Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Court to look into ballots
Republicans have dropped challenges of ballots in all races except Taghkanic
By Jamie Larson
While Columbia County residents cast their votes for town and county officials on Nov. 3, some of the closest races are still technically undecided as 297 absentee ballots were challenged by party attorneys last week. Republican attorneys have challenged the legitimacy of 244 votes while Democratic lawyers have challenged 53.
Tuesday however it was announced that Republicans may have dropped their challenges against all ballots except those in the town of Taghkanic where the tightest remaining contest remains between Republican incumbent Elizabeth Young and Loretta Hoffmann.
The still unopened ballots from any still contested areas are headed to Columbia County court on Monday, where the perceived flaws identified by lawyers will be evaluated by a judge. Though ballots were challenged for other reasons as well, Republicans made the majority of their challenges on the grounds that duel homeowners casting ballots in the county were voting from their secondary residence and should be voting at their primary residence, most of which are in the New York City area.
There has been substantial legal precedent over the past 30 years to validate the votes of “weekenders” who have had their ballots challenged, but Columbia County Republican Committee Chairman Greg Fingar said this time is different. “We’ve done our homework,” Fingar told the Register Star in a previous story.
Fingar told the Register-Star that this time around the Republicans are not just challenging any voter with a New York City address, as was practice in the April special election for U.S. Representative between Scott Murphy and James Tedisco, which also came down to absentees. Fingar said private investigators were hired to go to the city addresses of second home owners who applied for absentee ballots in the county and determine just how primary their metropolitan residence is. Fingar said the investigators looked through public city records and interviewed landlords.
Fingar said they were successful in finding a number of voters with STAR school tax exemptions, and rent controlled apartments in the city. For both of these the residences must be legally classified as primary. Fingar did not say how many of these situations were found, or what amount of their challenges addressed this issue.
While the Republicans may have put in the extra leg work this year they are facing significant New York state legal precedent, which has time and again sided with the voters.
According to election law 5-102 and 1-104(22), a residence is defined as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.”
There is substantial legal precedent for secondary residence votes being upheld in New York State Supreme Court rulings. In the 1983 case of Ferguson vs. McNab, the state ruled that “a person having two residences ‘may choose one to which she has legitimate, significant and continuing attachments as her residence for purposes of the Election Law.’”
In the more current, 2008 appellate case, Willkie vs. Board of Elections, which originated in Bovina in Delaware County, the court held that the principle stated in the 1983 decision protects the legitimacy of votes cast by second homeowners, who chose to vote from their country home. In that case, five Bovina voters with an additional residence outside the town had their ballots challenged because their upstate home was not deemed by the Board of Elections to be their primary residence.
The court ruled in favor of the voters and consistently with the previous legal precedent. “Significantly,” the court decision reads, “the inquiry is not which of (the) petitioners’ duel residences is, ‘the more appropriate one’ for voting purposes, but whether the residence held by petitioners is a legitimate one (People v. O’Hara, 1996 NY2d at 385). The record herein is devoid of any suggestion that any petitioner herein has attempted to ‘create an address solely for the purpose of circumventing residency requirements.’”
The Register-Star located no less then five additional cases relating to the voting of second homeowners and all of those cases inevitably sided with the voter, ruling that the resident should have their ballot counted.
Despite the overwhelming precedent the case in Columbia County will move forward with Republican officials and attorneys hoping that their investigations have turned up legitimate voter fraud that will disqualify a number of weekender votes. Fingar also hinted that they have found voters who are registered in two locations at once, a potentially serious offense, if intentional.
To reach reporter Jamie Larson call 518-828-1616, ext. 2269, or e-mail jlarson@registerstar.com.
Tuesday however it was announced that Republicans may have dropped their challenges against all ballots except those in the town of Taghkanic where the tightest remaining contest remains between Republican incumbent Elizabeth Young and Loretta Hoffmann.
