the 3rd Congressional District but for the obstacles herein described. He resides at 34 High St., Manhasset, NY 11030.

Plaintiff Kenneth Jacoby, a registered Republican, was a candidate for member of the Nassau County Republican Committee, would run again, and would be a candidate for the 20th Assembly seat but for the obstacles herein described. He resides at 3016 Roxbury Rd, Oceanside, NY 11572. Plaintiff Robert Pendleton, a registered Conservative, was a candidate for member of the Nassau County Conservative Committee, would run again, and would be a candidate for the 4th Congressional District but for the obstacles herein described. He resides at 2895 Charlotte Dr., Merrick, NY 11566. Plaintiffs are longtime political activists and aver they are possible candidates for future posts and offices.

Defendant New York is the government whose laws and practices are herein complained. Defendant Governor Andrew Cuomo is responsible for the execution of those laws and practices. His office is at NYS Capitol Building, Albany, NY 12224. Defendant Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is responsible for the enforcement of the New York laws herein complained. His office is at 2nd Floor, Justice Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12224. Defendant NY State Board of Elections operates the electoral machinery of the state and consists of four commissioners, defendants James A. Walsh (Republican), Douglas A.

Kellner (Democratic), Evelyn J. Aquila (Democratic), and Gregory P. Peterson (Republican). Their office is at 40 Steuben St, Albany, NY 12207. Defendant Nassau County Board of Elections operates the electoral machinery of that county, comprised of defendant Louis Savinetti (Republican) and defendant William Biamonte (Democratic). Their office is at 4th Floor, 240 Old Country Rd, Mineola, NY 11501. There is no Eleventh Amendment immunity insofar as ADA Title II claims are concerned (Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 2004). JURISDICTION & VENUE This complaint seeks to enjoin state agencies and officials from enforcing unconstitutional laws and engaging in unconstitutional practices, and other relief. Jurisdiction is federal pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq), the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq), the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1971 et seq), Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting (MOVE) Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1), the US Constitution, and its First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

Venue in the Eastern District of New York court is proper, based upon previous exercise of jurisdiction by the federal government, as well as by judicial imperative.

INTRODUCTION Running for office in New York involves the risk of getting bumped off the ballot by the filing of objections against a candidates petitions. An objector can claim anything should void the petition, even minor errors. With help from a sympathetic Board of
3

Elections, anything can stick. Obviously this does not make elections more legitimate, in fact it makes them less so, and violates the right to vote.

The right to vote is the right of a people to freely choose leaders from among themselves. This includes the right to cast a meaningful ballot, the right to seek office, and the right to hold office. This is inherent in the US Constitution and is as fundamental as the document itself, just like the non-enumerated rights of privacy, marriage, and travel. For simplicity in discussing allegations, the inherent right and First and Fourteenth Amendment protection is referred to collectively as Rights to Vote.

Founding Father James Madison reasoned that our republic could be turned into an aristocracy if legislators set the rules of who can run for office. They would turn it into their own private club. The right to vote would be meaningless, since the public could only elect those whom the politicians had already chosen for them. So any restriction on the ability to run must only be by necessity, or it becomes a weapon for incumbents, like bumping is in New York. In recognition of that, most states charge candidates a fee (see Exhibit E for examples), a politician tax. Of the handful that still require signature petitions, most are purely symbolic: Tennessee (pop. 6.4 million) requires all of 25 signatures to run for governor.

And then theres New York, whose government has treated the right to vote with depraved indifference. The election laws are comprised of vague rules and onerous requirements. Uncontested races are common (only one candidate). In races for party
4

position, frequently no one is legitimately elected (no candidates). When an electoral system enables those with power to eliminate competition without voting, the Supreme Court has said it operates to freeze the political status quo, (Jeness v. Fortson). Plaintiffs allege New York is frozen by a fundamentally unfair electoral scheme.

The heart of this scheme is two parts: the Designating Petition which a candidate must use to collect signatures, and the arcane rules that govern it. The statutes requiring the number of signatures are in 6-136, objections thereto in 6-154, and its pertinent rules are in 6-130 through 6-142 , NY Rules and Regulations Subtitle V State Board of Elections, and case law too voluminous to enumerate. Collectively these mandatory rules are referred to as the NY Scheme and are executed and enforced by defendants.

The NY Scheme was created in 1911 and hasnt advanced much since. At that time, only neighborly white men ran for office. The result is its use in the 21st century violates the rights of pretty much everyone, as follows.

CLAIMS Defendants discriminate against suspect classes and discrete groups 1. Nassau County is a jurisdiction covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. U.S.C. 1973b(f)(4) requires all materials relating to the electoral process are made available in Spanish. In violation, defendant Nassau Board of Elections does not provide the designating petition in Spanish. This prevents Hispanics from seeking office. It is also an obstacle to plaintiffs: 14.6% of the county is Hispanic and is effectively removed from the pool of eligible petition signers
5

