2nd Circuit Upholds Decision to Reinstate New York's Democratic Presidential Primary
In a case brought by former presidential contender Andrew Yang, a three-judge panel of the appeals court said that it agreed that the move to scrap the June 23 primary amid the COVID-19 pandemic had violated the rights of candidates and voters.
May 19, 2020 at 05:55 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday upheld a Manhattan federal judge's decision to reinstate New York's already-delayed Democratic primary next month.
In a case brought by former presidential contender Andrew Yang, a three-judge panel of the appeals court said it agreed that the move to scrap the June 23 primary amid the COVID-19 pandemic had violated the rights of candidates, their delegates and voters to participate in the election, despite the fact that only one candidate for president would appear on the ballot.
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York ruled May 5 that while there was an "important state interest" in protecting the public from the pandemic, she was "not convinced" that canceling the primary was the way to do it.
She noted that New York had already expanded access to absentee ballots, which could help increase social distancing at voting sites. Also, Torres said, elections other than the presidential primary were still scheduled for 42 out of New York's 62 counties, and New York had been the only state in the country to completely call off its primary as a result of the virus.
In a 30-page opinion, Torres ruled that the move to nix the primary not only deprived Yang and his delegates of their opportunity to influence Democratic Party politics, but also stripped voters of the right to send like-minded representatives to the convention.
In a short order, the Second Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed the ruling for "substantially the reasons given" in Torres' decision earlier this month. A written opinion explaining the panel's reasoning was expected to follow.
The state Board of Elections said in a statement that it would not appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court "so we can focus all of our attention on the daunting tasks of managing the primary election in a way that minimizes the risks to the public and to election workers."
The BOE added that it would "continue to urge" voters to use absentee ballots during the ongoing public health crisis.
Yang's lawsuit, which was joined by seven delegates, alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and sought a preliminary injunction directing the primary to move ahead.
Yang, who is now a political commentator with CNN, suspended his presidential campaign in February after he said it became clear that he no longer had a viable path to winning the Democratic Party's nomination. However, he said that he planned to keep his name on the ballot in the hope that his delegates would be able to exert some influence over the party platform at its planned convention in Milwaukee later this summer.
Since then, Gov. Andrew Cuomo delayed the state's primary election from April 28 to June 23, and New York amended its election law to allow the state BOE to remove primary candidates from the ballot once they publicly announce they are no longer seeking the nomination or officially suspend their campaigns.
The BOE's commissioners adopted a resolution on April 27 to remove Yang and nine other primary candidates who had also suspended their campaigns. With only former Vice President Joe Biden remaining on the ballot, the election was canceled as an operation of law.
The decision, the BOE said, was made out of concern for public health and safety, as well as the fact that the results would not change the primary's outcome.
Jeff Kurzon, who represented the plaintiffs, said in an emailed statement that he was "happy that New Yorkers will have their right to vote in the Democratic presidential primary election" and "grateful to the four judges who upheld our constitution and that democracy wins the day."
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 2Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
- 3Spencer Lawton, Savannah Prosecutor Who Tried ‘Midnight in the Garden’ Case, Dies at 81
- 4Uber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
- 5Steve Bannon 'We Build The Wall' Fraud Trial Pushed to February 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250