Appellant's Brief in Sloan vs. New York State Board of Elections

*Appellants Brief*

*Introduction*

*A case was initiated in the New York Supreme Court Albany County seeking
to invalidate the New York State Board of Elections. It also sought to
place candidates on the ballot after they had been deemed to have
insufficient signatures by the New York State Board of Elections.*

*This action was appealed to the New York State Appellate Division Third
Department. Then an appeal was made to the New York Court of Appeals which
did not hear the case.*

*Thereafter, this case was brought to the United States District Court in
Albany by voters whose constitutional election rights were denied to have
their candidates on the ballot and by aggrieved candidates who were
petitioners, as they are here.*

*Questions Presented*

*Does the New York State Board of Elections violate the United States
Constitution and thus should be found unconstitutional and abolished and
disbanded as it is presently constituted and a new election held with all
candidates restored to the ballot?*

*Statement of the Case*

*The plaintiff-appellants are candidates for office or else are voters who
support these candidates, who signed their petitions and want to vote for
them for election. The candidates were on the ballot since July 8, 2014 but
were thrown off at a meeting by the New York State Board of Elections on
August 1, 2014.*

*In the current election year, the state and county boards of elections
have become more aggressive than in past years of knocking candidates off
the ballot. More than three hundred candidates have been thrown off the
ballot, including state-wide candidates and candidates for US Congress and
for State Senate and State Assembly. In most of these cases, this left only
one candidate on the ballot, usually the incumbent, and therefore no
election was held. The state courts have had to rule on these cases and
have made many conflicting decisions. In one instance, the Supreme Court
Appellate Division First Department in the Flacks case ruled that technical
defects in the cover sheets are to be ignored. However, on the very same
day, the Appellate Division Second Department ruled that technical defects
no matter how minor are fatal and no opportunity for amendment is to be
given.*

*Matter of Flacks v Board of Elections in The City of New York , 2013 NY
Slip Op 05713 Decided on August 14, 2013 *

*Matter of Gangemi v Board of Elections in the City of New York 2013 NY
Slip Op 51368(U) Decided on August 8, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County *

*The losing parties in these appeals thereafter requested the New York
Court of Appeals for leave to appeal. However, for the last several years
the New York Court of Appeals has denied all letter motions for leave to
appeal, including these appeals, and therefore this conflicting menagerie
of decisions has been left unresolved.*

*An authoritative work, Goldfeder's Modern Election Law -- Third Edition
cites more than 240 reported decisions in which a ruling by the New York
Boards of Election has been overturned by the New York Supreme Court or in
which a decision by the New York Supreme Court has been reversed by the New
York Appellate Division. See for example, Popkin v. Umane, 801 N.Y.S.2d 774
(2d Dept 2005). This is only a fraction of the number of cases decided as
in most cases there has been no opinion and thus the decision was not
reported.*

*The ELECTION COMMISSIONER'S ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK has put
out a booklet entitled BOARD OF ELECTIONS & PETITIONS: HOW TO SURVIVE A
FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGE MATERIALS FOR THE PRESENTATION by STEVEN H. RICHMAN
General Counsel Board of Elections in the City of New York. This booklet
provides traps and tricks to help the Commissioners and the candidates they
favor prevent their rulings from being overturned by the courts.*

*What makes the instant case different from other cases is no objections
were filed against the candidate for Governor, Sam Sloan, or the candidate
for Lieutenant Governor, Nenad Bach. It has always been the rule and the
law that where no objections are filed, the candidate remains on the
ballot. Also, if there are objections, the objections must be specific,
then the matter is referred to a clerk, a clerk's report is issued, and
there is a hearing scheduled and held where the candidate or his counsel
can appear and contest the clerk's report. The board makes a decision and
then if the decision is adverse the candidate has three days to file a case
in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually appoints a referee who rules on
the objections.*

*None of this procedure was followed here. Instead, the candidates were
just thrown off the ballot without any notice or opportunity for a hearing.
This violated the principles set forth in Rivera-Powell v. N.Y.C. Bd. of
Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) which held that there must be a
pre-hearing or post-hearing procedure to challenge the deprivation of a
right such as the right to appear on the ballot. In the case presented here
there was no hearing at all. The candidates were just notified several days
after a meeting, not a hearing, that was held on August 1, 2014 in which
these four candidates had been thrown off the ballot. The fact is that
there were no objections to Sam Sloan for Governor and Nenad Bach for
Lieutenant Governor. Thus, under Election Law and especially under Section
6-154, the Board of Elections had no jurisdiction to remove these
candidates from the ballot.*

*Sam Sloan is an internationally known and world-renowned chess player,
well known to the 600,000 rated tournament chess players in the USA. His
name is a household word among those voters. He is also an author and the
publisher of more than 560 books and thus is a credible candidate.*

*In a normal case the issue becomes moot once the election was held.
However, here in view of the outrageous and illegal acts and constitutional
violations by the Boards of Elections, this court should act promptly to
have a new election held and restore all the more than 300 candidates who
were knocked off the ballot by the state and county boards of election's
illegal and unconstitutional actions. The Boards of Elections themselves
should be abolished and disbanded.*

