Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • DOJ Document

    Uploaded by

    Michael Gareth Johnson
    6K views5 pages

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6K views5 pages

    DOJ Document

    Uploaded by

    Michael Gareth Johnson

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5
    ‘Case 1:10-cv-U1214-GLS-RFT Document 57 Filed 12/27/11 Page 1 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ‘ALBANY DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-1214 (GLSRET) STATE OF NEW YORK and THENEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendants, UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS Pursuant to the Courts December 12,201 onder, the United Sates respectillyeesponds to the Defendants’ supplemental lings, including the proposed order the State of New York submited on behalf ofthe New York State General Assembly (Docket No. $42). The United States has alc carefully considered the views of intersted parties who have submited information as part ofthe recordin this ease ‘The General Assembly's Proposed Order The United States object othe General Assembly's proposed order for several reasons In paragraph 14, the proposed order stats that “33 of New Vork's 62 counties transmitted UOCAVA balls after October 1, 2010." As explained inthe United States Notice of rata (Docket No. 18) and Corrected Memorandum of Law (Docket No. 18-1), there were at east {36—not 33--New York counties that transmitted UOCAVA ballots after October 1, 2010. [Additionally the General Assembly's proposed order limits any modification tothe State's primary election calendar to the 2012 election only. As noted at oral argument, the Case 110-H01Z14-GLS-KFT Document 87 Filed 12/27/11 Page 2 of 5 United States respectfully submits that his an inadequate remedy thet risks aditonal and sedundant tigation of this issue in each subsequent election year Further, paragraphs (2) and (4) ofthe proposed order would dela the effective date of the Cour’s order until February 14,2012. The United States respectfully submis that farther olay in setting New Yorks primary eletion date i unwarrented and risks the orderly administration ofthe 2012 elections. Instead, the United States urges the Cour to order a primary election date that is effetve immediately. 1s (6) and (7) ofthe General Assembly's proposed order anticipate re- surveying all New York county boards of elections to obtain final UOCAVA ballot transmission and receipt information within 10 days ofthe Court's order. AS noted at oral argument, the United States and the New York State Board of Elections have been working to revise thelist of ‘counties for which this re-survey is necessary and wil, asthe Court requested, notity the Court ofthis list ar January 1, 2012, Accordingly, administering the re-survey 10 days ater the Court’ order may no longer be the most appropriste course. Recommendation as oa UOCAVA-Compliant Primary Eletion Date ‘The United States continues to believe that, based on the evidence a federal primary lection dat set at last 80 days before federal general elections will key remedy future UOCAVA violations. The United States is not positioned to judge the relative merits ofthe competing proposals before the Court ~ especially when the State ands election officials cannot crrefuse to do so. We futher reiterate that federalism and comity interests militate against the United States suggesting a preferred date in this case. Accordingly, the United States respectfully suggests thatthe proposed order it submited to the Court on December 19,2011 ‘remains, under ordinary circumstances, an appropriate framework for ensuring UOCAVA Case 1:10-cv-01214-GLS-RFT Document 57 Filed 12/27/11 Page 3 of § ‘compliance in futur federal general elections. The United States does not oppose, however, the ‘Court considering an election date that adds some measure of additional time tothe 80-day ‘minimum suggested by the evidence inthis case. ‘The United States continues to take no position ‘on what the specific primary date should be—whetherit sin June, August, or some other ‘month—as long ait sno later than 80 days before the general election, The Court suggested uring the December 12,2011 hearing that its inclination may be to select primary date that is «as close othe existing September primary date as posible, while still complying with an 80

    You might also like