| As noted in several previous diaries by Global Yokel and myself here at The Albany Project, Ciampoli and Walsh (abetted by Jim Paroli, Jr., of the Dutchess County Parolis) have been engaged in a concerted effort to frighten dual home owners in Columbia County out of exercising their legitimate right to vote here in the Valley.
Their effort, which began with all Democratic-leaning absentee voters in Columbia County with dual residency, then was narrowed to the tiny town of Taghkanic, aimed at setting a new statewide precedent -- and overturning decades of court rulings -- which would "cage" as many Democratic voters in NYC as possible.
Ciampoli attempted to get Republican Judge Jonathan Nichols to let him subpoena dozens and dozens of voters -- some of whom registered to vote in Taghkanic way back in the early 70s -- for a laundry list of personal records, from magazine subscriptions to bank statements. His goal: If I can't get their votes thrown out, at least maybe I'll scare them out of exercising their rights.
Ciampoli and his team never presented a shred of credible evidence of fraud, even as they ranted ominously in the press that they were going to expose all kinds of misdeeds. Pressed repeatedly to cough up the evidence, they kept hemming and hawing about how they would prove their case... Later. After their fishing expedition with the subpoena, which even Judge Nichols balked at issuing.
Well, the Appellate Court would have none of it. While properly upholding the right for parties to mount legitimate and timely challenges in the event of actual fraud, they firmly rejected Ciampoli's attempt to grill these voters as if they were common criminals. The court found that, despite his claims to the contrary, he wasn't just challenging their ballots, but challenging their residency. And he failed to bring the challenges in the proper manner, which was before people were issued ballots by the Board of Elections.
More importantly, the court clearly and succinctly noted that the dual residency issue Ciampoli was trying to re-argue is a matter of settled law. They cited the so-called Willkie case in Bovina (NY), which they heard and decided in the voters favor in late 2008, as once again finding that if you have more than one residence, you can choose which of those residences from which to vote:
[T]o the extent that petitioners do, in fact,
premise any challenges on voters' dual residency, we note that
the law regarding a voter choosing among residences for election
purposes is interpreted broadly (see Matter of Willkie v Delaware
County Bd. of Elections, 55 AD3d 1088, 1089-1090 [2008])
The court thus sent everything back to Nichols with these clear instructions, which effectively eviscerate the heart of Ciampoli's case. (All that will be considered now is a handful of ballot challenges on routine technical matters like signatures, which almost never succeed.)
And if he tries it all over again next year, there is now one more emphatic ruling in the 3rd Department to prevent this nonsense from getting out of hand again.
People are celebrating here in Columbia County, but anyone who votes absentee ought to be celebrating all over the State.
UPDATE: Here is the press release about the decision from the Columbia County Democratic Committee:
Columbia County Democratic Committee
PRESS RELEASE
December 18, 2009
Contact: Christopher Nolan
Chrisanolan3@gmail.com
Appellate Division Upholds Democratic Committee and Reaffirms Voting Rights of Second-Home Owners
Today, the Appellate Division of the NYS Court sided with the Democratic Committee in upholding second-home owners' right to choose from which residence to vote. In issuing its decision, the Court threw out all Republican challenges based on absentee voters' dual residency, finding that such challenges may not be made after a ballot has already been issued. The case survives only as to those challenges that were not being contested in this appeal. This important decision validates the rigorous defense of dual residents' voting rights made by our attorney, Kathleen O'Keefe and Commissioner Martin's attorney, Dan Burstein. We are pleased that this issue has now been settled and that the court yet again has recognized the voting rights of second-home owners. This pro-voter decision makes it clear that the voter suppression tactics used by the Republican Party in this case are not permitted. |