*There are Constitutional issues here including the fact that the New York
State Board of Elections is appointed by the Chairmen of the Democratic and
Republican Parties. These are not elected officials. They are merely party
pols. This is the reason there are always an even number of board members.
The Democrats appoint two and the Republicans appoint two. In the New York
City Board of Elections, there are 10 Commissioners, the Democratic County
Chairmen appoint 5 and the Republican County Chairmen appoint 5.*

*However, nowadays there are only 8 sitting commissioners of the New York
City Board of Elections. There are two vacant seats. The Bronx Democratic
Party and the Manhattan Democratic Party Chairmen have not appointed
replacements after those commissioners resigned. The three remaining
Democratic Party Chairmen rarely speak at the meetings. This leaves the
five Republican Party Chairmen basically to conduct the meetings.*

*It should be noted that the Bronx County Republican Party Chairman was
arrested by the FBI last year on bribery charges. The New York Post
reported that a $30,000 bribe was paid in order to secure the seat on the
Board of Elections that the Bronx Republican Party Chairman had selected.
"The fallen Bronx power broker said the deal was concocted after he reached
out to Halloran in January 2013 for help ensuring that the City Council
didn't replace one of Savino's hand-picked commissioners on the city's
Board of Elections." See Ex-head of Bronx GOP admits taking bribe, but
spreads blame, The New York Post November 12, 2013. He plead guilty and the
City Councilman who arranged the deal was recently convicted and faces a
long prison sentence. Yet, the Commissioner of Elections that he appointed
is still serving on the Board of Elections.*

*So, a seat on the City Board of Elections is so valuable that a bribe will
be paid to get on it. This should tell us that the duties of the board of
elections is not merely "administrative".*

*Here in New York we presently have the same political system as they have
in Iran. In Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei decides who gets to run for
election. Only those who have sufficient Islamic credentials as determined
by the Ayatollah are allowed to run. The voters get to decide which of the
candidates approved by the Ayatollah they will vote for. Nobody ever
elected or voted for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He just rules the election
process. Similarly, here in New York, the county party chairmen, one
Republican and one Democrat, chose the Commissioners of Election and those
Commissioners decide who gets to run for election.*

*Here is just one of many thousands of examples of corruption and
favoritism in the Board of Elections. In 2013, one of the plaintiffs here,
Sam Sloan, attempted to run for US Congress against Congressman Jose
Serrano, the incumbent. Sloan filed line-by-line objections to the
signatures submitted by Congressman Serrano, finding almost none of them
valid. No doubt the reason Serrano did not have enough valid signatures was
Serrano was out of favor with the Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr.
and thus the usual county party minions had not been sent out to collect
Serrano's signatures. *

*When this matter came to a hearing before the New York City Board of
Elections, Serrano was represented by Jerry Goldfeder, author of* *Goldfeder's
Modern Election Law.*

*What happened can be seen on youtube.com <http://youtube.com> at by
searching for "4-24-14 Designating petition hearing for the June Federal
Primary" which reaches the youtube video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3fSC2xtGNM
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3fSC2xtGNM> or more easily by searching
https://www.youtube.com/user/VoteTheNewWayNYC
<https://www.youtube.com/user/VoteTheNewWayNYC>*

*When this case was called, both Jerry Goldfeder and Sam Sloan stood up.
Then, Board of Elections General Counsel Steven H. Richman objected to
Sloan speaking even though Sloan was the aggrieved candidate and thus had
the right to speak. Then Goldfeder stated that Sloan's objections had not
been served on Serrano but had been served on Goldfeder instead and Serrano
himself had been served one day late. Sloan replied that the objector had
called Goldfeder pointing out that Serrano was in Washington DC on that day
attending a Congressional hearing on Internet security and thus could not
be personally served. To this, Goldfeder had replied to the objector to
serve him instead at Goldfeder's residence on Central Park West.*

*At the hearing before the New York City Board of Elections, Goldfeder
started to reply with the words, "I did have a conversation with him but I
can say ... " He was addressing the statement that the Objector, Mr. Vega,
had called him and asked about the address for service of process of the
objections and that Mr. Goldfeder had given his own home address as the
place for service. Just at the moment that Jerry H. Goldfeder was
addressing that question, the President of the Board, Gregory C. Soumas,
interrupted Goldfeder saying "Nothing has been said" and thus Mr. Goldfeder
was not allowed to complete his sentence. All this can be heard at 6:01 on
the youtube.com <http://youtube.com/> video. These hearings are now
required by law to be posted on youtube.com <http://youtube.com> and
therefore it is proper to cite them.*

*It can be clearly seen on the youtube video that at just the moment
Goldfeder was going to reply to the question of whether he had agreed to
accept service of the line-by-line objections against his client Serrano,
the President of the Board of Elections interrupted him and told him not to
speak and ruled in his favor.*

*So, one of the best known election lawyers Jerry Goldfeder was interrupted
from speaking so that he would not have to admit that he had agreed to
accept service.*