(signing pool). Plaintiffs live in areas with Hispanic populations. Nassau Countys failure to comply with the Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. It violates their right of Equal Protection again, in that similarly situated candidates who are less reliant on Hispanic support would have a substantial advantage. Note: there do not appear to be any nonEnglish petitions in anywhere in New York, despite twelve such requirements. 2. The NY Scheme requires going door-to-door. Even for the smallest elected position, it takes hours and is physically demanding. For plaintiffs, there is no other recourse to ballot access but this. This prevents the participation of those with a disability who are otherwise qualified for office. Plaintiffs have disabilities which impair major life activities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act: Dekom has congenitally defective ankles, a degenerative condition which significantly impairs his mobility. Jacoby is approximately 60% deaf and has a corresponding speech impediment, which significantly impairs his ability to communicate. Pendleton has advanced stenosis which significantly impairs his mobility. These disabilities directly interfere with plaintiffs ability to comply with the NY Scheme. ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government activities (Title II). Running for party position or public office is a government activity, plaintiffs allege the NY Scheme is discriminatory, as a similarly situated non-disabled candidate has a significant advantage in amassing enough signatures in the short required period, and challenge-proofing a candidacy by garnering additional signatures. This violates their rights under ADA Title II.

3. New York receives federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The New York State and Nassau County Boards of Elections receive federal funds under the Help America Vote Act. As recipients of federal dollars, they are subject to the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794), which also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Plaintiffs allege the same violation of their rights under this Act as well. 4. Not counting the institutionalized, 22% of the voting age population has some type of disability (US Census, 2000). Nassau county has an aging population, those same census statistics show the disability rate among seniors is substantially higher at 42%, and for Black seniors, 53%. Disability effectively reduces the signing pool, as anyone who has knocked on the door of a shut-in can attest. Not allowing the disabled to register their support by other means as an accommodation under ADA Title II, such as by voice, gesture, phone, email, mail, online petition, and on-the-spot proxy effectively removes them from the signing pool. Removing a substantial number of voters from the signing pool severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 5. The NY Scheme, particularly 6-136, requires more than a cursory effort but in fact hours of labor. This severely burdens (all) plaintiffs Rights to Vote, even if they were not disabled. Plaintiffs as voters repeat the same violation, that the requirement frustrates their right to cast a meaningful ballot, protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 6. Plaintiffs Dekom and Jacoby are part of the 68% of voting age Americans who are either fat or obese (according to the CDC). This segment of the population is a discrete group. The NY Scheme, particularly 6-136, is tantamount to a physical
7

test, and severely burdens their Rights to Vote. It violates their rights of Equal Protection as a similarly situated fit person would be much better equipped to perform a physical test. 7. Plaintiff Robert Pendleton is a senior citizen, which is a discrete group. According to the US Census, 65 and over are 15.3% of Nassau county. The aforementioned physical test violates their rights of Equal Protection in that a similarly situated younger person would be much better equipped to perform a physical test. 8. The signature petition period for federal office is March 20- April 16, 2012, which encompasses Passover, April 7-13. Nassau County is 15.5% Jewish. Holy week for western Christians (most Catholics and Protestants), commences Palm Sunday, April 1, and ends Easter Sunday, April 8. The Orthodox (eastern) Holy Week is the week after, April 8-15. Nassau county has large Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox populations. Effectively removing substantial populations from the signing pool for a significant time by transposing the signature petition period onto holy weeks severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 9. These demographics are not uniformly distributed throughout the state but are often localized. Plaintiffs live in such localities. As a result, plaintiffs Equal Protection rights are violated as similarly situated candidates less reliant on those demographics would have a substantial advantage. 10. Plaintiffs are Catholic, the petition period described above conflicts with their religious observance, effectively eliminating 30% (8/27) of the petition days. This violates their rights of Equal Protection, as a similarly situated candidate who is not religious would have 42% more time and a substantial advantage.

11. Plaintiff Dekom is white and lives in an Election District (905 voters) that is largely Black and Hispanic (Census VTD white=19.8%). It also encompasses two public housing projects. When gathering signatures in 2011 for Member of the Nassau County Republican Committee, a race confined to that ED, he found no one in the projects would open the door. He ran into one of his neighbors on the street and asked for her signature, but as her English is poor and the petition is not in Spanish, she did not sign. In some instances, as here, the NY Scheme requires members of one race to overcome any possible racial animus or language barrier to complete a state mandated action. The fact is that sending a minority to secure a public endorsement from members of the majority is a much different burden than it would be for a member of that majority. Incorporating race as a possible factor to getting nominated violates plaintiffs Fifteenth Amendment Rights. Incorporating purely subjective factors in government action violates plaintiffs Due Process rights. Plaintiff's rights of Equal Protection are also violated, as a similarly situated candidate who speaks Spanish or is of a different racial composition would have an advantage. 12. NY law provides that the members of a countys two largest parties elect the countys two Election Commissioners. The same process applies to State Elections Commissioners. In order to gain that right to vote, a voter must successfully execute the NY Scheme and then get elected as a party committee member. Plaintiffs allege the Ny Scheme, being necessary to gain the right to vote for a public official, is a test or device prohibited by the Voting Rights Act, Section 201 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa). Petition process violates privacy of the right to vote
9

