Opinion
No. 91.
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 affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carol MacKenzie, J.), which had ordered that certain certificates of authorization accepted for filing by respondents Cathy L. Richter Geier and Anita S. Katz, Suffolk County Board of Election Commissioners, were null and void; that as long as the state party rule at issue remained in effect, any further offered certificates of authorization by respondents Charles J. Pohanka III, Donna Lent, Suffolk County Working Families County Committee or Suffolk County Working Families Executive Committee were void and should be rejected by respondents Suffolk County Board of Elections and its commissioners; and that as long as the state party rule, at issue remained in effect, respondents Suffolk County Working Families Party Executive Committee and/or Suffolk County Working Families Party County Committee were enjoined from issuing any further such certificates of authorization. The appeal brings up for review a prior order of the Appellate Division, entered August 22, 2007 ( 43 AD3d 478). The Appellate Division had (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carol MacKenzie, J.), which granted respondents' motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition; (2) denied the motion; (3) reinstated the petition; and (4) remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
Matter of Master v Pohanka, 43 AD3d 835, affirmed.
Vincent J. Messina, Jr., Central Islip, for appellants. I. The lower courts erred in determining that the provisions of Election Law § 6-120 permit the State Committee of the Working Families Party to deprive the County Committee of the Working Families Party of the ability to designate nonparty candidates, thereby rendering the provisions of Election Law §§ 2-100, 2-104 and 2-114 completely and utterly meaningless. ( Matter of Martin v Alverez, 21 AD3d 572.) II. The courts below erred when they failed to determine that the purported rules of the State Committee of the Working Families Party violate the one person, one vote principles of the United States Constitution. ( Montano v Lefkowitz, 575 F2d 378; Matter of Serrano v Cuttita, 147 Misc 2d 1; Mrazek v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 630 F2d 890.) III. The Appellate Division erroneously reversed the determination of the Supreme Court which dismissed the proceeding due to appellants' failure to name, serve and join necessary parties. ( Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 AD2d 436; Matter of Quis v Putnam County Bd. of Elections, 22 AD3d 585; Matter of Rowles v Orsini, 309 AD2d 1307; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647; Matter of Sahler v Callahan, 92 AD2d 976; Matter of Purcell v Canary, 133 AD2d 200; Matter of Castracan v Colavita, 173 AD2d 924, 78 NY2d 1041; Matter of Fatone v Board of Elections of County of Rensselaer, 218 AD2d 913.) IV The within proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations. ( Matter of Pecoraro v State Comm. of Independence Party of State of N.Y., 272 AD2d 849; Matter of Valin v Adamczyk, 286 AD2d 566.)
Levy Ratner, P.C., New York City ( Kevin Finnegan of counsel), for respondents. I. The lower courts' determination that the County Committee of the Working Families Party's Wilson-Pakula authorizations are null and void is correct and consistent with other provisions of the Election Law. ( Matter of Bell v Kirwan, 44 AD2d 906; Matter of Conroy v State Comm. of Independence Party of N.Y., 43 AD3d 832; Kermani v New York State Bd. of Elections, 487 F Supp 2d 101; Matter of Baran v Giambra, 265 AD2d 796, 93 NY2d 1040; Matter of Schiliro v Mazza, 53 NY2d 735; Matter of Independence Party State Comm. of State of NY v Berman, 28 AD3d 556; Matter of Bachmann v DeFronzo, 164 AD2d 926; Matter of Kahler v McNab, 48 NY2d 625; Matter of Farley v Mahoney, 130 Misc 2d 455; Smith v Pigeon, 174 Misc 2d 97.) II. The rules of the New York State Working Families Party are constitutionally valid and are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. ( Mrazek v Suffolk County Bd, of Elections, 630 F2d 890; Montano v Lefkowitz, 575 F2d 378; Matter of Serrano v Cuttita, 147 Misc 2d 1, 159 AD2d 330, 75 NY2d 873; Davis v Sullivan County Democratic Comm., 47 Misc 2d 60; Munro v Socialist Workers Party, 479 US 189; Democratic Party of United States v Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 US 107; California Democratic Party v Jones, 530 US 567; Matter of Zuckman v Donahue, 274 App Div 216, 298 NY 627; Matter of Werbel v Gernstein, 191 Misc 275; Matter of Schiliro v Mazza, 53 NY2d 735.) III. All necessary parties were joined. ( Matter of Castaways Motel v Schuyler, 24 NY2d 120; Matter of Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v New York City Bd. of Stds. Appeals, 5 NY3d 452; Matter of Sahler v Callahan, 92 AD2d 976; Matter of Fatone v Board of Elections of County of Rensselaer, 218 AD2d 913; Matter of Smith v Kelly, 265 AD2d 562; Matter of Buchanan v Espada, 88 NY2d 973; Matter of Mandell v Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 88 NY2d 976; Matter of Figari v New York Tel. Co., 32 AD2d 434; Wisholek v Douglas, 97 NY2d 740; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707.) IV The action was commenced within the appropriate statute of limitations. ( Matter of Valin v Adamczyk, 286 AD2d 566.)