*Had Serrano not been favored by the Commissioners, then Goldfeder would
have had to admit that he had agreed to accept service and since
Congressman Serrano had almost no valid signatures he would have been
thrown off the ballot and Sloan would have been the sole Democratic Party
candidate. Since the Democrats always win in the Bronx and the Republicans
do not even bother to run candidates, Sloan would have been elected to US
Congress. This is an example of how improper and illegal actions by the
Board of Elections caused a candidate to be elected to US Congress who
would not otherwise have been elected.*

*Neither the decision of the Albany federal court nor of the state courts
made more than passing mention of the constitutional issues raised by the
appellants. They just sloughed it off. Yet, there are obviously major
constitutional issues with this entire system. It is obvious that under
cases such as Avery v. Midland County 390 U.S. 474 (1968) and Board of
Estimates vs. Morris, 489 US 688 (1988) the Board of Elections is an
unconstitutional body.*

*The decision of the district court cited Queens County Republican Comm. ex
rel. Maltese v. New York State Bd. Of Elections, 222 F. Supp. 2d 341,
349-51 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding that sections 6-154 and 16-102 did not
violate the plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment) supports the
views of the plaintiffs-appellants, not the views of the respondents. The
district court below here stated: "The information before the Court shows
that Defendants complied with the Election Law in invalidating the
petitions at issue. See N.Y. Elec. Law § 6-154." However, this
"information" consists entirely of the Affirmation in Opposition filed by
Kathleen O'Keefe, Democratic Party counsel to the State Board of Elections.
Petitioner-Appellants dispute every statement made in her unverified
affirmation. None of those statements are true, and petitioner-appellants
are entitled to a fact-hearing on these issues.*

*The district court simply ignored the allegations of the complaint and
made its decision without a fact hearing. Similarly there was no hearing in
state court either except that Sam Sloan testified. The Board of Elections
filed no papers in any of the courts and offered no testimony or evidence.
Counsel for the Board of Elections did not call any witnesses nor contest
the testimony of Sam Sloan. Thus, there is no contrary evidence in the
record.*

*Plaintiff-Appellants are not complaining against Section 6-154. To the
contrary, Plaintiff-Appellants are claiming the opposite, that the Board of
Elections did not follow it. Plaintiff-Appellants want that rule followed
strictly. The Board of Elections failure to follow Section 6-154
constitutes a violation of the Constitutional rights to Procedural Due
Process. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970); Bell v Bunson, 402 U.S. 535
(1971); Sherbert v Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)*

*Plaintiff-Appellants were thrown off the ballot without any notice,
without any hearing, with no sufficiently specific objections having been
filed, with no clerk's report, no referee, indeed nothing at all. The
statements made by Kathleen O'Keefe in her affirmation come out of thin
air. We do not know where her numbers come from. None of this was mentioned
at the Board of Elections meeting on August 1, 2014. The discussion at that
meeting lasted only 20 seconds and neither anybody on the board nor either
of the counselors at the meeting gave any figures about the number of
signatures or said anything about the age of the candidates. Also, the two
letters opposing counsel put in the file when the case was before the
Appellate Division were never seen by the Board of Elections and were
generated after the meeting of the Board of Elections. They were not
submitted nor marked into evidence when this case was before the Supreme
Court. In short, all this should be sent back for a fact hearing before the
District Court.*

*Here is what the relevant provision, Section 6-154, states:*

*Nominations and designations; objections to**1. Any petition filed
with the officer or board charged with the duty of receiving it shall
be presumptively valid if it is in proper form and appears to bear the
requisite number of signatures, authenticated in a manner prescribed
by this chapter.**2. Written objections to any certificate of
designation or nomination or to a nominating or designating petition
or a petition for opportunity to ballot for public office or to a
certificate of acceptance, a certificate of authorization, a
certificate of declination or a certificate of substitution relating
thereto may be filed by any voter registered to vote for such public
office and to a designating petition or a petition for opportunity to
ballot for party position or a certificate of substitution, a
certificate of acceptance or a certificate of declination relating
thereto by any voter enrolled to vote for such party position. Such
objections shall be filed with the officer or board with whom the
original petition or certificate is filed within three days after the
filing of the petition or certificate to which objection is made, or
within three days after the last day to file such a certificate, if no
such certificate is filed except that if any person nominated by an
independent nominating petition, is nominated as a party candidate for
the same office by a party certificate filed, or a party nomination
made after the filing of such petition, the written objection to such
petition may be filed within three days after the filing of such party
certificate or the making of such party nomination. When such an
objection is filed, specifications of the grounds of the objections
shall be filed within six days thereafter with the same officer or
board and if specifications are not timely filed, the objection shall
be null and void. Each such officer or board is hereby empowered to
make rules in reference to the filing and disposition of such
petition, certificate, objections and specifications.**3. When a
determination is made that a certificate or petition is insufficient,
such officer or board shall give notice of the determination forthwith
by mail to each candidate named in the petition or certificate, and,
if the determination is made upon specified objections, the objector
shall be notified.*

*In fact none of this was done. The petitions were filed nominating these
candidates on July 8, 2014. These petitions were marked "Valid" by the
Board of Elections at that time. See
http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
<http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled> The
Board of Elections website shows the four volumes were filed totaling 4065
pages. They remained marked valid for nearly one month until August 4, 2014
when, without notice or the opportunity for a hearing, they were changed
from "valid" to "invalid".*

