AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

In the Matter of MALCOLM E. SMITH, JR., et al., Appellants, v. EVERETT F. McNAB et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, and WILLIAM D. MEISSER et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau, Respondents.

In a proceeding to compel respondents to place petitioners' names on the separate Independent Alliance Party line as candidates of said party, petitioners Smith and Grover for the public office of Congressman and petitioner Mauceri for the public office of Justice of the Supreme Court, on the official ballot and voting machines to be used in the general election to be held on November 3, 1970, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered October 27, 1970, which denied the application and dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with leave to appellant Mauceri to designate the placement of the Independent Alliance Party emblem on the Nassau County ballot ( Matter of Hentel v. Power, 18 N.Y.2d 834; Matter of Button v. Donohue, 18 N.Y.2d 792; Matter of Battista v. Power, 16 N.Y.2d 198, 201), without costs. Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and grant the application, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, Matter of Battista v. Power ( 16 N.Y.2d 198) is distinguishable and should not control our disposition of the instant case. In Battista, a group of candidates already occupying two party lines on the ballot sought a third, independent line as a group, contrary to section 248 of the Election Law. I do not construe section 248 to require the exclusion from an independent party line of such candidates nominated by the independent party who also have the nominations of two other parties. Under the circumstances of this case, to exclude such candidates from the independent party line is discriminatory and unconstitutional, both as to the candidates and as to the voters allied with the independent movement which wishes to support the candidates only on the independent line ( Matter of Crane v. Voorhis, 257 N.Y. 298). Since a separate line is reserved on the ballot for those candidates nominated for various offices by this independent movement, it will be unfair to the candidates, their running mates and the signers of the nominating petitions to have a blank space where the names of these nominees would otherwise appear.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF SMITH v. McNAB
(Oct 28, 1970)