The still unopened ballots from any still contested areas are headed to Columbia County court on Monday, where the perceived flaws identified by lawyers will be evaluated by a judge. Though ballots were challenged for other reasons as well, Republicans made the majority of their challenges on the grounds that duel homeowners casting ballots in the county were voting from their secondary residence and should be voting at their primary residence, most of which are in the New York City area.
There has been substantial legal precedent over the past 30 years to validate the votes of “weekenders” who have had their ballots challenged, but Columbia County Republican Committee Chairman Greg Fingar said this time is different. “We’ve done our homework,” Fingar told the Register Star in a previous story.
Fingar told the Register-Star that this time around the Republicans are not just challenging any voter with a New York City address, as was practice in the April special election for U.S. Representative between Scott Murphy and James Tedisco, which also came down to absentees. Fingar said private investigators were hired to go to the city addresses of second home owners who applied for absentee ballots in the county and determine just how primary their metropolitan residence is. Fingar said the investigators looked through public city records and interviewed landlords.
Fingar said they were successful in finding a number of voters with STAR school tax exemptions, and rent controlled apartments in the city. For both of these the residences must be legally classified as primary. Fingar did not say how many of these situations were found, or what amount of their challenges addressed this issue.
While the Republicans may have put in the extra leg work this year they are facing significant New York state legal precedent, which has time and again sided with the voters.
According to election law 5-102 and 1-104(22), a residence is defined as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.”
There is substantial legal precedent for secondary residence votes being upheld in New York State Supreme Court rulings. In the 1983 case of Ferguson vs. McNab, the state ruled that “a person having two residences ‘may choose one to which she has legitimate, significant and continuing attachments as her residence for purposes of the Election Law.’”
In the more current, 2008 appellate case, Willkie vs. Board of Elections, which originated in Bovina in Delaware County, the court held that the principle stated in the 1983 decision protects the legitimacy of votes cast by second homeowners, who chose to vote from their country home. In that case, five Bovina voters with an additional residence outside the town had their ballots challenged because their upstate home was not deemed by the Board of Elections to be their primary residence.
The court ruled in favor of the voters and consistently with the previous legal precedent. “Significantly,” the court decision reads, “the inquiry is not which of (the) petitioners’ duel residences is, ‘the more appropriate one’ for voting purposes, but whether the residence held by petitioners is a legitimate one (People v. O’Hara, 1996 NY2d at 385). The record herein is devoid of any suggestion that any petitioner herein has attempted to ‘create an address solely for the purpose of circumventing residency requirements.’”
The Register-Star located no less then five additional cases relating to the voting of second homeowners and all of those cases inevitably sided with the voter, ruling that the resident should have their ballot counted.
Despite the overwhelming precedent the case in Columbia County will move forward with Republican officials and attorneys hoping that their investigations have turned up legitimate voter fraud that will disqualify a number of weekender votes. Fingar also hinted that they have found voters who are registered in two locations at once, a potentially serious offense, if intentional.
To reach reporter Jamie Larson call 518-828-1616, ext. 2269, or e-mail jlarson@registerstar.com.
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| Occupants slated for Ockawamick released | Woman charged with grand larceny |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
Kay Abraham wrote on Nov 25, 2009 9:07 AM:
" This is an example of just how far the Republican Party, with Gregg Fingar as its leader, will go to harass and intimidate second home voters in Columbia County. Fingar continues to use definitions of 'residency" that are not applicable to election law as the excuse to challenge the right of folks to vote. I know the County may be slowly turning "Blue" and perhaps that is the reason for the desperate and thuggish tactics used against voters who may be likely to vote Democratic. I see they have "backed off" challenges except for the town of Taghonic, but the damage to voters confidence has been done. Shame on them. And I'm going to love to see how many cases of "voter fraud" are actually found. "
nysteve wrote on Nov 25, 2009 10:42 AM:
" Kay, There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Do you think it is right for second homeowners to vote here. I don’t think so. Columbia county is turning Blue just for that reason. Many people for the city say my vote doesn’t matter in the city, so I’ll vote in the country. The upper west side is not turning red because of this but a weekend population is effecting the way of political makeup of a community that they spend 2-3 days a week in. I understand that you pay taxes here, as do I, but be honest with yourself.