*These candidates were never notified that such a change was imminent. The
objectors were also not notified, no doubt because the "specific
objections" were in summary form and were not line-by-line objections and
not up the standard required by the Board of Elections.*

*The following cross examination took place on pages 27-28 the
transcript which is on pages A-126-127 Appendix on Appeal:**(Sam Sloan
- Cross by Ms. O'Keefe)*
*Q Mr. Sloan, are you aware of how many sheets of**paper are in a ream
of paper? Are you aware of how many are**in a ream? You buy paper,
copy paper in reams?**A I suppose there is 500. I don't know.**Q
That's right. And four thousand pages would be how**many reams?**A I
guess simple multiplication. It would be eight.**Q It would be eight.
Does that stack of pages look**like it's eight reams of paper?**A I'm
not an expert on paper size.**Here is what Democratic Party Counsel to
the Board of Elections, Kathleen O'Keefe, said to the court (See
Transcript): *
"*With respect to that particular candidate, the Board received time
specific and general objections from two different objectors. And when
the Board met on August 1st the Board voted in public, and they are on
a video that's available on YouTube, because they do have their
meetings in public, with respect to that candidate, that she did not
meet both the signature requirements, as well as the age requirement,
and they held her Petition invalid."*

*However, none of this is true. It is urgently requested that this court
play the youtube video of that meeting. It will be seen that this is not at
all what really happened. The agenda for that meeting is at
http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/news/MeetingMinutes/Agenda08012014.pdf
<http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/news/MeetingMinutes/Agenda08012014.pdf>*

*A link to the video of that meeting is at the top of
http://www.elections.ny.gov/2014Meetings.html
<http://www.elections.ny.gov/2014Meetings.html>*

*Opposing counsel claims that the above statements can be found on youtube.
However, none of these statements are on youtube. One needs to play the
youtube.com <http://youtube.com> video of the meeting on the New York State
Board of Elections on August 1, 2014.*

*The important part of the video regarding Sam Sloan, Nanad Bach, Geeta
Rankoth and Neil Grimaldi starts at 6:20 and goes on only about 20 seconds.
There, an attorney for the Republican Party, Kimberly Galvin, says she has
an addendum to the motion to the board by having Sam Sloan, Nanad Bach,
Geeta Rakoth and Neil Grimaldi removed from the ballot. No member of the
board mentions those names. Nothing is said by any member of the Board
about Geeta Rankoth or anybody else not having enough signatures or about
their age. No mention is made by anybody about the age requirement to run
for Comptroller.*

*Geeta Rankoth, a college student and a graduate of Bronx High School of
Science, herself had written to the Board stating the following: "I wish to
add that it is a violation of federal law to discriminate against me
because of my age. Specifically it violates the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 and other state and federal laws." Neither the Board
of Elections nor the Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division were informed
of this letter or this issue.*

*By doing a search on youtube.com <http://youtube.com> for "NYSBOE -
08.01.2014" one can find the actual video of the meeting. Ms. Kathleen
O'Keefe is shown on the video. She was there although she said nothing.
Next to her is a man with white hair, Robert A. Brehm, Co-Executive
Director of the Board of Elections. What the video shows is Commissioner
Kellner moves to start the agenda with section 4a and then reads off from a
sheet of paper a list of 14 candidates and slates who are bring thrown off
because of objections. After he finishes reading the list, the Republican
Party attorney Kimberly Galvin interrupts by saying that she has an
addendum of four names of people she wants thrown off the ballot. She
attempts to hand up a sheet with the names but is told to read it instead.
Those names are Sam Sloan, Nanad Bach, Geeta Rankoth and Neil Grimaldi.*

*Commissioner Kellner then goes on to read a list of names of candidates
who failed to file acceptances and are being thrown off for that reason.*

*After concluding these lists, Commissioner Kellner states, "We need to
make a motion to adopt the Prima Facia list as reported in writing and as I
just read."*

*This is followed by "So Moved" and "Passed".*

*However, the names of Sam Sloan, Nanad Bach, Geeta Rankoth and Neil
Grimaldi were not on the lists "just read" by Commissioner Kellner. Those
four names were only mentioned orally by Kimberly Galvin, who is not a
member of the board. Neither Commissioner Kellner nor any of the other
Commissioners mentioned those names. Therefore, Sam Sloan, Nanad Bach,
Geeta Rankoth and Neil Grimaldi were not legally thrown off the ballot.*

*The Court below cited Fischer v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, No.
08-CV-4171, 2009 WL 2524859 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009). However, that case
was only concerned with the counting of the signatures. Moreover, that
decision supports the position of Plaintiffs-Appellants. Appellants contend
that the Board of Elections had no jurisdiction to count the signatures.
They can only count the signatures if somebody objected.*

*If the Board of Elections is allowed to count the signatures any time it
feels like, the result will be that it will target those candidates whom it
dislikes and count their signatures. Since the Board is appointed by the
party leaders, they will target those persons whom they would prefer not to
be on the ballot. This is unconstitutional.*

