Amedore’s lawsuit claiming fraud against opponent denied
The Change Albany Now party line’s wait for approval is officially over.
The state Supreme Court denied Assemblyman George Amedore’s lawsuit against Angelo Santabarbara for allegations of fraud. The decision came shortly after the state Board of Elections dismissed complaints Amedore filed against Santabarbara’s petition for the party line. Santabarbara, D-Rotterdam, is running against Amedore, R-Rotterdam, in the upcoming election for the state’s 105th Assembly District.
He doesn’t owe me an apology, he owes an apology to the people that signed the petition, Santabarbara said after hearing the verdict. `He tried to get the ballot thrown out and in turn throw out all the signatures and voices on the petition.`
Amedore thinks Santabarbara should be the person apologizing to voters though.
`I really feel bad for all of the individuals that did sign the petition and then the signatures the candidate took upon himself to change and that is fraud, it is an injustice and disservice to those individuals,` said Amedore.
In the Supreme’s Court documented decision document, Judge Roger D. McDonough stated, `The Court finds there has been no showing here that either Santabarbara or his agents participated in any fraud in the collection or submission of the relevant signatures. Specifically, the Court found no evidence that respondent Santabarbara knowingly obtained signatures that he knew were invalid.`
Making the public aware about the information was what Amedore said he really wanted to accomplish by filling a lawsuit. He said he doesn’t plan to go back to the court on this matter.
`I wasn’t looking for a victory or a loss here, what we were looking to do was shed light on deceptive tactics of a candidate that is running on a line called Change Albany Now,` said Amedore. `It is unfortunate that this candidate thinks it is of the highest ethical standard cause this is the farthest from it.`
Santabarbara said the Court’s decision proved he never broke the law and Amedore is just engaging in politics as usual.
`I think people are sick and tired of political games,` said Santabarbara. `This shows exactly why Albany needs to change, George Amedore tried to make me out to be a law breaker with absolutely no evidence.`
Amedore filed specific objections to Santabarbara’s nominating petition with the NYSBOE a day late with a postmark date of Aug. 26, so the only avenue left for Amedore was to take the matter to court if he objected to the petition.
`If you miss a date that is a significant defect that can be fatal to the objection,` said John Conklin, spokesman for the NYSBOE. `That really was the whole problem, that was why the board didn’t accept the specifications or specific objects. If the objections are late there is nothing for us to do.`
When a nominating petition is filed with the BOE it is presumably valid by law and the board does an initial review of the petition only looking for fatal errors; such as failing to list the Assembly district, not numbering every page and clearly holding less than the required signatures.
`We don’t necessarily do a full count unless there is a reason to, or a specific objection is filed,` said Conklin.
While Santabarbara had enough valid signatures for the ballot lane, Amedore contested the number of invalid signatures should result in the petition being completely thrown out due to neglect.
Of the 2,509 signatures, Amedore contested 951 signatures, leaving 1,558 signatures unopposed, which is more than the required amount of 1,500. Santabarbara claimed to have witnessed 567 signatures and 225, or 45 percent, were invalid.
According the court’s documentation, Santabarbara testified he initialed all changes, alterations or clarfications made on the nominating petition, but he didn’t initial when the signer left the Town/City section of the petition blank and added the location.
Also, Santabarbara testified he knew 90 signatures were out of the district when he submitted the petition to the NYSBOE. Santabarbara testified on a number of out of district signatures he didn’t cross them out because Brian Quail, Chairman of the Schenectady County Democratic Party, had reviewed the signatures and told him he didn’t have to strike them out.
Quail couldn’t be reached by phone for comment on Friday, Sept. 24 and voice mail messages were left.
There also was a signature from Gloversville, which Santabarbara testified crossing out Gloversville and writing in `Amsterdam` with his initials next to the change. He said he was collecting signatures in Amsterdam that day and he believed the address was in the town of Amsterdam, not Gloversville. Santabarbara testified, according the court’s documentation, he didn’t realize Gloversville wasn’t in the 105th Assembly District.
`We simply asked the court to apply Judge Jasen’s test to the Santabarbara petition,` said Amedore in a prepared statement after hearing the decision. `Had he done so, the result would have been different.`
The case Amedore referenced was `Ruiz v. McKenna` from the New York State Court of Appeals decision on Sept. 2, 1976. The documented decision was referenced by Amedore in a prepared statement and said, `Where irregularities are not the product of deceitful intent or fraudulent design, a pattern of irregularities bespeaks either incompetence in execution of methods or indifference to the need for compliance with the requirements of the Election Law. The ultimate danger is that both incompetence and indifference may mask corrupt, if not fraudulent practices.`
The Court did cite `Popkin v. Umane` from 2005 in the discussion section of their decision, which said, `The inclusion of `out-of-district` signatures will not result in the invalidation of the nominating petition unless fraud or deception in the acquisition of the signatures is established.`
In addition to the Court finding the allegations of fraud not proven, they said Santabarbara brought attention to the alterations by placing his initials next to them.
`There is no fraud and there is no evidence of fraud whatsoever,` said Amedore after the Court’s judgment.
“