You say “This is an example of just how far the Republican Party, with Gregg Fingar as its leader, will go to harass and intimidate second home voters in Columbia County”. Harass, intimidate, Where you denied the right to vote? They are only challenging your and others vote in court. Is that so bad.
-steve h.
NYC/Columbia County "
You say “This is an example of just how far the Republican Party, with Gregg Fingar as its leader, will go to harass and intimidate second home voters in Columbia County”. Harass, intimidate, Where you denied the right to vote? They are only challenging your and others vote in court. Is that so bad.
-steve h.
NYC/Columbia County "
sampratt wrote on Nov 25, 2009 3:01 PM:
" Check out the business description provided by Fingar Insurance at the Chamber of Commerce's website:
Fingar Insurance... "specializing in seasonal or weekend homeowner insurance, auto, boat, recreational and life insurance."
How can someone court weekend homeowners' business with one hand, and attack their voting rights with the other? As a full-time resident who does business with Fingar, I am very disappointed to see Greg going after my friends and neighbors' most American rights.
It's a simple and well-established fact (as suggested in the article above) that the definition of "primary" residence is entirely different for voting purposes than for rent control or STAR exemptions. These heavyhanded gumshoe tactics by the State and County GOP are meant to intimidate voters, not to ensure clean elections. "
Fingar Insurance... "specializing in seasonal or weekend homeowner insurance, auto, boat, recreational and life insurance."
How can someone court weekend homeowners' business with one hand, and attack their voting rights with the other? As a full-time resident who does business with Fingar, I am very disappointed to see Greg going after my friends and neighbors' most American rights.
It's a simple and well-established fact (as suggested in the article above) that the definition of "primary" residence is entirely different for voting purposes than for rent control or STAR exemptions. These heavyhanded gumshoe tactics by the State and County GOP are meant to intimidate voters, not to ensure clean elections. "
stonepound wrote on Nov 25, 2009 4:14 PM:
" Hey the republican excuse of saying these are all second home owners is a lie. Lots of people with medial reasons are being denied the right to vote. Even if it were true it is still a bunch of BS.
Have a little respect for america you phony tea baggers. "
Have a little respect for america you phony tea baggers. "
OV Observer wrote on Nov 26, 2009 12:21 PM:
" Ms. Abraham is exactly right. This particular Republican crusade is not about revealing fraud. Nor is it about a good faith attempt to evoke a change in the law. Plain and simple, this is about voter intimidation.
Notwithstanding binding and longstanding legal precedent which holds, unequivocally, that a voter may vote wherever he or she has a legitimate residence, Chairman Fingar continues to wrongfully assert in his comments to this paper that there is some legal significance to the distinction between primary and secondary residences when it comes to voting. This attempt to mislead the voting public about what the law requires has been combined with the sinister specter of investigators descending upon voters' New York City residences to "prove" that the interlopers from downstate are perpetrating election fraud. Then comes commenters like NYSteve, who trumpet their own self-perceived ethical purity as a means of pointing out how "wrong" it is that people with dual residences have the audacity to vote upstate. Just as Republicans have historically sought to suppress voter turnout in minority communities which traditionally vote Democratic by invoking allegations of voter fraud and threats of prosecution, these efforts seem geared towards dissuading dual residence holders from exercising their constitutional right to vote wherever they are entitled to.
