Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 890
I.
BACKGROUND
2
Appellees James J. Lack and Robert C. Wertz are members of the Republican
Party who in 1978 ran successfully for the offices of State Senator for the
Second Senatorial District and Assemblyman for the Fourth Assembly District,
respectively.1 In addition to carrying the banner of their own party, Lack and
Wertz had also been nominated as the candidates of the Conservative Party in
accordance with state law and party charter. Appellants Robert Mrazek and
Rudolph F. X. Migliore are registered members of the Democratic Party who
opposed Lack and Wertz in the 1978 general election, and appellants Leslie
Fitzpatrick and Grace Holzmacher are enrolled members of the Conservative
Party who, at the relevant time, resided within the Second Senatorial and
Fourth Assembly Districts. No claim is made that Mrazek or Migliore sought
the endorsement of the Conservative Party, or that Fitzpatrick or Holzmacher
endeavored to obtain the nominations for themselves, for other party members
or for persons unaffiliated with the Conservative Party.
Although the election is long since over and the matter plainly moot as to Lack
and Wertz, Clark v. Rose, 531 F.2d 56, 57 (2d Cir. 1976), appellants seek
prospective relief in the nature of a declaration of the invalidity of the manner
in which Conservative Party endorsements for intra-county state political
offices are conferred upon persons not formally affiliated with the party. New
York's "Wilson-Pakula" law, now codified as New York Election Law 6120(3) (McKinney 1978),2 requires that a candidate soliciting the endorsement
of a political party with which he is not affiliated obtain the approval of the
appropriate party committee before filing a petition with the county board of
elections designating him as that party organization's endorsed candidate.
Article IX, Section 6(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the Conservative Party
of New York State (1974) permits endorsements of non-party candidacies for
intra-county political offices to be made in conformity with procedures set forth
by the party's appropriate county committee. See Restivo v. Conservative Party
of the State of New York, 391 F.Supp. 813, 816 n.2 (S.D.N.Y.1975). Under
Article V, Section 2(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the Suffolk County
Committee of the Conservative Party of New York State (1976), the power to
authorize non-party candidacies is effectively delegated to an Executive
Committee, which unlike its parent body, meets with some regularity.
4
There are four senatorial and ten assembly districts within Suffolk County. The
Second Senatorial District embraces some or all of two towns, Smithtown and
Huntington, and the Fourth Assembly District lies within Smithtown. Both
political units are situated in the western urban portion of the county. From the
record before this Court it appears that the five western towns contain
significantly greater numbers of Conservative Party members than the five
towns located in the eastern, rural reaches of the county.5 Notwithstanding this
potential malapportionment of representation on the Executive Committee, an
issue which is not raised by appellants, the votes of all members of the
Executive Committee are counted equally for purposes of making non-party
endorsements.
II.
THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
8
In July, 1978, after Lack and Wertz had obtained the authorization of the
Executive Committee and had duly filed their designating petitions with the
County Board of Elections, Mrazek and Migliore instituted an action in State
Supreme Court pursuant to New York Election Law 16-102, seeking to block
their nominations. From the record before us the precise basis for the state
court suit is unclear, but it appears that without reaching the merits of the
complaint the court dismissed the action on the ground that neither Mrazek nor
Migliore possessed standing to vindicate rights belonging to members of the
Conservative Party. The decision was affirmed without opinion by the
Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals declined to entertain the case.
10
11
12
and Wertz and to obtain an order striking their names from the Conservative
Party line at the general election. Furthermore they prayed for a declaration
that the relevant state law was unconstitutional inasmuch as it countenanced
party rules permitting the abridgement of the voting rights of its members.