13. Election Law 7-202(1)(e) provides a voter the protection of the secret ballot. The same right is found in the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment protection of anonymous political speech. However, for a candidate to get nominated, some voters must surrender their privacy rights (Election Law 6-130) and let their ballot preference be known by signing the designating petition, which is a public document. This also subjects them to harm, like identity theft (see #40, 41) and political retaliation. In Nassau county in 2010, two partyendorsed candidates drew primary challengers. In response, a local party chair, Francis X. Frank Moroney, sent a widely distributed email stating in bold letters that members of the party committee could not carry their petitions and that any supporting them should resign. Moroney also holds a senior position in county government and many committee members work for the county. Did any of them fear for their jobs? This is the exact scenario a private ballot is intended to prevent. In an email to Dekom on 12/8/11, a party official, JJ Galluscio, claimed he lost his executive leader position because of his association with plaintiff: As I predicted my standing with you my friend was I believe the straw that broke Frank's (Moroney) back and I was removed as leader. The NY Scheme, particularly 6-130, which necessarily results in surrendering the secrecy of the ballot by publicly revealing the candidate preference of the signer, violates plaintiffs as voters private ballot and anonymous speech rights of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as their privacy protection afforded by Election Law. It severely burdens plaintiffs core political speech rights as revealing such choices in no way justifies a compelling a state interest which cant be advanced

10

otherwise. It violates their Equal Protection rights, as a similarly situated voter who did not sign a petition would never have his ballot preference revealed. 14. When the petition carrier (witness) is not the candidate, he also is forced to surrender the privacy of his ballot by publicly revealing his candidate preference (Election Law 6-132(2)). Plaintiffs are likely to carry petitions (be a witness) for others (such as each other). The NY Scheme, which necessarily results in publicly revealing the candidate preference of the witness, violates plaintiffs rights as previously elaborated. Exercising the right to vote should be easier than renewing the drivers license privilege 15. The NY Scheme requires an individual candidate to collect signatures from a specific geographic area (Election Law 6-136). The signer must be registered to vote in that area, on the active voter list, enrolled in the candidates party, and still qualified to vote there. A list of such people is known as a walk list and is a necessary part of the process. Creating a walk list requires advanced data processing skills described in Exhibit A, and money. After submission, Election Law 6-154 provides the petition can be objected to, and does not limit the grounds. So a valid petition is not merely having someone sign, it is a combination of factors including: 1) the date of the election listed is totally accurate. 2) the signature and in whose presence it was signed. 3) that the address is legible, properly recorded and totally accurate, and that the address was recorded in the signers presence. 4) if the signer signed another petition. 5) the accuracy of the date, such as if its out of sequence.
11

6) though the signers address is already recorded, the Town or City (as those words are defined under NY law) must also be recorded and accurate. Its a trick question, as people regularly confuse it with their hamlet, which is the mailing address town. For instance, plaintiff Dekom lives in the hamlet of Manhasset, which is in the Town of North Hempstead. His mailing address town is Manhasset. Though a federal decision struck it down (Molinari v. Powers), its still used. 7) that any errors are properly initialed (though it is questionable if that means by the signer, the witness, or both). 8) the accuracy of the multiple political jurisdictions recorded for the address of the candidate. 9) the nature of the witness and the accuracy of the witness statement, such as his address. 10) though the address of the witness is already recorded, the Town or City trick question occurs again in the Witness Identification Information section. 11) that the office or party position includes not just the name of the post but also its geographic description. 12) the accuracy of the cover sheet, the numbering of the pages. Courts disagree on whether the failure to number is a fatal error or not. 13) the veracity of the signature is subject to verification by either staffers of a Board of Elections, or a Judge, none of whom is required to have formal training in handwriting analysis. An affidavit from the voter may not be sufficient.
12

14) Whether or not a notary, when used, provides license number or expiration date, and if those items are accurate. 15) If the notary does not accurately record the number of signatures in his statement. 16) Any reason under the sun. Exhibit B is a lengthier treatment of petition pitfalls, excerpted from Election Law Update -2008, produced by defendant NYS Board of Elections. Though sixteen (of twenty-six) pages, it is still only a partial list. Most of the pitfalls are not found in regulation or statute but in case law (there are 132 case cites in Exhibit B). If any of these issues is raised as an objection to a candidacy, its validity is subject to the caprice of a partisan Board of Elections. When an objection is filed, a candidate is entitled to notice, but might not get it, and a Board might ignore that. Commonly a Board will overstep its purely ministerial function and assume the role of finder of fact. For some races, Due Process consists of a hearing to which the defendant is not allowed to participate, while evidence and testimony against him are examined. If he loses, he can seek judicial review (16-102). The cost to file is $305, not including the expense of a specialized attorney. The case must be filed and process served within three days of the date of determination, not the date of notice. The presumption of the court is he is in the wrong until proven otherwise. The case is adjudicated by a partisan judge. This gauntlet makes New York the most difficult state in which to exercise political rights. According to Dr. Gerald Benjamins Decision 1997: constitutional change in New York (Rockefeller Institute Press, 1997), New York accounts for half of the election litigation in the U.S. Benjamin, a former election
13

official, is an expert on NY governance and is the Director of SUNY New Paltzs Center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach. The NY Scheme does not preserve or encourage electoral integrity; it destroys it. The NY Scheme, being unnecessarily complex and highly subjective, severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 16. Plaintiffs as voters allege the subjectivity and unnecessary complexity of the NY Scheme as described prevents competition, frustrating their right to cast a meaningful ballot, as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 17. Election Law 3-102 empowers the state Board of Elections. County Boards are not explicitly empowered by statute, but inferentially by 3-200. Both have an indeterminate power under 6-154 in regards to objections, but in practice they adjudicate them. New York mandates both be bipartisan, the idea being that the agenda of one would offset the agenda of the other. The Nassau Democratic Elections Commissioner, William Biamonte, said so: The only people who should be working (at the Board of Elections) are strong advocates for their political party. They work side-by-side, making sure everything is done properly and voters get fair and honest elections (Newsday 9/27/11). Equal and opposite subjective parties do not add up to objectivity, and certainly dont when it concerns outsiders such as plaintiffs. In fact Commissioners are known to cooperate to bump party insurgents:

14

In the petition-challenging game, candidates backed by the party bosses have an enormous advantage: friendly judges and Board of Elections employees who owe their jobs to party organizations. Neither group has ever been accused of favoring insurgents. As a result, candidates may be knocked off the ballot by party loyalists at the Board of Elections and kept off the ballot by judges on the state supreme court, many of whom are hand-selected county leaders. The Scandal of Reform, Frank Barry (Rutgers University Press, 2009) The Commissioners are periodically reelected solely by their party, not by a public vote or executive act. If they do not carry their partys water, they can expect to lose their salary. They have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of their process. Plaintiffs are insurgents. Dekom and Jacoby had their petitions invalidated in 2011; all plaintiffs believe it is certain their petitions to be objected to and adjudicated by such Boards. As all Boards are bipartisan, 6-154 automatically empowers non-party members to have a voice in another partys affairs, violating plaintiffs associational rights. The exercise of authority that they dont have, the necessary subjectivity of these Boards, violates plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A similarly situated anointed candidate would receive more favorable treatment. 18. The civil rights era literacy test (Exhibit C) had the effect of disenfranchising. The gauntlet of the NY Scheme (such as Exhibits A & B) is far more complex and has the same effect. Its disenfranchising effect is evidenced by Exhibit Bs 132 case cites; they but a fraction. Plaintiffs allege the NY Scheme is so burdensome as to

15

be a test or device prohibited by the Voting Rights Act, Section 201 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa). Plaintiffs as voters allege the test or device prevents competition and frustrates their right to cast a meaningful ballot, violating the Voting Rights Act, Section 201 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa). 19. The rules for the signature petitions are allegedly in Election Law 6-134, Designating petition; rules, but are actually found largely in case law. The rules expand and change with new litigation. A person of ordinary intelligence who read the 749 words of 6-134 could not be sufficiently aware of the minutiae found in reams of case law, or predict new rules. The rules of the petition process, wherever they may be, violate plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as they are void for vagueness and fundamentally unfair. 20. 6-154 permits objections to be filed on any grounds. It is like reporting to the police that an individual committed a crime whose parameters are limited only by imagination. A plaintiff of ordinary intelligence cannot possibly defend himself against unlimited forms of attack. It also makes no provision for its adjudication, leaving the matter as a perennial quarrel between Boards and Courts. As applied it subjects a candidates fundamental rights to adjudication by a subjective body. It is discriminatory as unfamiliarity with the arcane rules by which it operates put a novice at a severe disadvantage to a similarly situated seasoned candidate. Even if both candidates are seasoned, the anointed one is more likely to get a pass from a Board while an insurgent will not. The statute violates plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as it is void for vagueness and fundamentally unfair.

16

21. Plaintiffs allege that same vagueness of 6-134 and 6-154, and the rules that govern them wherever they may be, is a violation of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1971 (a)(2)(A)), requiring uniform standards, and that the overbroad and selectively enforced standard of what constitutes a fatal objection is a violation of the errors and omissions clause in the same Act (42 U.S.C. 1971 (a)(2)(B)). 22. The vague rules of the NY Scheme and the unbounded ability to file objections do not serve any legitimate governmental end, but serve specifically to create an avenue by which a candidacy can be intercepted before reaching the ballot. Intentionally jeopardizing plaintiffs political rights or creating any such vulnerability violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 23. Someone realized how abusive this process could become, as evidenced by Election Law 2-126. It prohibited political parties from materially participating in the pre-primary process, such as by having their attorneys attack insurgents (see the example of Robert Giuffre in the OTSC Motion). That law was struck down in 2006 (Kermani v. NYSBOE 487 F.Supp.2d 101 NDNY 2006). Plaintiffs, being insurgents, expect such attack. The ability of a quasi-governmental body to materially take sides, one which also controls the employment of half the Elections Commissioners and half the Board of Elections, violates plaintiffs Rights to Vote. Unnecessary risk in exercising ones rights 24. Because the March 20-April 16 petition period is 25% shorter, the 6-136 (et seq) signature requirements have been reduced 25%. Compared to the previous petition period, this period will be a time of limited daylight and inclement weather, both of which substantially reduce the time normally allowed for
17

petitioning. These difficulties make Election Law 6-136 (et seq) a severe burden on plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 25. Even a slightly different signature than the one that appears on a voters buff card, filed perhaps decades earlier, can give rise to allegations of possible forgery. Though they rarely do, every Board must investigate (Election Law 3-104.2) and upon belief, refer such cases to the District Attorney (3-104.3). According to the minutes of the Nassau Board of Elections (8/3/11), six of the eight candidates for public office weighed by them faced such allegations. In the ordinary exercise of electoral rights, plaintiffs can reasonably expect to be accused of criminal misconduct, and perhaps be prosecuted for it, strictly as a result of this antiquated system. This inherent risk in the NY Scheme severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. The signature requirements of Election Law 6-136 (et seq) are fundamentally unfair 26. The Obama campaign was required to turn in 5,000 signatures and turned in eleven times that, 56,586. In 2002, Andrew Cuomo turned in 100,250 for a 15,000 threshold. The practical signature requirement is six times the statutory requirement (6-136 et seq). This is in excess of every known legal requirement and severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 27. By federal order, the number of signatures needed to run for Congress is 938* (*2012 only, normally 1,250). In 1992, the state temporarily lowered the major party petition requirements for member of Congress by half, from 5%/1,250 to 2.5%/625. No ballot flooding or other imaginary crisis occurred. Yet the state, in full knowledge of its efficacy, returned to the more onerous standard. The

