| In Silk Sock Slugfest
Koffman Supporters Lose Before SDNY Judge
Captroni But Had Standing
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
May 12 – Cameron Koffman wants
to unseat Assemblyman Dan
Quart on the Upper East Side
of Manhattan.
But Koffman
most recently voted in
Connecticut. Alongside a New
York State lawsuit, two
Koffman supporters are the
named plaintiffs in a case
against the New York City
Board of Elections.
On May 7 a
hearing was held before U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Valerie E. Caproni.
Inner City Press covered it,
below.
On May 12,
after Koffman lost in the New
York State courts, another
hearing was held by Judge
Caproni, and Inner City Press
again covered it.
Lawyer
Richard Emery for Koffman kept
referring to the Andrew Yang v
NYS Board of Elections
decision by SDNY Judge Analisa
Torres.
Judge Caproni said, That case
is entirely
different.
She was told that even if
Koffman is not the ballot, the
primary will not necessarily
be cancelled - there could be
a substitution of a candidate
who IS
qualified.
The next argument
by NYC Law Department lawyer
Stephen Kitzinger was, If
Koffman were on ballot, and
even if he won, he would
probably not be seated, he'd
be ruled unqualified by the
the legislators.
Then
Martin Connor for Quart
argued, A judge in New York
has to have 10 years in the NY
Bar... Where I'm sitting now
is in the Adirondack Park,
this great wilderness. It's
important. You can't give a
test to someone, do you know
and care? The drafters of the
Constitution made a bright
line: 5 years.
Judge Caproni said, Mr Emery,
it's your motion, so you get
the last word. Is there any
question Mr Koffman was laying
his head in Connecticut nine
months out of 12 for four
years?
Emery replied, It was
temporary... He was at Yale,
and voted "talismanically."
This is all turning on that
Koffman voted in Connecticut.
Judge Caproni asked, Are you
saying voting means nothing?
In a case about voting?
Emery insisted, It has nothing
to do with my client's right
to vote for him.
Ultimately
Judge Caproni ruled,
Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction is
denied. I do find they have
standing...
From May 7:
Judge Caproni asked the
plaintiffs' lawyers, Are you
conceding that Mr. Koffman
will lose in state
court?
The
answer: No, it's that the
plaintiffs want the
opportunity to vote for Mr.
Koffman.
Judge
Caproni asked, So the last
work is likely to be the
Appellate Division, next
week?
They
answered that the Appellate
Division has jurisdiction over
facts, like the question of
residency.
Judge
Caproni said, Thanks for that
lesson in appellate practice,
it was not what I worked
on.
Plaintiff's lawyer Richard
Emery said, We will be back to
this court if we have to, if
you do not issue a TRO today.
The absentee ballots will be
critical since many will not
come out. The critical moment
is approaching, when absentee
ballots are being printed.
Defendants'
(NYC's) lawyer Kitzinger said,
Currently being printed are
absentee ballots and
*applications* for absentee
ballots, of which 5 million
will have to be mailed
out.
Plaintiffs'
lawyers cited SDNY Judge
Analisa Torres decision "two
days ago" - the Andrew Yang v
Board of Ed case which Inner
City Press covered.
Judge
Caproni noted, New York law
only allows you to have one
electoral residence. And he
voted in
Connecticut.
The answer
was, It's only that you can't
vote in both
places.
At the end Judge
Caproni ruled, "WHEREAS
Plaintiffs did not dispute
BOE's representations and
acknowledged that, if the
absentee ballots indeed name
Mr. Koffman as a candidate, no
emergency relief is required
at this time; IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
motion for a temporary
restraining order is DENIED as
moot, or, alternatively, for
the lack of any injury. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate docket
entry 33. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Plaintiffs must
submit any supplemental
authorities in support of
their motion for a preliminary
injunction, as set forth
during the hearing, no later
than 5:00 P.M. on May 7, 2020;
Defendants' responses are due
by May 9, 2020, at 5:00 P.M.
(Signed by Judge Valerie E.
Caproni on 5/7/2020)."
Inner City
Press will stay on the case,
and on the issues. The case is
Tucker et al v. Board of
Elections, 20-cv-3111
(Caproni).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