*The way this system was set up the Board of Elections is not supposed to
do any counting at all. The objectors are supposed to do the counting. Then
they are supposed to submit a Line-by-line Specific Objection telling
exactly what is wrong with the petitions. None of the objectors to Rankoth
or Grimaldi submitted line-by-line objections. They just submitted vague
generalized objections. That is the reason why when the Commissioner
Kellner read a list of objections at the meeting on August 1, 2014, he did
not include in his list the objectors to Rankoth or Grimaldi.*

*Fischer v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, shows exactly what is supposed
to happened but did not happen in the instant case. There was a hearing
before the Board of Elections. This was followed by a validating
proceeding. During that proceeding the court restored 42 signatures that
had been thrown off by the board. However, that was not enough to get
Fischer back on the ballot. A district court case was filed that resulted
in three reported decisions.*

*There the court stated: "Plaintiff has made is clear that he is not
arguing the constitutionality of the election laws, nor does he argue that
he was denied an independent constitutional right." *

*However, here Plaintiff-Appellants contend both that the Board of
Elections is unconstitutional and that the plaintiff-appellants were denied
a variety of constitutional rights.*

*The Board of Elections is unconstitutional because they are appointed by
the Chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Parties. These chairmen want
to control the election process so as to insure that only the candidates
they favor have a realistic chance to get elected. One cannot even remember
a case in the last several decades when anybody not nominated by either the
Republican or the Democratic Party leadership was elected to statewide
office. The members of the minor but recognized parties, the Green,
Conservative, Working Families and Independence parties, can nominate
candidates but they have never been elected. More importantly, the much
larger group voters who are not enrolled in any party are left out in the
cold.*

*Within the parties, in the New York City Board of Elections each borough
gets two commissioners, one Republican and one Democratic. However, Kings
County (Brooklyn) has a population of 2.5 million whereas Richmond County
(Staten Island) has a population of 470,000. Thus, one vote in Richmond
County has the same power as five votes in Brooklyn.*

*The state court judges are also appointed politically. In order to became
a state court judge one must be nominated by either the Republican or the
Democratic Party. If a judge makes decisions the party chairman does not
like, he will simply not be renominated and will lose his job, as happened
in the Lopez-Torres Case. N.Y. State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres,
552 U.S. 196 (2008) One cannot expect the New York State Court judges to
put themselves out of work by declaring the system by which they got
elected to be unconstitutional.*

*We understand that the district court judge here was in a hurry to make a
decision in time for the election and we appreciate that errors were
inevitable. However, she simply adopted all of the "facts" as set forth by
opposing counsel and ignored the allegations of the complaint. The district
court decision needs to be reviewed and reversed. We do not know where
these numbers of signatures came from. The Supreme Court judge said that
the last page of the petitions was page number 1402. However, that was only
the last page of volume four. There were three other volumes and a total of
4065 pages. Perhaps the staff of the Board of Elections only counted volume
four and did not count the other three volumes. This may explain why it is
said that there are only 4,000-5,000 signatures, whereas there are actually
4,000 sheets of petition signatures. Again, there is no clerk's report or
other documentation to support these statements.*

*The counselor for the plaintiffs-appellants here is active in election law
cases. He represented clients in six different election cases in Bronx
Supreme Court this August. On the day when the Board of Elections was
meeting in Albany on August 1, 2014, he was appearing in four other
contested election cases in Bronx Supreme Court where he was representing
clients. One of these was the Quinones case which resulted in another case
in district court. Moore and Quinones vs. New York City Board of Elections,
14-CV-6643 (SDNY). For this reason he could not make it to Albany for the
meeting plus there was no notice that these four candidates (including
himself) would be at issue during this meeting, as they were not on the
agenda. He has stated that in his years of experience in election cases, he
has never seen a case like this one where there were no objections, no
clerk's report, no hearing, no vote to throw them off, no due process of
any kind. *

*One of the candidates here has the distinction of having argued orally
before the United States Supreme Court an analogous case. In S.E.C. vs
Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978) he argued successfully that the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission had been violating their own laws
and regulations since 1934 by suspending trading in securities for more
than ten days without notice or a hearing. By wining that 9-0 decision, he
brought to an end the practice of the SEC of suspending trading in
securities for long periods of time.*

*Here, he states that the New York State Board of Elections violated its
own rules, including especially Section 6-154, by removing candidates from
the ballot without objections, without notice, without a hearing, without
anything at all.*

*Queens County Republican Comm. ex rel. Maltese v. New York State Bd. of
Elections, 222 F. Supp. 2d 341, 349-51 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), cited by the court,
supports this view. There the court stated that the fact that any voter of
any party can object to a petition provides adequate safeguards to voter
fraud. We agree with and support that decision. What the Board of Elections
here is stating is that it can throw any candidate it likes off the ballot
without any objections by anybody. That is clearly unconstitutional.*

*ARGUMENT*

*The plaintiff-appellants are candidates for office or else are voters who
support these candidates, who signed their petitions and who want to vote
for them for election. The candidates were on the ballot since July 8, 2014
but were thrown off the ballot by the New York State Board of Elections on
August 1, 2014.*