18

current standard, being above the proven 1992 standard, severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 28. Plaintiff Dekom as a Republican candidate in the 3rd CD would have to get 938 signatures. CD 10 has approximately 13,152 Republicans, so the Republican candidate there would need only about 494 signatures to be on the ballot half as many. This violates plaintiffs Equal Protection rights, as it imposes a substantially heavier burden on him than a similarly situated candidate for the 1oth District. 29. Plaintiff Dekom, as a Republican candidate for Congress in the 3rd CD, would have to collect signatures of 1.7% of the party members in his district, while his Democratic opponent will only have to collect .9% (Exhibit D). This is because the district is more Democratic. The disparity in burden violates plaintiffs Equal Protection rights, as it is substantially easier for a similarly situated candidate of the Democratic party to get on the ballot. 30. Though two candidates might have to get the same number of signatures, it will be easier for one if the enrollment favors his party, as above. New York is heavily Democratic, so it is generally easier to be nominated as a Democrat than a Republican (Exhibit D). The post belongs to neither party but to the people, however the difference in burden creates a state-sponsored incentive to drive the candidate class to the Democratic party. Plaintiffs Dekom and Jacoby are Republicans and Pendleton a Conservative. They assert this disparity violates their Equal Protection rights and that of their parties, and violates their First Amendment rights of political association.

19

31. Exhibit D shows the lesser the position, the greater the actual percent signature burden. The arbitrary and capricious signature requirement is disproportionately harder on plaintiffs when equalized with similarly situated candidates for higher office, violating their Equal Protection rights. 32. Plaintiffs have run for party position elected by the public and would do so again. These posts, such as member of the County Committee and Judicial Delegate, have no salary, no statutory responsibility, no staff, and no budget. Yet the signature requirement is two and a half times that of any public office listed in Exhibit D, each of which has a salary and legal obligations. It is also often greater than the flat 25 signature requirement of significant unpaid public offices, such as Board of Education and Fire Commissioner. This violates plaintiffs rights of Equal Protection, putting a heavier burden on them than on candidates for positions of much greater responsibility. 33. Once a person signs a designating petition, he is removed from the signing pool (Election Law 6-134.3). This creates an obstacle to collecting an adequate number of signatures. If the maximum percentage imposed by law is 5%, even in the unlikely event of full participation, the maximum number of candidates of 20 is well below the threshold of what would confuse a voter. The true number of eligible signers is much below the active voter list due to death, moving, language, and other factors. As a result the practical limit is well below 20. Removing voters from the signing pool per 6-134.3 severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 34. Nassau County reports numerous dead people on its voter list, the oldest of which has been dead since 1998. The petition requirement is based on the number of
20

names on that list (6-136), obviously, a dead person cannot be a voter. Candidates cannot secure the signature of a dead person, therefore requiring them to collect a number which incorporates the dead severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 35. When knocking on doors, one gets they dont live here anymore far more often than getting a signature. According to the US Census, 1 in 6 Americans (16.8%) move every year, the rate for renters significantly higher. Movers who dont change their voting address corrupts the voter list. A candidate cannot lawfully get the signature of someone ineligible to vote at that address. Basing the petition requirement on a voter list (6-136) with such a high corruption rate severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. Changes in society over the last fifty years make the NY Scheme far more difficult than intended 36. The NY Scheme was created before locking residential buildings became common, or the proliferation of gated communities, nursing homes, and other areas where access to voters is strictly limited. Plaintiffs live in areas with these features. Requiring plaintiffs to secure the signatures of people who are for practical purposes impossible to access, or including them as part of the formula for total necessary signatures (6-136), severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 37. The NY Scheme was created before the widespread use of home telephones, reply-mail marketing, fax, cell phones, and the internet and email. Any of these methods could be adapted to register voter support. An affidavit could suffice as well. Requiring the use of an obsolete method (6-130, 6-132), being the most time

21

consuming and least efficient way of evidencing voter support, severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 38. According to the US Census, violent and property crime have more than tripled since 1960. The US Census Bureau does a door-to-door activity similar to a signature petition. In May of 2010, the Bureau reported 113 attacks on workers in that month alone. For the first time, they now track Unsafe to enumerate locations, along with Refused with threat and refused with attack. These three categories comprised 41% of a sample of 1,000 refusals. The NY Scheme, particularly 6-136 (et seq), involves a widely acknowledged risk of physical attack, particularly for women. This may explain why New York ranks 31st in the nation in female representation in state legislatures. This inherent risk in the NY Scheme severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 39. Because of the fear of crime, it is now normal to ignore a stranger at the door. The neighborhood that doesnt lock its doors no longer exists. This has increased the difficulty of the NY Scheme, particularly 6-136 (et seq), severely burdening plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 40. Once a fringe crime decades ago, identity theft is the fastest growing crime in the US, according to the FBI, the FTC, and USPS. Rings comb sources such as public records for signatures and other personal data. In 2008 the FBI identified one such emerging scheme that raided home equity lines of credit, resulting in arrests. Such records are kept as a result of the NY Scheme. The public has less desire than ever before to sign documents for strangers, increasing the difficulty of complying with the NY Scheme, particularly 6-136 (et seq), severely burdening plaintiffs Rights to Vote.
22