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and JONES concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
This appeal calls upon us to determine whether Election Law § 6-120 (3) allows a political party's state committee to vest itself with the authority to issue certificates of authorization for county, city or local public offices. We hold that it does.
In February 2006, the Working Families Party of New York State, at a meeting of its State Committee, adopted a party rule that vested the State Committee with the authority to issue certificates of authorization, so-called "Wilson-Pakula certificates," for county, city and local elections. Specifically, the party rule at issue (art VIII, § 1) provides in pertinent part:
A Wilson-Pakula certificate is required for the designation or nomination of a candidate who is not enrolled as a party member.
"The authorization (as such authorization is permitted under Section 6-120 of the Election Law) of candidates for any county, city or local office, including offices of towns and villages but excluding city-wide offices of New York City, shall be made by the State Committee, or by the State Executive Committee when the State Committee is not convened."
The state party rules (art XII) also state:
"Except to the extent otherwise provided herein and by law with respect to certain offices to be filled by all the voters of the City of New York, the Working Families Party shall not authorize any County Committee to nominate, designate, or authorize any candidates for public office. That power is reserved for the State Committee and the State Executive Committee."
Shortly thereafter, members of the Suffolk County Committee of the Working Families Party (the County Committee) unsuccessfully sought to prohibit enforcement of the rule ( see Matter of Pohanka v Working Families Party of N.Y. State, 30 AD3d 625 [2d Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 706).
Despite the existence of the rule vesting such authority with the State Committee, the County Committee issued Wilson-Pakula certificates authorizing certain nonparty members to appear on the ballot as candidates of the Working Families Party in the September 2007 primary election and the November 2007 general election for various town and county offices within Suffolk County. The Suffolk County Board of Elections accepted the certificates for filing.
Relying on its party rule, the State Committee then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Election Law § 16-102 to invalidate the certificates issued by the County Committee. For reasons not relevant here, Supreme Court granted the County Committee's motion to dismiss the petition, but the Appellate Division later reversed and reinstated the petition ( see 43 AD3d 478 [2d Dept 2007]).
On remittal, Supreme Court determined that the Wilson-Pakula certificates issued by the County Committee were null and void and enjoined the County Committee from issuing any further certificates so long as the party rule at issue remained in effect. The Appellate Division affirmed ( see 43 AD3d 835 [2d Dept 2007]). Relying on its prior decision in Matter of Pohanka ( 30 AD3d 625), the court held that the State Committee was empowered to amend the party rules to vest itself with the authority to issue Wilson-Pakula certificates for county, city and local public offices. We granted the County Committee leave to appeal and now affirm.
The County Committee principally argues that the party rule vesting the sole authority to issue Wilson-Pakula certificates in the State Committee conflicts with Election Law § 6-120 (3). We disagree.