*Objections were filed to the candidacy of Geeta Rankoth for Comptroller.
One objection was that Geeta Rankoth was not an enrolled member of the
Democratic Party. However, this was mistaken, as Geeta Rankoth was in fact
an enrolled member of the Democratic Party.*

*No objections were filed against candidate Sam Sloan for Governor.
Nevertheless, the Board of Elections, arbitrarily and capriciously and
without any warning, notice nor any hearing threw Sloan, Bach, Grimaldi and
Rankoth off the ballot in violation of the Rules of the Board of Elections
including especially Section 6-154 of New York Election Law. The Board of
Elections simply had no jurisdiction to remove these candidates from the
ballot.*

*Statements made by opposing counsel about what the Board of Elections
found or the number of petition signatures submitted by the candidates are
pure fabrications by opposing counsel, as the Board of Elections made no
such findings nor had any hearing or factual determination. These
statements are pure inventions by opposing counsel.*

*Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that the entire Board of Elections is
unconstitutional for several reasons. The Commissioners of Election are not
elected officials nor are they appointed by elected officials. They are
appointed by the Republican and Democratic Party Chairmen and those
chairmen are not elected either. The commissioners are simply political
insiders, cronies and hacks. The other recognized parties including the
Green, Conservative, Working Families and Independence Parties get no
representation on the Board of Elections nor do the millions of voters who
are not enrolled members of any party get any representation or say-so on
the Board of Elections. The whole set-up is so obviously unconstitutional
that nobody can defend it. The Board of Elections has been doing this for
years since the days of Boss Tweed and getting away with it. They should be
going to jail, like Tweed did.*

*Because the Board of Elections engaged in massive fraud in throwing these
and many other qualified candidates off the ballot (including other
candidates represented by plaintiff's counsel such as Quinones) the entire
election should be declared invalid and thrown out and redone with all the
candidates restored.*

*Plaintiff-appellants contend that this case should be remanded for a fact
hearing. Plaintiffs will show that for years the Board of Elections has
been abusing its authority by throwing perfectly qualified candidates off
the ballot. Because the Commissioners of Elections are appointed by the
Democratic and Republican Party State and County Chairmen, who are not
elected officials, these chairmen have a vested interest in protecting
their favored candidates and preventing any insurgents from within the
party such as the candidates here or from outside from getting on the
ballot.*

*Plaintiffs contend that under many court decisions including The Board of
Estimates vs. Morris, 489 US 688 (1988) the entire set-up is
unconstitutional.*

*The standard is "one man one vote" and is the established law of the
nation, Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533
(1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S.
735 (1973); Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 NY 2d 94; Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S.
814 (1969)*

*POINT ONE*

*The Judge's decision failed to differentiate between between an
educational administrative body and the New York Board of Elections, which
is an executive body with quasi-judicial functions and decides issues
involving the United States Constitutional Rights of Voters to their choice
of candidates and the candidate's United States rights.*

*The Board of Estimates vs. Morris, 489 US 688 (1988) governs this case
rather than the much earlier decision of Sailors et al vs. Board of
Education of Kent et al, 387 US 105 (1967) because the New York State Board
of Elections is much more similar to the Board of Estimates of the City of
New York and the Board of Estimates case is later. The case of Sailors,
supra concerned only the election of county school board members whose
electors are elected by the people, where a school board member has a
non-legislative office for which no election is involved or required. The
Sailors case required "a subordinate governmental instrumentality created
by the state to assist in carrying out of state governmental functions".*

*The court in Sailors based their decision on the fact that the work done
by the Kent County was basically minor.*

*The Board of Elections of New York has a quasi-judicial functions
invalidating candidates from the ballot and this involve decisions
regarding United States Constitutional rights of voters and candidate.
Therefore the standard of "one man one vote" is the established law of the
nation, Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533
(1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S.
735 (1973); Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 NY 2d 94; Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S.
814 (1969), Oliver v. Bd of Education, 306 F Supp 1286.*

*Restraints imposed by the constitution on the states can never be
circumvented by local bodies to whom the state delegates authority like The
Board of Elections for the State of New York and the Board of Elections for
The City of New York. Standard Computing Scale Company v Farrell, 249 U.S.
571 (1919); Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).*

*The other case the judge cited is Cohanim vs. New York City Board of
Education, 204 F. Supp. 2d 452, 453 (2002) involved only how New York City
Board of Education members are selected. Their Education Board is in no way
comparable to the New York State Board of Elections which has
quasi-judicial and executive functions regarding the United States
Constitutional Rights of voters in having candidates of their choice and
the United States Constitutional Rights of candidates.*

*In Hedley vs. Junior College District, 397 US 50 (1970), the United States
Supreme Court dispensed with the standard set forth in Sailors, supra and
held that the election to a position that performed a governmental function
as the New York States Board of Elections does must accord with "one man
one vote"*

*The Fourteenth Amendment section 1 states "nor deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law". All voters including members
of all other parties other than Republican or Democratic have no voice or
representation on the Board of Elections and deprives them of equal
protection of the laws. Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris 489
U.S. 688 (1989).*

