The question in this case is whether petitioner established a prima facie case that a candidate’s designating petition was permeated with fraud.
In New York, a designating petition must be filed for each candidate who seeks to run in a party primary election. The designating petition must be supported by a certain number of signatures from party members. The signatures must be dated and witnessed during a specified window of time. And if a person signs two designating petitions on different days, the later signature is invalid.
A challenger can seek to disqualify signatures on a candidate’s designating petition for failing to comply with these (and other) requirements. Typically, an invalid signature is stricken from the candidate’s designating petition. But where a challenger demonstrates that the petition is permeated with fraud, the entire petition may be struck. If a challenger makes out a prima facie case of permeating fraud, the burden shifts to the candidate to provide non-fraud explanations for the invalid signatures. The challenger must make this prima facie showing by clear and convincing evidence.
In this case, petitioner challenged the designating petition filed in support of respondent Carmen Arroyo, a member of the Assembly who sought to run in the 2020 Democratic Party primary. The evidence showed that respondent’s campaign received signature sheets on February 27, but submitted backdated signatures dated February 25 and 26. Moreover, half of the campaign’s witnesses, including the candidate’s Chief of Staff, falsely swore to the backdated signatures. One of the backdated signatures was from the candidate herself. Petitioner claimed that this showed that the petition was permeated with fraud and should be invalidated.
A referee recommended rejecting petitioner’s challenge, and Supreme Court adopted that recommendation. A divided panel of the First Department affirmed. The majority noted that, backdated signatures aside, the candidate still had more than enough valid signatures to qualify for the primary. As to the allegations of fraud, the majority emphasized that petitioner relied entirely on documentary evidence and did not present “a single witness.” This, the majority concluded, was insufficient to meet petitioner’s burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The dissent found the evidence sufficient to shift the burden to the candidate to provide non-fraud explanations, and noted that the candidate provided no such explanation.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Return to the case page for Matter of Ferreyra v. Arroyo.