41. Incurring the risk of identity theft frustrates plaintiffs as voters core rights of political speech and to cast a meaningful ballot, as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 42. Prior to the rise in identity theft, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam proved the petition process was a dinosaur. His bestseller Bowling Alone (Simon & Schuster, 2000) illustrates how over the last few decades, Americans, once a nation of joiners, now increasingly go it alone. Empirically, attendance at club meetings has dropped 58% and petition signing is down 30%. The growing focus on privacy is at cross purposes to the petition effect of laying bare ones vote (see #13). The simple fact is modern Americans just dont want to do it. The increased difficulty of the NY Scheme, particularly 6-136 (et seq) severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 43. Perhaps due to the aforementioned culture of privacy, in-person soliciting of any type is now totally unwelcome and socially unacceptable. It is prohibited in select communities and public areas, like malls. That the NY Scheme, particularly 6-136 (et seq), requires plaintiffs to perform a task that now carries such a stigma severely burdens their Rights to Vote. 44. In addition to the barriers to entry presented by the NY Scheme, candidates face others. According to a study by the Council for State Governments, the cost of races for governor has increased seven-fold in the period 1978-2006. The lack of privacy is also a barrier: a candidate can expect his life and family to be subjected to exacting scrutiny. The internet and social media ensure wide dissemination of his personal details. The 24 hour news cycle has amped up the partisan rancor in the name of selling news. There are required personal financial disclosures and
23

periodic campaign filings, which carry penalties if not met. And then theres stagefright. "It is even scarier than rattlesnakes," According to Dr. Paul Witt, assistant professor of communication studies at Texas Christian University. "The idea of making a presentation in public is the No. 1 fear reported by people in the U.S." The regulatory burden may keep out glory-seekers, but it also drives away many good people. These barriers have increased substantially in the past few decades, making those of the NY Scheme superfluous and damaging to competition: In 2010, New York had 35 races for Congress or larger, including governor. Of those, 37% had a Republican primary and 14% for the Democrats. Georgia is as red as New York is blue, and had 23 races for Congress or larger, including Governor. 70% had Republican primaries and 44% for the Democrats. 33% of the New York primaries had more than two candidates, in Georgia it was 66%. New York has twice the population and a higher median income, but a fraction of the competition. According to a study by Citizens Union (Reshaping New York, November 2011), the number of uncontested state general election legislative races (in which there is no opponent or no major party challenger) increased from 1 percent in 1968 to 19 percent of all races in 2010. The NY Scheme, particularly 6-136 (et seq), being unnecessary and anti-competitive, severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. 45. The NY Scheme is killing political county committees: in Nassau county with 1.3 million people, participation in the Republican county committee has plummeted, despite having more than 325,000 enrollees. The Conservative party is an endangered species whose very existence is the subject of litigation (Kosowski v. Donovan) because it may not have elected enough members,
24

despite having almost 10,000 enrollees. Each committee must lawfully elect 568 members out of a possible 2,274 races. A large portion of those races now draw no candidates (for the Conservatives, about 75%). In the Republican races where there was a candidate, none were contested. Were it not for patronage (coercion), there would be even fewer participants. Plaintiffs Dekom and Jacoby are Republican and Pendleton a Conservative. The NY Scheme, particularly 6-136 (et seq) severely burdens plaintiffs Right to Associate. 46. Plaintiffs as voters allege the NY Scheme is a wholly unnecessary barrier to entry for candidates and stifles competition, frustrating their right to cast a meaningful ballot.

The right to vote denied 47. Absentee ballots are prohibited in a party position primary per Election Law 8400(9). NY now has no-fault absentee voting, and plaintiffs, in their capacity as voters, can reasonably expect to be absent. Being prohibited from voting in the race which would gain them the right to vote for a public official violates their rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It also violates their Equal Protection rights as a similarly situated voter in a party primary for public office can get an absentee ballot. 48. Military personnel are not allowed absentee ballots in party position primaries per Election Law 10-104. The voters in that race decide who gains the right to vote for a public official, the Elections Commissioner. Removing a substantial segment of the voting pool, military voters, severely burdens plaintiffs Rights to Vote. It violates their right of Equal Protection, in that a similarly situated
25

candidate who is less reliant on military support would have a substantial advantage. Note this also violates the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting MOVE Act. 49. Election Law 10-108(1)(a) also denies military personnel a ballot in party position primaries and the same argument as above is reiterated. 50. Plaintiffs aver they are possible candidates for future party positions and public offices, and that they will be harmed if the violations herein described are not remedied.