*The equal protection clause forbids the elevation of a small class of
super-voters granted an extraordinary powerful franchise as does the Board
of Elections for Republican and Democratic only voters. Brown v. Thomson,
462 U.S. 835 (1983).*

*The Board of Elections in not representing smaller parties violates
minority rights of smaller parties set forth in Section 2 of The Federal
Voting Rights Act 42 U.S. 1973 et seq,*

*The New York State Board of Elections and their local boards must be held
unconstitutional because they fail to represent millions of voters and they
violate "one man one vote". Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Abate
v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971).*

*The fact the Board makes quasi-judicial decisions and is made up of
members who have an interest in the outcome makes them an unfair judicial
body thus violating procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Board members chosen by the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic
parties is especially prejudicial when they vote on issues of ballot access
by opponents of the individuals who appointed them as was done to this
slate of candidates including Sam Sloan for Governor.*

*The Board of Elections has not heretofore produce one valid and
sustainable legal precedent for the continuation of The Board of Elections
in the face of all the existing cases cited herein that prove and
illustrate clearly that The Board violates The Equal Protection Clause and
"one man one vote" legal precedents that protect individuals like the
petition signers and all the candidates that are on this slate as
Petitioners. Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), Connor v. Finch, 431
U.S. 407, 420 (1977); Cohen v Mahoney, 410 F. Supp 1286; Grisbaum v.
McKeithen, 339 F. Supp. 267 (1971), Latino Political Action Commitee, Inc.
vs. City of Boston, 784 F.2d 409 (1986); Iannucci v. Bd. of Supervisors of
Washington County, 20 N.Y. 2D 244,249, Franklin v Mandeville ,26 N.Y. 2D
65, 69-70; Franklin v Krause 32 N.Y. 2D 234; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S.
1 (1964); Curcio v Boyle 147 A.D. 194; Jackson v Nassau County Bd. of
Supervisors, 818 F. Supp. 98; Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968),
Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 145-146 (1976), Karcher v Daggett, 46
U.S. 725,741 (1971).*

*POINT TWO*

*The Court had insufficient evidence as a matter of law to invalidate these
candidates from being on the ballot and violating the United States
constitutional rights of their petition signers. The Board of Elections
violated procedural due process in invalidating the petitions without
notice to the Plaintiffs - Candidates and not having a viable hearing at
The Board as required by The Fourteenth Amendment and the due process
clause. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970); Bell v Bunson, 402 U.S. 535
(1971); Sherbert v Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)*

*This case involves the rights of five voters, unlike the case in New
York Supreme Court. These five voters were not part of the state
board's case and they have separate constitutional rights to have the
candidates of their choice on the ballot and the prior case cannot
preclude their rights. See Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Baker
v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).**This case is different than the cases
cited by Miss O'Keefe because in this case the basic constitutional
rights of Sam Sloan and Nenad Bach were violated in that there were no
objections of specifications filed against them. They did not receive
their rights under the 14th amendment to notice and a hearing before
their United States Constitutional rights to run for election were
removed from them.**Opposing Counsel failed to mention that there was
never any evidence of specifications or objections filed against Sam
Sloan or Nenad Bach. The specifications and arguments about
insufficient age filed against Geeta Rankoth are not objections to the
candidacy of Sam Sloan and Nenad Bach as there were no objections
filed against them as to the insufficiency of their age or
candidacy.**The case mentioned of Fischer v. Suffolk County Bd. of
Elections, No. 08-cv-4171, 2009 WL 2524859 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009)
does not apply to this case because in that case there was no claim of
constitutional rights violated. That case only had to do with the
inadequate amount of signatures.**The cover sheets claimed that the
candidates had a sufficient amount of signatures and thus there was no
basis to invalidate them without a hearing. The New York State Supreme
Court and Appellate Division statement of the jurisdictional failure
by not naming the objectors does not apply to this court because there
is no such rule in this court and because of this the state court did
not deal with the constitutional issues.**The US Constitution protects
under the 14th Amendment these petition signers and they should not be
allowed to have their rights considered in this case whereas they were
not in the proceeding before the Board of Elections.**The State Board
of Elections and the New York City Board of Elections are not just
administrative bodies. They have executive and judicial functions
which violate candidate's rights. These boards are selected by
Chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties and are prejudicial
because of their judicial functions in throwing candidates off the
ballot after a hearing, thus violating their due process rights to
fair hearing before a fair trier of the facts. Avery v. Midland
County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968).*

*In Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1988)
decided March 22, 1989, the United States Supreme Court held the Board of
Estimates was illegally constituted because it violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the constitution. So, the New
York Board of Estimates was found to be null and void as a government
agency, citing Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) and Abate v. Mundt, 403
U.S. 182 (1971). The Board of Elections completely denies voter equality by
ignoring the voting rights of all voters not Republican or Democrat. Also,
Republican Voters have more voting power than Democrats because Democrats
far exceed Republican voters in numbers. The NY Board of Elections and the
New York City Board of Elections violate the Equal Protection Clause based
on the disparity between Republicans and Democrats and the fact that so
many millions of voters have no representative on the Board of Elections.
This inequitable system at the board places the most prejudicial people as
executives or board members by how they are chosen by representatives of
the Democratic Party Chairperson and Republican Party Chairperson.
Therefore, they cannot constitute a just body or forum to make legal and
binding decisions.*