13
14
Ruling that the issue presented had not been mooted by the election, 10 the
district court rejected plaintiffs' claim and dismissed the complaint pursuant to
a memorandum opinion dated June 7, 1979. Judge Weinstein stated at the
outset that plaintiffs had failed to adduce a sufficient factual foundation for their
assertion, and that the dilution of voting power of which they complained was
not conclusively shown to be "anything more than the subtle but legal
attenuation" permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment, Mrazek v. Suffolk
County Board of Elections, supra, 471 F.Supp. at 414.11 The court ruled
further, however, that even if the data established that substantial power had
been exercised by committeepersons representing Conservatives residing
outside the affected districts, and assuming further that this participation
constituted a diminishment of the voting rights of local party members, the
procedure was nevertheless constitutionally valid in view of strong
countervailing state interests and policy considerations. The court cited the
enhanced need on the part of fringe parties for strong centralized leadership and
for consistent adherence to the party's platforms, both of which legitimate
objectives could be subverted if small numbers of party members in individual
districts had the ability to cause "idiosyncratic departures from policy,"
Mrazek, supra, 471 F.Supp. at 415. Additionally, the court recognized that the
opportunity for disaffected loyalists to mount a primary, together with the
petition requirement, sufficiently ensured the party faithful against
irresponsible conferral of the Conservative Party nomination upon a nonmember by the Executive Committee, or the imposition of unacceptable nonparty candidates upon local party members by a remote organization. Judge
Weinstein further noted that the perceived diminishment of voting power
within the district was offset by the right of district residents to participate in
the selection of non-party candidates for offices in neighboring districts.
Montano v. Lefkowitz, supra , was distinguished as turning not upon
Fourteenth Amendment considerations, but upon provisions in Article I, Section
2 of the Constitution pertaining to the election of Congressmen, and as
involving a special election pursuant to which there was no opportunity to
16
Appellants allege, in essence, that their voting rights are violated by the
participation of non-resident party members in the selection of candidates for
political office in their district. Such interference, in their view, contravenes the
one-person, one-vote doctrine. We disagree. The fact that state law and party
charter contemplate a procedure impinging upon the autonomy of local
subdivisions to select non-party candidates may, in the view of some political
scientists or social theorists, be regrettable, but such a mechanism is not
violative of the guarantee of one-person, one-vote.
17
This is simply because however diluted the votes of local party members may
be by outsider intervention into non-party nominations for their state
representatives, their own votes, within the affected districts, remain entirely
equal. The one-person, one-vote doctrine requires no more, and does not create
rights and privileges beyond this warranty of mathematical equivalency of
votes. We reiterate that appellants' theory does not invite us to assay the
comparative representation of different towns on the Executive Committee, and
the complaint does not assail the legitimacy of that body as it is presently
constituted. Consequently, we need not compare the weight accorded the
ballots of district residents with those of non-district residents: assuming the
applicability of a one-party member, one-vote standard to party nominating
procedures, appellants do not charge nor have they presented sufficient
evidence to establish, that the representation on the Executive Committee was
malapportioned. The claim at bar is simply that the equal protection clause is
violated by any substantial input which non-resident party members may have
in the endorsement of non-party candidates for state office in other political
districts. This misconceives the one-person, one-vote principle: that doctrine
19
20
Appellants' challenge must, for the reasons set forth above, be rejected.
Needless to add, we do not pass upon the issue of whether the Executive
Committee representation allotted to Conservative Party members such as
Fitzpatrick or Holzmacher was in accordance with the mathematical
requirements of the one-person, one-vote principle. It is also unnecessary to
decide a number of intriguing issues addressed by the district court, such as
whether the one-person, one-vote doctrine may be relaxed as applied to fringe
parties whose continued existence may depend on adherence to strong,
centralized leadership; whether the states must be accorded more deference in
the conduct of their own, as opposed to federal, elections; and whether
Montano v. Lefkowitz, supra, would have been decided differently had the
opportunity for a primary existed or if Bronx County was racially, ethnically
and economically homogenous.
22
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
LUMBARD, Circuit Judge (concurring):
23
I would affirm the dismissal of the complaint, substantially for the reasons set
forth in Judge Weinstein's opinion, 471 F.Supp. 412 (E.D.N.Y.1979).