CONCLUSION In order to be nominated, New York would make a pregnant woman go door-to-door in a high crime area. It would make a man in a wheelchair go up stairs. It would make a senior citizen walk on icy walkways after dark. It wouldnt do anything to a Hispanic voter because hes locked out of the system, along with parts of our armed forces. This is what the government of New York considers the least restrictive means of exercising the right to vote.

Most states have done away with petitioning and rely on a filing fee. Exhibit E is a sampling of filing fee states varying in population, geography, and wealth. None have suffered any harm to democracy, either by ballot flooding or other means, even under the most vigorous tests. A filing fee to run for office is race-neutral, disability-neutral, party, age, gender, everything neutral; otherwise known as fair. A low fee, along with an in forma pauperis provision, ensures there is no economic discrimination.

26

Yet here we are still stuck with this century-old process with its quixotic rules. They should be in a museum- why do we still have them? Because politicians benefit. It keeps their competition down. It also vests major party county chairmen with extraordinary authority and influence over who gets nominated. This arrangement is ripe for patronage: hire my people, you get nominated. Whereas the rest of the nation has repudiated boss politics, New York breeds it.

The NY Scheme is widely known to be subject to gaming, so that a partys chairman, not the voters, picks the partys candidate. If one plowed through the thousands of pages of case law, statutes, and regulation, a reasonable person would conclude its purpose is specifically not to provide fair elections, but to perpetuate the power and influence of a few. Those two interests are fundamentally at odds. The only purpose the Election Code can serve is to provide an unequivocally fair system of determining government, through wholly democratic means, which allow for the widest possible participation. Due Process demands this system be and appear fair in all respects. The NY Scheme, not comporting with these ideals, is an insult to the American creed and a cancer on democracy.

RELIEF Wherefore, plaintiffs demand an Order: I. Temporarily and permanently enjoining: 1. defendants NYS Board of Election and Nassau County Board of Election, and any Boards of Election constituted under the laws of New York from enforcing the

27

rules regarding the validity of a designating petition found in 6-134 and wherever else they may be. 2. any party other than a Supreme Court or higher from executing or enforcing any provision of 6-154 after the word valid in 6-154.1. This shall not be construed as preventing a legal proceeding to enforce 6-122 eligibility requirements under Article 78 or by Election Law 16-102 proceeding. 3. defendants and any Boards of Election from enforcing any mathematical requirement for signatures on a petition found in 6-136 or wherever they may be. And requiring: 4. Defendants immediate compliance with VRA 203 and translate the designating petition into the triggered languages forthwith, and make them available on its websites. 5. Defendants immediate compliance with the MOVE Act and provide absentee and military ballots for all races forthwith upon request. 6. That a single page of a designating petition, filled in as to the candidates name, office sought, residence, and signed by the candidate at Witness, shall establish a candidacy per 6-118, as well as by other statute that may require a petition. 7. That upon receiving such a petition, any receiving Board verify the geographic eligibility of the candidate by means of the NYSVoter database or the state website at voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us, and relate those findings to the candidate by the fastest means at its disposal, and post same to its website, within 24 hours. 8. The processes outlined in # 6 & 7 be repeated for a candidate who receives Wilson-Pakula authorization, and #9, should the Court adopt it.
28

9. In the alternative, that such a petition be accompanied by a filing fee, as follows: a) not to exceed the greater of $1,000 or the average of the fee paid by major party gubernatorial candidates of the fifteen lowest cost states who use a fee system, not to exceed $500 (or half the fifteen state average) for a candidate whose jurisdiction is less than 100,000 voters, which amount as of March 20, 2012, is $1,000 and $500 respectively, and no fee for party position. b) an in forma pauperis fee of $20 for a candidate whose income is below the US Health and Human Services poverty income guidelines, and whose net worth is below it. c) any government body supervising an election, other than a Board of Elections, accept a filing fee of $100 and the described designating petition in lieu of any required signature petition, and such fee shall apply to unpaid public offices. d) That this fee apply for each party primary sought. 10. That defendants fully comply with the Voting Rights Act in regards to the election of all Elections Commissioners by June 15, 2012. And that by June 15, 2012: 11. Defendants revise the designating petition requiring only the data described in #6, above, and to include requests for candidate contact information, that such form be made available and posted to defendants websites. 12. That such form bear a red letter legend acknowledging that failure to file required disclosures may result in a fine of up to $500 per violation. 13. Bear another legend stating I declare that I am not a candidate for incompatible offices as defined by the laws of the State of New York, and that I am not a federal employee which makes me ineligible to file as a candidate for this office. I further
29

declare that I have support within the community, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and assume the duties of said office. 14. the State of New York adopt the least restrictive means of designating or nominating a candidate for party position or public office, that being such a candidacy is established in the same manner as in the Preliminary and Permanent Injunction of this Order. 15. The offending statutes be struck from all websites and guidance produced by defendants. 16. Defendants compile a running for office handbook not to exceed twenty pages, and where applicable make it available in VRA languages, and that it be linked and downloadable prominently on its website as a banner above the header, and of equal size, and that banner state in large letters: RUNNING FOR OFFICE IS NOW EASIER THAN EVER! 17. that all Boards of Election in New York compile a list of public offices and party positions for which it receives registration and publish it on its website, along with incumbent and term. 18. Failing a legislative solution to the issue of Elections Commissioners being elected only by a segment of the eligible voters, that all county Elections Commissioners be removed and replaced by one post to be publicly elected, and the State Elections Commissioners be removed and replaced by one post to be publicly elected, and that such election and primary election be concurrent with that of the State Assembly, except that the term of office be concurrent to the

30

2012 US Senator term, elected every six years hence, until such time as the legislature determines otherwise.

III. Award of costs and fees. IV. Other such relief as the Court sees fit.

31

EXHIBIT A
How to create a petition and a walk list.