Generally, courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of a political party ( see Bloom v Notaro, 67 NY2d 1048, 1049). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court noted that a political party has "discretion in how to organize itself, conduct its affairs, and select its leaders" ( Eu v San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 US 214, 230). Thus, "absent inconsistent statutory directives, the duly adopted rules of a political party should be given effect" ( Matter of Kahler v McNab, 48 NY2d 625, 626).
Article 6 of the Election Law governs the nomination and designation of candidates for election to public office or party position. Under the Election Law, a person designated or nominated as a candidate for public office must be an enrolled member of the political party that so designates or nominates that candidate ( see Election Law § 6-120, [2]). If, however, a political party wishes to designate or nominate a person not enrolled as a party member, it must follow the provisions set forth in Election Law § 6-120 (3). That section, also known as the Wilson-Pakula Law, provides, in pertinent part:
"The members of the party committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which a designation or nomination is to be made, unless the rules of the party provide for another committee, in which case the members of such other committee, and except as hereinafter in this subdivision provided with respect to certain offices in the city of New York, may, by a majority vote of those present at such meeting provided a quorum is present, authorize the designation or nomination of a person as candidate for any office who is not enrolled as a member of such party as provided in this section. In the event that such designation or nomination is for an office to be filled by all the voters of the city of New York, such 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, provided a quorum is present at such meeting" (emphasis added).
The first part of the cited subdivision outlines the default rule governing the issuance of Wilson-Pakula certificates, namely, that the designation or nomination of nonparty members must be authorized by "[t]he members of the party committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which a designation or nomination is to be made." The subdivision further provides, however, that the "party" may delegate the authority to issue the certificates to "another committee."
Here, the rules of the Working Families Party expressly "provide for another committee," i.e., the State Committee, to have the authority to issue Wilson-Pakula certificates. Thus, the default rule that authorizations are to be given by "the party committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which a designation or nomination is to be made" — regardless of whether under these circumstances that committee is the County Committee — does not control because the "rules of the party" vest such designating/nominating authority in the State Committee. Accordingly, because the Working Families Party rules do not conflict with Election Law § 6-120 (3), they must be respected by the courts and given effect ( see Matter of Schiliro v Mazza, 53 NY2d 735, 736).
We reject the County Committee's strained interpretation of the statute that the "rules of the party" refer to the rules of the appropriate "party committee" identified in the preceding clause. The County Committee argues that it is the party committee representing the political subdivision(s) at issue and thus its rules govern the authority to issue Wilson-Pakula certificates. Although, under the statutory scheme, the Legislature used the general phrase "rules of the party" and did not specifically identify which committee's rules — the state committee or the county committee — apply, we conclude that the phrase "rules of the party" plainly refers to the rules of the state party committee. This interpretation is further supported by Election Law § 1-104 (3), which defines "party" as "any political organization which at the last preceding election for governor polled at least fifty thousand votes for its candidate for governor." This definition of "party" focuses on votes cast for governor, a statewide office, thus indicating that a political party is a statewide organization, and not simply a county-based entity.
Finally, contrary to the County Committee's contention, our reading of Election Law § 6-120 (3) is not inconsistent with legislative intent. The purpose of the Wilson-Pakula Law was not to mandate local control of the designation/nomination process, as the County Committee asserts; rather, its purpose was to prevent the invasion or takeover of the party by outsiders. As one court recognized, the Wilson-Pakula Law was designed "to protect the integrity of political parties and to prevent the invasion into or the capture of control of political parties by persons not in sympathy with the principles of such political parties" ( Matter of Werbel v Gernstein, 191 Misc 275, 277 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1948], affd 273 App Div 917 [2d Dept 1948]; see also Matter of Ingersoll v Curran, 188 Misc 1003, 1008 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1947], affd 297 NY 522). As such, the law "sought to restrict . . . the manner in which one could or could not invade the political party of which one was not a member to obtain party or public office" ( Werbel, 191 Misc at 277). Thus, our holding in this case is fully consistent with legislative intent.
The County Committee's constitutional challenge similarly lacks merit ( see Mrazek v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 630 F2d 890 [2d Cir 1980]) as do its remaining contentions.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Order affirmed, without costs.