly weakened if it relies on checkerboard labels in some parts of the United States.
“NJ Moderate Party and Voters Ask State Supreme Court to Take Fusion Voting Case”
Insider NJ reports that the New Jersey Moderate Party and voters today filed briefs with the NJ Supreme Court asking it to review the constitutionality of New Jersey’s anti-fusion laws. The party argues that the fusion ban violates its right as a political party to associate with the candidate of its choice simply because that candidate has the nomination of another party.
The Moderate Party argue that reviving fusion voting would strengthen the center of our democracy and help counter the threat of authoritarianism caused by the increasing extremism of the major parties:
“The New Jersey Moderate Party wants to reverse the trend of hyper-polarization and the danger it poses to our state and our country. To achieve this objective, we need to identify, nominate, support and help elect viable moderate candidates who will strive to protect the basic foundations of our democracy and are willing to work collegially and respectfully with people of different viewpoints, to achieve sensible solutions to the major issues facing our country. Current New Jersey law bars us from exercising our constitutional rights to do that. We are confident the State Supreme Court will right that wrong.”
Richard Wolfe, a founder of the NJ Moderate Party.
The NJ Supreme Court will likely decide in the next month whether to take up the case.
“Eric Adams vows to sue election board over independent run”
In yet another cynical move, Eric Adams, who is running as an independent in NYC’s November mayoral race (rather than as a Democrat), is now seeking to run on two additional ballot lines: EndAntiSemitism and Safe&Affordable. He vows to sue the Election Board if his petitions are denied on the grounds that candidates running as independents can only appear on one ballot line.
Georgia county Republicans have standing to challenge primary ballot rules that “forced” them to associated with unwanted candidates, Eleventh Circuit holds
The decision in the Eleventh Circuit is an unpublished per curiam opinion, but a reversal of the trial court–something of a rare combination of events, in my view. The summary of Catoosa County Republican Party v. Catoosa County Board of Elections:
Plaintiffs Catoosa County Republican Party (“Catoosa GOP”) and Joanna Hildreth, its chair (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights action, which alleged that the defendants violated their rights to (1) freedom of association, by forcing them to associate on the Republican primary ballot with certain political candidates they viewed as ideologically outside the local party; and (2) freedom of speech, by refusing to publish their proposed ballot questions.
The district court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing for the first claim and that the second claim failed because it was based on government speech. After careful review, we hold that Plaintiffs have alleged a concrete injury to their associational right to exclude based on political beliefs, and that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an infringement of their private speech. We vacate and remand for further proceeding.
Note that this decision doesn’t say anything about the merits (which, reading the opinion, seem like a long shot). There’s some interesting discussion of the 1996 decision involving David Duke, and Part IV of the opinion examines what one might label “ballot speech.”
“Bolivia reinstates a leftist challenger but keeps former leader Morales off the ballot”
Bolivia’s electoral tribunal on Friday included leftist Senate leader Andrónico Rodríguez on the list of presidential candidates approved for the ballot but excluded the powerful former socialist leader Evo Morales — the other major thorn in the president’s side.
As tensions escalate in the run-up to Bolivia’s Aug. 17 elections, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal reinstated Rodríguez, a 36-year-old political upstart with close ties to Morales and roots in the ex-president’s rural coca-growing stronghold, weeks after suspending his candidacy on technical grounds in a decision that shocked many Bolivians.
“We are the candidate of the people,” Rodríguez said in a speech welcoming the revival of his campaign. “Our primary concern has been to wage the legal battle, and in the end, the power of the people had to prevail.”
With the ruling Movement Toward Socialism party, or MAS, riven by dysfunction and division over President Luis Arce’s power struggle with his former mentor, Morales, supporters of the senate leader see him as the only chance for MAS to beat the right-wing opposition and salvage its decades-long political dominance.
“Texas legislators refer 17 constitutional amendments for Nov. 2025 ballot—the most for a single election date since 2003”
“Musk floats idea of third party amid feud with Trump”
“Florida ballot initiative law mostly upheld by federal judge, but key part suspended”
A federal judge in Tallahassee mostly denied requests to temporarily block parts of a new Florida law revising rules for citizen-led ballot initiatives from plaintiffs who say it violates the First Amendment right to free political speech.
The law (HB 1205), signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May, was promptly challenged by Florida Decides Healthcare, a group looking to expand Medicaid access in Florida. Other groups also involved in statewide petitions joined the lawsuit, including Smart & Safe Florida, which is proposing an recreational marijuana initiative.
On June 4, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker denied motions to block multiple portions of the new law that toughens regulations on ballot initiatives, coming after DeSantis and state officials claimed fraud in last year’s petition gathering. These parts of the law include a requirement for all petitions to be turned in to local elections offices within 10 days and fines for missing voter information and late petition returns.
Walker did grant one motion from the health care group, which challenged a law change in the racketeering statute to include violations of state election code and petition fraud. The judge sided with the plaintiffs over a “vagueness claim” for the new law’s expanded definition for “racketeering activity.”
You can read the decision here.
Federal judge hints that parts of new ballot design law in New Jersey are unconstitutional
Never ending saga on the party line in New Jersey:
In a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of county lines on primary election ballots, U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi suggested today that New Jersey’s new ballot design law may contain provisions that contradict his previous rulings and might retain jurisdiction to consider any future challenges.
“The timing of the Legislature’s decision to act also gives the Court pause,” Quraishi wrote. “In short, the Legislature has demonstrated a reluctance to act to change past ballot practices followed by a willingness to act to protect those same practices. This suggests to the Court that further Legislative action can reasonably be expected.”
“With Missouri abortion access in limbo, both sides eye battles in court, on the ballot”
Both sides of the abortion debate seemed caught by surprise last week by the Missouri Supreme Court’s order that essentially reimposed the state’s abortion ban.
Planned Parenthood clinics were sent scrambling, cancelling abortion appointments and working with patients to ensure access in other states — a return to the way things operated before voters enshrined reproductive rights in the state constitution last year.
Anti-abortion advocates, meanwhile, celebrated the return of regulations but acknowledged the win could be temporary.
With no clear indication of when — or if — access to abortion will be restored, and a GOP-crafted amendment banning the procedure heading for the ballot next year, advocates on both sides are navigating the uncertainty and gearing up for the fight ahead.
New Iowa law allows poll workers to challenge voters on the basis of citizenship, bans ranked choice voting, and changes major party status rules
Tom Barton for the Cedar Rapids Gazette:
House File 954 addresses elections laws regarding voter registration, citizenship and major party status. It also bans ranked choice voting in Iowa.
It adds citizenship status to age and residency under which an election precinct official can challenge someone’s voter registration, and creates new language on declaration forms confirming the voter is a U.S. citizen.
The new law allows the Iowa Secretary of State to use state and federal documentation to determine the U.S. citizenship status of Iowans on the state’s voter registration list and create a new voter registration status of “unconfirmed” for individuals whose citizenship the state cannot verify. It requires the Iowa Department of Transportation to send the Secretary of State a list of each person 17 years and older who has submitted documentation to the DOT indicating they are not a citizen.
The piece also covers the new recount law, which I wrote about here.
. . .
A political party’s candidate for governor or president will need to receive at least 2 percent of the general election vote in three consecutive election cycles as opposed to one to be recognized as major political parties in Iowa.