*This year at a recent July 2014 hearing of the New York City Board of
Elections, Eliot Quinones was placed on the ballot by the clerk's report.
Then without notice a new Board of Elections clerk's report put him off the
ballot. These decisions excluded voters who properly signed the petition.
New York Board of Elections clerk's report fundamentally put him off the
ballot based on improper decisions excluding voters who properly signed the
petition. The New York City Board of Elections allows one representative
for Richmond and one representative for Brooklyn despite the fact that
Brooklyn has five times as many voters as Richmond. This is exactly the
reason why the Board of Estimates was found illegal by the United States
Supreme Court. The Board of Elections in the City of New York is part of
the New York State Board of Elections.*

*Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) established that the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution established the principle of
the equal protection clause and equal protection of the law. Required the
Alabama legislature voting to be based on population. The Board of
Elections ignores this landmark case and principle. This case stands for
the fundamental principle of legislative government in the United States of
equal representation for equal numbers of people. The right to vote is a
personal right. The idea that one group can be granted greater voting
strength as the board does excluding all Democratic and Republican voters
than another is inconsistent with standards for popular representative
government. Under the equal protection clause a claim of debasement of the
right to vote through mal apportionment represents a practicable
controversy and the equal protection clause provides manageable standards
for the lower courts to determine the constitutionality of a state
legislative appointment scheme, citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
In addition it undercuts states voters rights and the duly established
United States Constitutional rights.*

*Oliver vs. Board of Education, 306 F. Supp. 1286, No. 69 Civ 2130, United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a
statute creating the New York City School Board was unconstitutional where
the statute provided that citizens of each borough elected one member of
the school board. Statute diluted votes of the most populous boroughs. The
way the New York State Board of Elections and New York City Board of
Elections is organized violates the rights of all voters not Republican or
Democratic and gives each Republican voter more power than each Democrat
which is unequal and illegal. Also, voting procedures including proxy
voting must follow one man one vote Atkins v. Monahan, 91 Misc. 2d 499, 399
NYS 2d 166.*

*Sergey v. King's County Republican Party, 459 F.2d 308 invalidated a
county political party's rule on the voting procedure of the one party
where each county committee member has an equal vote weighed according to
the number of Republican voters in the district he represents. This
violates the one-man one-vote principle established by the Supreme Court as
a voters constitutional right. The amount of Democratic Party voters far
exceeds the amount of Republican Party voters and gives one Republican and
Democratic members equal power and not representing all other voters and
Republican or Democratic violated the one-man one-vote constitutional law
principle. The equal protection clause applies one man one vote even to
count committeemen. Not giving a group the right to representation violates
their constitutional rights and discriminates against them. See Moore v.
Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969)*

   *Fisher vs. Board of Supervisors, 59 Misc. 953; 301 NYS 2d 310 citing
   Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 NY 2d 94, 101 required the "one man one vote"
   principle required each votes be given equal weight. The Board of Elections
   excludes the rights of millions of voters and unfairly gives Republican
   voters more importance than an equal number of Democratic voters. See
   Burton vs. Schmidt, 128 Misc. 270.*

*The basic exclusion of the Board of Elections of the rights of millions
of voters not Republican and Democrat is unequitably a violation of the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment see Reynolds v Sims,
377 U.S. 533 (1964), Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489
U.S. 688 (1989). *

*The New York City Board of Elections has a long history of violating the
United States voter's rights and insurgent Democratic and Republican voters
rights including none of the other parties by the illegal manner that
members of the Board of Elections in New York City as elsewhere are chosen
by the New York City Republican and Democratic Party political readers.
This violates the Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements because the
forum is not a just body and it is constituted in a way by giving undue and
improper power to representatives of the Democratic and Republican Chairmen
and their representatives who claim to be made a quasi-judicial body making
legally binding decisions which they have harmful by their extensive
officer and bureau members are selected illegally by the Political
Democratic Party Chairmen and Republican Chairmen. It would be proper and
legal only to have a civil service Board of Elections. The members of the
Board of Elections or an independent non-partisan non-prejudicial system of
choosing Board of Election members statewide and in New York City and in
each of our great New York County. The Respondents have refused to provide
a legal basis in opposition because there is none.*

*Whereas Petitioner is requesting an opportunity to subpoena witnesses and
present evidence about the long history of political corruption caused by
the illegal and improper manner the New York State Board of Elections and
New York City Board of Elections are illegally formed, violative of the
equal protection clause one man one vote and basic justice*

*Conclusion*

*The New York State Board of Elections must be found in violation of the
United States Constitution and thus abolished as presently constituted.*

*CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE**This brief complies with the type-volume
limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 28.1(e)(2)(a) because this brief
contains 8,407 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).**This brief complies with the
typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style
requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been
prepared Courier New 12 point Bold. **Dated: Bronx, New York November
21, 2014*