Opinion
No. 90.
Argued April 24, 2008.
decided June 10, 2008.
APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered September 10, 2007. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Joseph S. Levine, J.; op 2007 NY Slip Op 32582[U]), which, in a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Election Law article 16 and declaratory judgment action, had granted the petition and, in effect, declared an amendment to the rules of the New York State Independence Party invalid. The modification consisted of deleting the declaration of complete invalidity and declaring the amendment valid insofar as it vested the Executive Committee of the State Committee of the Independence Party with the power to issue certificates authorizing the designation or nomination of candidates not enrolled as members of the Independence Party for public offices in the City of New York which were not to be filled by all the voters of the City of New York. The Appellate Division affirmed the order as modified.
Matter of Conroy v State Comm. of Independence Party of N.Y., 43 AD3d 834, affirmed.
Harry Kresky, New York City, Heller Ehrman LLP ( Mark A. Picard of counsel) and Michael A. Hardy for appellants.
A. Joshua Ehrlich, Albany, for respondents.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
In June 2007, respondent New York State Committee of the Independence Party (the State Committee) adopted various amendments to its party rules. Among the amendments adopted was a rule (art VI, § 11) that states:
"Authorizations in a City of one million or more. Notwithstanding any rule or by-law to the contrary, authorizations for all public offices to be elected in a city of one million or more that are made pursuant to section 6-120 of the Election Law, shall be made by the executive committee of the state committee."
Petitioners, chairpersons of the Independence Party County Committees in Kings, New York, Queens and Richmond Counties (the County Committees), brought this proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate this party rule. The County Committees principally argued that the party rule conflicted with Election Law § 6-120 (3).
Supreme Court invalidated the rule in its entirety, concluding that it violated Election Law § 6-120 (3) because authorizations for citywide offices in New York City (e.g., Mayor) must be issued "by a majority vote of those present at a joint meeting of the executive committee of each of the county committees of the party." The Appellate Division modified. Recognizing the State Committee's concession that the party rule was inconsistent with Election Law § 6-120 (3) for authorizations of candidates for citywide offices in the City of New York, the Appellate Division held that the party rule was invalid to the extent it purported to grant the State Committee such authority. However, the court further held that the State Committee properly exercised its authority to promulgate the party rule vesting in its Executive Committee the power to issue certificates of authorization for non-citywide public offices in the City of New York. We granted the County Committees leave to appeal and now affirm.
Under Election Law § 6-120 (3), a political party may grant the authority to issue certificates of authorization, or Wilson-Pakula certificates, to its state committee ( see Matter of Master v Pohanka, 10 NY3d 620 [decided today]). The statute contains only one exception to this rule: where a "designation or nomination is for an office to be filled by all the voters of the city of New York" (Election Law § 6-120). In such a case, the "authorization must be by a majority vote of those present at a joint meeting of the executive committees of each of the county committees of the party within the city of New York" ( id.). Thus, the Independence Party rule at issue does not conflict with Election Law § 6-120 (3) insofar as it vests in the Executive Committee of the State Committee the authority to designate or nominate nonparty members for non-citywide public offices in the City of New York.
The County Committees' remaining contention lacks merit.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.