Opinion
1:04-CV-1193 (LEK/RFT).
October 29, 2004.
DECISION AND ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs, individuals and the AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting organization ("Plaintiffs"), all acting pro se, ask this Court to issue an injunction that would preclude the international organization, the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe ("OSCE"), from carrying out its Election Observation Mission for the November 2, 2004 election in polling stations across New York State. The Plaintiffs contend that the presence of the OSCE's election observers within 100 feet of the New York polls would violate this state's Election Law.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, a federal court only has subject matter jurisdiction over an action if the dispute presents a case or controversy. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). "Thus, jurisdiction exists only if the plaintiff has suffered, or been threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. City of Bridgeport, 180 F.3d 93, 98 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
(a) Lack of necessary parties
The preliminary injunction seeks an order that the OSCE's election observers be prohibited from entering New York's polling stations. However, the named defendants are not entrusted with administering the elections in this state. Rather, it is the County Boards of Elections, one from each New York county, and the County Boards of Elections' Election Inspectors that are empowered to supervise the local polling stations. Because these entities regulate admission into the individual polling stations, they will determine any issues relating to the entrance of OSCE's election observers.
Plaintiffs have failed to name the County Boards of Elections or their Elections Inspectors as defendants. Instead, the Plaintiffs have named the New York State Board of Elections, which oversees the voting procedure, but does not regulate individual polling stations. The Court cannot entertain the merits of the instant complaint and preliminary injunction request because the actions complained of are not traceable to the named defendants. Thus, the Article III, § 2 constitutional and jurisdictional requirement that there be a case or controversy is not met.
The Court notes that personal jurisdiction also appears to be lacking because not all of the named defendants were served by Plaintiffs. Leslie Reynolds of NASS wrote to the Court on October 26, 2004, the day before the scheduled hearing, stating that she never received service in this action. She informed the Court that she learned that NASS was named in the action only based upon her reading of a press release distributed by the AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting.
(b) The case is not ripe for adjudication
Even if the action had named all of the necessary parties, the action would still not be justiciable because it fails to meet the requirement that the claims be ripe for adjudication. The complaint and requested injunctive relief seek to enjoin public officials from permitting the entrance of OSCE's election observers into the polling stations. However, no public officials in New York have issued any statements yet on whether the OSCE's election observers will be admitted to the polling stations or whether their presence and observation would comply with New York State Election Law. It is not known if the County Boards of Elections or their Election Inspectors will involve the OSCE election observers on November 2 and whether such involvement, if any, will violate the State Election Law.
Additionally, as cited by the Plaintiffs in their papers requesting the instant injunction, the OSCE's Election Observation Mission will be carried out by one hundred election observers — twenty-five long term observers and 75 short-term observers. Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence that any of these individuals are assigned to observe any of New York's polling stations.
Considering that the Court does not know how the New York Election Law will be applied to OSCE's election observers, nor has there been any evidence presented that they intend to observe New York's polling stations, there is not yet an actual or imminent injury to Plaintiffs. Therefore, the claims presented by Plaintiffs are not ripe for adjudication by this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a § 2255 petition was filed timely where the petition has not yet been actually filed because there is no case or controversy).
(c) Sanctions
At the hearing, the New York State Board of Elections asked the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs because they have filed numerous suits which the State Board of Elections characterized as frivolous. However, Plaintiffs' action was brought based on a sincere concern for our electoral process and sanctions are not warranted.
III. CONCLUSION
The present action is not properly brought before this Court. The Court will not entertain the merits of the action because Plaintiffs have not met the constitutional requirement that there be a "case" or "controversy" present. Plaintiffs allege violations of law that have not yet occurred and none of the allegations have yet ripened into a controversy. Further, the named defendants are not proper parties to this action and other necessary parties have not been joined. See Griffith v. Ashcroft, 74 Fed.Appx. 91, 92 (2d Cir. 2003) (affirming district court's sua sponte dismissal of the complaint "on the ground that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges in the absence of an actual case or controversy") (unpublished).
Accordingly, it hereby
ORDERED, that the case is DISMISSED is its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.