32

Instructions on how to create a petition and walklist for a race for member of a county committee, in the most efficient way possible. You must have command of English because all the data is in English, and so is the designating petition form. You cannot vote for Elections Commissioner if you do not understand English. First, go to the county Board of Elections and submit a FOIL request for the voter roll, specify that you want it on an electronic medium. This used to cost $150, now its free. They may call you when its ready, otherwise follow up of your initiative. When ready, go retrieve it. Go to Staples and buy the following: a laptop ($299), a printer ($79.99), Microsoft Excel ($139.99) and a ream of legal paper ($11.49). Load the data onto the laptop as it is a large file (163 MB) and would be unwieldy to constantly reference it from a disk. It will take about three to five minutes to load. Save a copy with a different name, as sometimes it crashes and corrupts. I have had to replace the data file three times. Download the designating petition form from the NY Board of Elections website. Open a copy, then look up your record in the voter list. On the petition, fill in the name of the party and the primary date. Enter your name. Where it says Public Office or Party Position, be aware that under NY law, the name of an office is actually two things: the name of the office and a geographical description. If you fill in too little your petition may get objected, then again, the more data you provide, the more there is to object to. In Nassau it is typical to put in the name and number of the Election District, the Assembly District, the town, county, and state. Next fill in your place of residence. Under I do hereby appoint, fill in the names of three people registered in your party in your county who can serve as a vacancy committee, and their correct addresses. In the voter signing area, on the right side, fill in the name of the town where the voters reside, not you, ten times. When the voter signs, you can fill in the address, but you have to do it in his presence. Date it. Below that section, fill in your name, party, and your address. Tally up the number of signatures on the page and fill it in. Sign and date. Under Town, fill in the name of your town, not the voters, then the county. Sign and date when complete. In order to get signatures, you will need to find the people of your party in your neighborhood. This list, organized by street, is a walk list. So go back to Excel and the voter list. On the Home menu bar, click on Sort & Filter. On the dropdown menu, click filter. This will add an arrow next to all your headers at the top of the data columns. Move right 35 spaces to column AI, which has AD atop it. Click on the down arrow. On the menu, click (Select All) to un-select it, then click on your AD to select it. Press Ok. This removes all but your Assembly District from your list.
33

Move 5 spaces over to column AM, which has ED atop it. Click on the down arrow. On the menu, click (Select All) to un-select it, then click on your ED to select it. Press Ok. This removes all but your ED. Move to column D, which has PARTY atop it. Click on the down arrow. On the menu, click (Select All) to un-select it, then click on your party to select it. Press Ok. This removes all but your party. Now Save with a different filename, AD#-ED#, since you will need the master list again. It will take a few minutes to save. Go to Sort & Filter. Click on it, then click on Custom Sort. Click on the Sort by menu, choose ADDR_STR. Click Add level, click go to the new Sort by box, click ADDR_TYPE. Keep adding levels for ADDR_PDIR, ADDR_NUM, andADDR_OTHER. It must be done in this order. Click Ok when done. A dialog box will come up- Sort warning. Make sure the radio button is selected for Sort anything that looks like a number, as a number. Press Ok. Each voter record has 75 columns. Highlight everything but the name, address, and date of birth, and press delete. Print.

34

EXHIBIT B
NYSBOE petition guidance

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

EXHIBIT C
Civil Rights Era literacy test

48

 http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec59ps.html 49

 http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec59ps.html 50

 http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec59ps.html

51

EXHIBIT D
Select major party signature requirements for public office

52

53

EXHIBIT E
Various Filing Fee states, cost to run for Governor, US House

54

Various "filing fee" states, cost for established party US House 100 1740 1760 500 900 100 100 100 200 1740 1740 1740 50 300 750 100 435 1740 1740 200

STATE Governor AK 100 CA 3500 KS 1920 500 1100 290 300 200 300 1945 1396 1050 100 300 1500 100 536 1669 1500 200 KY LA MD MN MO MS MT NC NE NH NV OK OR UT WA WV WY

Web
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/forms/B05.pdf http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_cand.htm http://www.kssos.org/elections/12elec/2012_Election_Fact_Sheet.pdf http://elect.ky.gov/candidate/Pages/default.aspx http://www.sos.la.gov/Portals/0/elections/pdf/FEES2010120209.pdf http://www.elections.state.md.us/candidacy/requirements.html http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=895 http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012primary/2012candfiling.asp http://www.sos.ms.gov/elections_candidates_lobbyists_center.aspx http://sos.mt.gov/elections/ http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=64 http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/2012/pdf/Filing%20Fee%20Schedule.pdf http://www.sos.nh.gov/faqs.pdf http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2222 http://www.ok.gov/elections/documents/packet10.pdf http://oregonvotes.org/pages/cand/index.html http://elections.utah.gov/register/becoming-a-federal-candidate http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/ http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/Pages/Candidates_and_Committees.aspx http://soswy.state.wy.us/Elections/Elections.aspx

55