Court tosses appeal from town clerk candidate challenging NY election law

MANHATTAN (CN) — A Second Circuit panel dismissed an appeal Monday from a Grand Island, New York, town clerk who claimed the state’s “unconstitutional” write-in ballot laws cost her votes in the 2023 primary election.

Town Clerk Patricia Frentzel, a Republican, and a group of Working Families Party voters challenged a provision in state election law that states that “a write-in ballot cast in a party primary for a candidate not enrolled in such party shall be void and not counted.”

After a lower court denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction, they pleaded with the Second Circuit last week to reconsider. 

“In summary, my clients wanted to exercise their fundamental right to vote for the candidate of their choice in the Working Families Party during the 2023 primary,” the plaintiffs' attorney Chad Davenport said during oral arguments. “But votes were not counted, which violated their rights of free speech, freedom of association, equal protection and also due process.”

Despite Davenport’s efforts, a trio of Second Circuit judges ruled Monday that they lack jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal and dismissed it as moot.

“Frentzel won the November general election and was re-elected to the position of town clerk in Grand Island, New York,” the panel wrote in a four-page ruling. “We lack Article III jurisdiction because these intervening events ‘make it impossible for the court to grant “any effectual relief whatever” to a prevailing party.’”

Effectively, with Frentzel’s successful campaign long concluded, the judges ruled that there was no way that they could grant the relief she seeks based on the harm — or lack thereof — that she claimed to suffer. 

It’s a concern that was acknowledged by U.S. Circuit Judge Reena Raggi, a George W. Bush appointee, during last week’s arguments.

“Your client was the victor, even despite the errors you’re alleging,” Raggi said. “So to that extent, why isn’t it moot as to a preliminary injunction? And insofar as you're challenging the constitutionality of the statute and all of that, you can go back to the district court, it'll be resolved finally and then it'll come up to us if you get a decision you're dissatisfied with.”

However, the case will continue as it pertains to challenging the constitutionality of the election law — Frentzel’s request for declaratory relief is still outstanding before a lower court. The panel declined to invoke a mootness exception so as to not “unnecessarily and inappropriately preempt the district court’s resolution of that controversy.”

“A facial challenge to the constitutionality of an election law may be reviewed even if the election at issue has concluded,” the panel ruled. “The district court never issued a final judgment regarding that request.”

This, too, was acknowledged during oral arguments. Sarah Rosenbluth, counsel for the state, conceded there was “live controversy” when it came to the law’s constitutionality. But as the appellate ruling also found, that was an argument for a lower court.

“It is possible that there does remain some live controversy with respect to the constitutionality of [the law],” she said. “But I think as Judge Raggi indicated, that can be litigated on remand in the district court.”

Still, Rosenbluth added last week that it was in the state’s best interest to protect against election manipulation by implementing rules like the one at issue.

“The state does have an interest in preserving party integrity,” she said. “And the state does have an interest in ensuring the ideological coherence of political parties, and that’s really been well accepted for a long time.”

U.S. Circuit Judges Debra Livingston, a George W. Bush appointee, and Beth Robinson, a Joe Biden appointee, rounded out the panel. The parties attorneys didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment regarding Monday’s ruling.

Follow @Uebey

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit