Libertarian Eric Sundwall might not have been a major challenge to Democrat Scott Murphy or Republican James Tedisco in Tuesday’s special election, but a week prior to the polls opening, he was at least in the race.
That ended on Wednesday, March 25, when Sundwall threw in the towel after the state Board of Elections invalidated thousands of voter signatures he had collected to petition a place on the ballot. The ruling of the board’s commissioners to throw out nearly 4,000 signatures leaving Sundwall short of the 3,500 required has touched off a debate that is all-too-familiar to third-party candidates running for office in the Empire State.
The petition challenges originated from Donald Neddo of Waterford and Laurie Kelly Sickles of Ballston Spa. Under New York State election law, any voter in the election district may issue a challenge.
But Sundwall and other third-party candidates say that the law allows signatures to be thrown out on technicalities that don’t affect the signer’s intent.
`The problem is that these laws are outdated, and they really need to be brought up to speed with more modern methods,` said Sundwall. `It’s just not fair to the voters these requirements basically destroy their intent.`
Signatures on petitions can be invalidated for three reasons, according to state Board of Elections Spokesman Bob Brehm. Information on the signature witness (the campaign worker, most likely) can be lacking, the witness can fail to initial changes on the petition or the signer might be ineligible to vote (whether they are not registered or registered at a different address).
On Sundwall’s petition, thousands of signatures were tossed because of a mistake one election worker made.
`As an administrative agency, we make decisions based on what the law is, not what the law should be,` said Brehm. `When the information in the witness identification is still wrong, the statute says it needs to be there and it needs to be correct.`
The proper address stipulation has long drawn fire from candidates who see their hard-won signatures fly out the door because a voter wrote their mailing address instead of their municipality (a Malta resident might have put down Ballston Spa, for example). Some say that it is needlessly leaving legitimate candidates off of ballots.
Board of Elections Commissioner Evelyn Aquila criticized the rules during the meeting on Sundwall’s petition, saying that a minor discrepancy a person’s address should not immediately disqualify the signature or witness.
`I will vote the way I am supposed to, but it is time to correct this,` she said.
`In New York, it isn’t so much the signature requirements, but the verification requirements,` said Christopher Thrasher, executive director of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, a nationwide nonprofit that seeks reform to election laws around the country to better enable third-party candidates to make it onto election ballots. `It’s ludicrous, when you have people on the Board of Elections saying, ‘This isn’t right, but I’m forced to vote this way.’`
The Sundwall campaign contracted the services of Free and Equal.
Now, two former third-party 20th Congressional District candidates are planning to petition lawmakers to amend ballot access laws to remove the address difficulties.
Morris Guller, who ran in 2004 and 2006, and John Wallace, whose petition was invalidated in 2008 in much the same manner as Sundwall’s, will head to Albany on April 6 to meet with the chairmen of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Elections, Joseph Addabbo, D- Queens, and Ruben Diaz Jr., D-Bronx.
`Your signature and the city you live in is enough to tell the Board of Elections you are a bona fide voter,` said Guller. `If someone signs a petition, their signature should be enough, and if someone wants to challenge, their signature is on file with the Board of Elections, and they can just match it up.`
If changes are made to the petitioning process, Guller said, he’d like the amendment to be known as `Sundwall’s Law.`
But even those who are lobbying for change are not sure if it is likely.
`Around the nation, it is extremely difficult for any kind of real ballot access reform to take place,` said Thrasher. `State legislators do not want to have to worry about a challenge from a third party. There’s no real reason to keep people off the ballot except to ensure that power remains within the two party system.`
In the case of the special election, Sundwall argues that his disqualification disenfranchises voters. With the truncated schedule for the race, some absentee ballots went out with Sundwall’s name on it before he dropped out of the race. Any votes returned for Sundwall will be treated as void.
Such an occurrence would be unlikely during a normal election season, but the shortened timetable of the special election pushed finalizing of the ballot forward.
`What’s already out there is out there,` said Brehm of absentee ballots. `There’s no order to re-mail anything.`
The Board of Elections did extend the deadline for the acceptance of absentee ballots from military personnel or citizens living overseas, though, acknowledging objections from the Department of Justice. Those persons have until April 13 to get their votes to the appropriate County Board of Elections, a six-day extension.“