This calculated campaign of misinformation also seems specifically targeted to play upon a divide that has existed in Columbia County for a generation or more; that between "locals" (or natives) and "weekenders." Local animosity towards New York City folks (or "Citidiots" as they are often referred to in certain quarters) has been a longstanding undercurrent in Columbia County affairs borne of cultural and economic differences, as well as, in some instances, simple xenophobia or homophobia. That this current Republican scheme seeks to take advantage of this divide is apparent in the comment appearing after a related article on this issue which laments the fact that "rich" voters from downstate are able to impose their "agenda" on local politics. Long story short, this is chapter one in the Republican playbook. Just as ideologues like Sarah Palin talk about the "real" parts of America with a wink and a nod, the local Republican machine seeks to exacerbate the differences between us in a cynical game of "us vs. them" politics.
Make no mistake, regardless of how this plays out in the courts, this particular Republican venture is only tangentially about this year's race in Taghkanic or any other hotly-contested local campaign. Rather, this about suppressing Democratic-leaning votes in future elections, particularly in next year's pivotal races. Faced with Columbia County enrollment figures that have been overwhelmingly trending Democratic in recent years, and crippled by a national party organization that increasingly values strict adherence to a limited set of ideological principles over the promulgation of new policies which might attract more voters to their cause, Republicans have chosen to resort to lawsuits and the publicity attendant to them in an attempt to persuade a certain portion of Democratic voters that they are not entitled to vote upstate. This politics of negativity is just further evidence that modern Republicanism is solely about winning elections at any cost and not about actually governing with the people's best interest in mind. "
Notwithstanding binding and longstanding legal precedent which holds, unequivocally, that a voter may vote wherever he or she has a legitimate residence, Chairman Fingar continues to wrongfully assert in his comments to this paper that there is some legal significance to the distinction between primary and secondary residences when it comes to voting. This attempt to mislead the voting public about what the law requires has been combined with the sinister specter of investigators descending upon voters' New York City residences to "prove" that the interlopers from downstate are perpetrating election fraud. Then comes commenters like NYSteve, who trumpet their own self-perceived ethical purity as a means of pointing out how "wrong" it is that people with dual residences have the audacity to vote upstate. Just as Republicans have historically sought to suppress voter turnout in minority communities which traditionally vote Democratic by invoking allegations of voter fraud and threats of prosecution, these efforts seem geared towards dissuading dual residence holders from exercising their constitutional right to vote wherever they are entitled to.
This calculated campaign of misinformation also seems specifically targeted to play upon a divide that has existed in Columbia County for a generation or more; that between "locals" (or natives) and "weekenders." Local animosity towards New York City folks (or "Citidiots" as they are often referred to in certain quarters) has been a longstanding undercurrent in Columbia County affairs borne of cultural and economic differences, as well as, in some instances, simple xenophobia or homophobia. That this current Republican scheme seeks to take advantage of this divide is apparent in the comment appearing after a related article on this issue which laments the fact that "rich" voters from downstate are able to impose their "agenda" on local politics. Long story short, this is chapter one in the Republican playbook. Just as ideologues like Sarah Palin talk about the "real" parts of America with a wink and a nod, the local Republican machine seeks to exacerbate the differences between us in a cynical game of "us vs. them" politics.
Make no mistake, regardless of how this plays out in the courts, this particular Republican venture is only tangentially about this year's race in Taghkanic or any other hotly-contested local campaign. Rather, this about suppressing Democratic-leaning votes in future elections, particularly in next year's pivotal races. Faced with Columbia County enrollment figures that have been overwhelmingly trending Democratic in recent years, and crippled by a national party organization that increasingly values strict adherence to a limited set of ideological principles over the promulgation of new policies which might attract more voters to their cause, Republicans have chosen to resort to lawsuits and the publicity attendant to them in an attempt to persuade a certain portion of Democratic voters that they are not entitled to vote upstate. This politics of negativity is just further evidence that modern Republicanism is solely about winning elections at any cost and not about actually governing with the people's best interest in mind. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
nysteve wrote on Nov 25, 2009 7:46 AM:
-steve h.
NYC/Columbia County "