SD-1: Court orders Regina Calcaterra off the ballot for residency reasons.

Well (0.00 / 0)

It was an interesting opinion to read, and the judge was very sympathetic.  Let's see what the 1st Department says.

---

by: BingChester @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:13:08 AM UTC

Correction (0.00 / 0)

________________________________________________________

The wording here is quite relevant, since while it explicitly states residency in the district for at least 12 months immediately prior to the election, it does NOT specify that the five years' residency in New York State needs to have been continuous, or immediately prior to the election. That is simply the assumption of the court, and may be grounds for a reversal later on via higher court, even if the first line argument fails.
_________________________________________________________

FYI-The Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in 2002 that the residency requirement means 5 years immediately before election day. The Democratic/Independence candidate in the 99th AD was tossed from the ballot for not being a resident of NYS for 5 years immediately prior to election day.

Here is a link to that case:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyc...

The evidence presented in this case should be sufficient to keep her off the ballot. It is unfortunate that Ken Lavelle will likely run opposed, but based on recent case law, this will probably be the case.

Here is a link to the courts ruling today. See pages 8-9 for the evidence that the judge used to rule in favor of the objectors.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3562...

---

by: GOP_RIP @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:28:25 AM UTC

The continuous residency requirement remains simply the assumption of the court. (0.00 / 0)

And in my view, not a particularly good one given the fact that continuous residency requirements WERE spelled out for one year in the district, and 5 years for governor. If the writers of the NYS constitution had intended 5 years uninterrupted, why didn't they make that plain as they had with the other two?  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:43:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vomit (0.00 / 0)

I almost threw up when the first name I saw on this was John Ciampoli.  This guy does not seem to ever go away, and from what I've heard, he's not all that great a litigant, but really good at having his case heard by sympathetic judges.

I remember he was involved in some shenanigans with the Tedisco/Murphy race.  

---

by: Chris Sasiadek @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 13:48:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Punch in the gut (0.00 / 0)

let's hope she can pull it out

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:42:21 AM UTC

New York's lawmakers are idiots (0.00 / 0)

We are faced with yet another example of the state constitution being written by Sarah Palin level idiots. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals, rather than force us to deal with the consequences of such stupidity, has generally ruled along the lines of, "Yes, you're a bunch of schmucks, but we're going bail your lame asses out."

In this case, it's clear that the constitution should be interpreted to say that the five-year rule need not be continuous and immediately prior to election day. Of course that's silly -- it should have been written to make it clear that it is continuous and immediately prior to election day -- but the idiots who wrote it didn't bother to think. And now we're in this mess.

The best thing the Court of Appeals could do, should this case get to them, is say, "We're done bailing you out. Get it together, and do it now." They can do this by putting Calcaterra back on the ballot.

If the state's constitution is so badly written (and it is), we should wonder how badly the state's laws are written.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:22:45 PM UTC

This is a good law. (0.00 / 0)

I don't want people from New Jersey running for office in NYS. If we ever do get a clean government, this rule will make more sense.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 22:45:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't want them either (0.00 / 0)

My point is that the state constitution has parts that were written by idiots.  The question of the appointment of Richard Ravitch as LG was a classic example, Ms. Calcaterra's problems are another.

If the constitution is so badly written, what about the laws passed under that constitution?  How may of them are impossibly vague or self-contradictory?  We need to appoint a blue-ribbon panel with a two-year mandate to review the state constitution and the consolidated laws, and to recommend changes designed only to clean up the mess that our lawmakers have made.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 16:59:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poor argument on Calcaterra's part... (4.00 / 1)

Having read more about this, it seems that Calcaterra preferred to argue that she was continuously a New York resident, which have have been the politically smarter argument to make, but the weaker legal argument.  With a PA driver's license, address, and paying PA taxes, it is hard to argue that she has continuously been a NY resident.

I think that you are spot on, though, Adama, in arguing that because the Constitution specifically states the one year residency in the district must immediately precede the candidacy AND because the Constitution specifically states that a candidate for governor must live in the state for the five years immediately before the election, it must be presumed that such a requirement does NOT exist for election to the state legislature.

I just wish that that was the argument they made.

It's like David Boies not making an equal protection argument in Bush v. Gore.....

---

by: Chris Sasiadek @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 14:28:54 PM UTC

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

With a PA driver's license, address, and paying PA taxes, it is hard to argue that she has continuously been a NY resident.

For a time, she wouldn't even have qualified for in-state tuition.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 22:47:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

These are tough calls (0.00 / 0)

I'm of the belief that challenges to nominating petitions are a necessary legal precaution used to ensure fairness and compliance in the democratic process, and I have no patience for partisans who would hope to exploit the existence of such a challenge for such arguments appeal to the lowest common demoninator in legal understanding.

That said, they are tough calls.  Most of the time, you just get rid of the joke candidates or the really crooked ones.  But sometimes, and this is one of them, when following the letter of the law has unintended results.  The bright side is that things have to actually go wrong before they can be fixed; there's no hypotheticals in American justice.

Here's hoping Calceterra good luck in the future, if not in 2010 then in 2012.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 17:24:06 PM UTC

Is this not something (0.00 / 0)

that a committee TFV can nominate a new candidate because of?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 22:48:07 PM UTC

good point (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jmcbride @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 00:39:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Does it matter? (0.00 / 0)

If they nominated a new candidate at this point, then the election is pretty much lost.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:06:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Its too late for a new candidate as (0.00 / 0)

all legislative candidates, incumbents and challengers had to submit the petitions in July. Only the statewide candidates nominated at the conventions can avoid the petition process.

---

by: GOP_RIP @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:32:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The petition process is irrelevant. (0.00 / 0)

If, after petitioning is complete, the candidate is for whatever reason unable to be on the ballot--death, disqualification, moves out of state, whatever--then the decision of who runs on the ticket goes to the Committee to Fill Vacancies, a group designated on the original petitions. In this case, it would probably be representatives from each Democratic county committee within the electoral district.

However, the CTFV is also irrelevant. If you tried to start out from scratch with a new candidate at this point in the election cycle, you might as well just go home and call it a day. Either Calcaterra wins the challenge on appeal, or we lose the 1st SD.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:43:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Really Makes No Sense is. (0.00 / 0)

that the residency requirement does not apply to federal offices as Hillary Clinton could not run for any state office back in 2000, but was eligible to run for the U.S. Senate.

---

by: GOP_RIP @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:25:46 AM UTC

Requirements for federal office (0.00 / 0)

The eligibility requirements for Federal office are set by the US Constitution and the states cannot modify them.

Every couple of years, some state tries to enact term limits on Federal officeholders and they inevitably are struck down.

---

by: Chris Sasiadek @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 13:43:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what an incredible bunch of sissies these old timers are... (0.00 / 0)

... still running scared after all these years!

---

by: teaparty2 @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:55:59 AM UTC

Keep the faith (0.00 / 0)

We in the Calcaterra campaign are keeping the faith while awaiting the appeal process next week.

The candidate has continued to campaign and the office is still open and active.

We hope to have good news for you by friday until then-keep the faith.

---

by: Socrates @ Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 16:41:23 PM UTC