Both districts are located in Suffolk County. The official election results as
tabulated by the Suffolk County Board of Elections were as follows:
Mrazek (D)
Lack (R)
Lack (C)
Migliore (D)
Wertz (R)
Wertz (C)
-------
44,001
39,166
9,145
13,178
19,327
4,109
One town member of the Executive Committee represents the towns of Shelter
Island and Southold, each of which is located in the eastern portion of the
county. Consequently, the ten towns of Suffolk are present on the Executive
Committee by nine town representatives
Citing official records, appellants note that as of 1977, there were 14,848
registered Conservatives domiciled in the five western towns of the county, and
only 1,146 enrolled party members residing in the five eastern towns. As
previously noted, notwithstanding this seemingly substantial discrepancy, the
five western towns boasted five representatives on the Executive Committee,
while the five eastern towns had four. The actual breakdown was as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
western towns
Babylon
2383
Brookhaven
4083
Huntington
2675
Islip
3932
Smithtown
1775
-----Total 14,848
eastern towns
Southold
173
Shelter Island
84
Southampton
596
Easthampton
111
Riverhead
182
----Total 1,146
Appellees maintain that both Lack and Wertz obtained signatures on their
designating petitions containing in excess of 20 percent of the party enrollment
in the districts in which they stood for election, a figure far greater than that
required under pertinent provisions of the Election Law
Appellants do not raise any issue concerning the legality of state laws or party
rules precluding unaffiliated persons from compelling a primary election as
between themselves and the non-party candidate authorized by the Executive
Committee to seek the Conservative nomination. There exist obvious and
legitimate state interests in safeguarding political parties from disruption or
subversion through the attempts of unenrolled persons to capture their support,
and the constitutional validity of rules insulating parties from such forays has
long been acknowledged. As was well stated in Clark v. Rose, 379 F.Supp. 73,
76-78 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (three judge court):
The Supreme Court has held that a state such as New York has a "legitimate
interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot," Bullock v. Carter,
405 U.S. 134, 145, 92 S.Ct. 849, 856, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972), and "in avoiding
confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process ..." that
can result from an excessive number of non-party candidates. . . .
If to open the Liberal Party to one non-member candidate were to open it to
five, ten or twenty non-member candidates, voter confusion at a primary
election would be a real possibility. The effect could be not only confusion but
deception as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Jenness, supra, and
Bullock, supra. Another party in New York, for example, might encourage or
induce one or more of its members to seek authorization to appear on the
Liberal Party primary ballot in order to undercut the chances of the candidate
thought by the bulk of the Liberal Party members to best reflect their Party's
philosophy and views. Conversely, to forbid all non-member candidates from
running on, for example, the Liberal Party line would foreclose fusion tickets.
New York, by enacting the statute, therefore, has reasonably sought to allow
fusion tickets where desired without subjecting its political parties and their
Judge Weinstein did not address the question of Mrazek's and Migliore's
standing, in all likelihood because Fitzpatrick and Holzmacher are plainly
proper parties to maintain this action. We note only that the issue of Mrazek's
and Migliore's standing, by all accounts, has been determined adversely to them
in the state courts and that decision is binding upon us under principles of res
judicata. Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 190-91, 67 S.Ct. 657, 661, 91
L.Ed. 832 (1947). In any event, our own analysis confirms the soundness of
that conclusion since the right appellants advance runs to the benefit of
Conservative Party members only. Storer v. Brown, supra, 415 U.S. 724, 737,
94 S.Ct. 1274, 1282, 39 L.Ed.2d 714, and see Montano v. Lefkowitz, supra,
575 F.2d at 382 n.5. Moreover, in losing their elections, these individuals may
have incurred damage, but we question whether such injuries possess sufficient
causal nexus with the right allegedly infringed to endow them with standing.
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 72,
98 S.Ct. 2620, 2630, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978); see also Simon v. Eastern Ky.
Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976);
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)
11
We agree with Judge Weinstein that the evidence presented below does not
conclusively establish that the composition of the Executive Committee
violated one-person, one-vote standards in that it failed properly to reflect the
greater population of Conservatives inhabiting the urban, western portion of the
county. This is neither surprising nor dispositive, however, since the thrust of
appellants' case is not malapportionment, but undue encroachment by nonresident party members upon what is asserted to be a purely local right.
Appellants have attempted to cast their case in the mold of Montano v.
Lefkowitz, not Seergy v. Kings County Republican County Committee, and as
to their precise claim there can be no doubt that the evidence was adequate
Thus, the Conservative Party members residing outside the Second Senatorial
and Fourth Assembly Districts, through their representatives on the Executive
Committee, had a substantial if not determinative impact on the selection of
In the present action we are not informed as to the precise constituencies which
Executive Committee members are envisioned as representing. Since appellees'
counsel has not suggested otherwise, however, we have proceeded under the
assumption that the Executive Committee members speak only for enrolled
party members.