Second Circuit Upholds Free Association Rights by Requiring Restoration of Delegates to New York Democratic Primary Despite COVID-19 Pandemic

Second Circuit Upholds Free Association Rights by Requiring Restoration of Delegates to New York Democratic Primary Despite COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction

In the case of Andrew Yang et al. v. Peter S. Kosinski et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a significant challenge against the New York State Board of Elections (NY BOE). The plaintiffs, including Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and delegates pledged to him and Senator Bernie Sanders, contested the NY BOE's decision to remove their names from the Democratic primary ballot in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision effectively canceled the primary, leaving only former Vice President Joseph Biden on the ballot. The core issues revolved around the plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and association, asserting that the Board's actions unlawfully restricted their political participation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's preliminary injunction, which required the NY BOE to reinstate Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders delegates to the Democratic primary ballot and proceed with the primary as scheduled on June 23, 2020. The court determined that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. Additionally, the court found that the Board's justifications—protecting public health and managing election resources during the pandemic—were insufficient to override the plaintiffs' fundamental rights. The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding political participation and the internal democratic processes of political parties, even amidst public health crises.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that underpin the constitutional protections at play:

  • TASHJIAN v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT (1986): Affirmed that First Amendment rights are an inherent part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958): Highlighted the inseparability of rights to free speech and association from due process guarantees.
  • ANDERSON v. CELEBREZZE (1983): Established a two-step inquiry for evaluating election-related restrictions on speech and association rights.
  • BURDICK v. TAKUSHI (1992): Provided the framework for determining the severity of election-related restrictions and applicable scrutiny levels.
  • Faiveley Transportation Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp. (2009): Discussed the requirements for demonstrating irreparable harm in preliminary injunctions.

These precedents collectively reinforced the court's approach in balancing state interests against constitutional freedoms, particularly in the context of political participation and electoral processes.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the Anderson-Burdick balancing test to assess the constitutionality of the NY BOE's actions. This involved two primary steps:

  1. Determining the extent to which the NY BOE's resolution burdened the plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
  2. Evaluating the legitimacy and strength of the NY BOE's justifications against the severity of the burden imposed on the plaintiffs' rights.

The court concluded that:

  • The removal of Yang and Sanders from the ballot unequivocally infringed upon their rights to free speech and association by denying them the opportunity to compete for delegates and participate in the Democratic National Convention.
  • The NY BOE's justifications—protecting public health and managing election resources—were found to be overstated and insufficient to justify the significant constitutional burdens imposed.
  • The alteration of longstanding election procedures at the eleventh hour, without clear legislative guidance, undermined the legitimacy of the Board's actions.

As a result, the court determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief to restore their rights and ensure the primary could proceed as intended.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights even during emergencies. Specifically:

  • Protection of Political Participation: Reinforces the protected nature of political speech and association within electoral processes.
  • Limitation on Executive and Electoral Authorities: Sets a precedent that state election boards cannot unilaterally alter election procedures in a manner that infringes upon constitutional freedoms without compelling justification.
  • Guidance for Future Election Procedures: Provides a framework for evaluating the balance between public health concerns and electoral integrity, ensuring that emergency measures do not trample on fundamental democratic rights.

Consequently, political candidates and delegates can expect stronger judicial support when challenging election board decisions that may infringe upon their constitutional rights, even in the context of public health crises.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order that halts proposed actions by a defendant until a final decision is made in the case. It is intended to prevent irreparable harm that could occur if the defendant's actions are allowed to proceed unchecked.

Free Speech and Association Rights

These are fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, allowing individuals to express themselves and to associate with others for purposes of advancing their beliefs and ideas. In the context of elections, these rights ensure that candidates can participate and advocate for their platforms without undue interference.

Anderson-Burdick Balancing Test

A legal framework used to evaluate whether a government's restriction on constitutional rights is justified. It involves assessing the impact of the restriction on the individual's rights against the legitimacy and strength of the government's interests in imposing the restriction.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's affirmation in Andrew Yang et al. v. Peter S. Kosinski et al. serves as a critical affirmation of constitutional protections in the electoral arena. By upholding the preliminary injunction, the court ensured that the NY BOE could not undermine the democratic process by excluding legitimate candidates and their delegates, even amidst unprecedented public health challenges. This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to balancing state interests with individual constitutional rights, thereby safeguarding the integrity of democratic participation and association.

Case Details

ANDREW YANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; JONATHAN HERZOG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; HELLEN SUH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; BRIAN VOGEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; SHLOMO SMALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; ALISON HWANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; KRISTEN MEDEIROS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; ROGER GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, JAY BELLANCA, TRACI STRICKLAND, EMILY ADAMS, NESTOR MEDINA, SIMRAN NANDA, KATHRYN LEVY, JOSHUA SAUBERMAN, CARI GARDNER, STEPHEN CARPINETA, NANCY DEDELVA, TING BARROW, PENNY MINTZ, GEORGE ALBRO, Inter v. nors-Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Year: 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Judge(s)

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge

Attorney(S)

JEFFREY M. KURZON, Kurzon Kohen LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. J. REMY GREEN (Elena L. Cohen, Jonathan Wallace, on the brief), Cohen & Green P.L.L.C., Ridgewood, NY; and ARTHUR Z. SCHWARTZ, Advocates for Justice, New York, NY, for Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees. JUDITH N. VALE, Senior Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, and Jennifer L. Clark, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants. Malcolm Seymour, David R. West, Foster Garvey, P.C., New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Senator Bernie Sanders and Bernie 2020 Inc. in Support of Appellees. Ezra Ishmael Young, Law Office of Ezra Young, Brooklyn, NY, for Amici Curiae New York State Voters in Support of Appellees. Rob Rickner, Rickner PLLC, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Medical Professionals in Support of Appellees. Walter H. Hackett, III, Law Office of Walter Hackett, Walnut, CA, for Amici Curiae Heather Key, et al. in Support of Appellees.

Comments