Did I miss this being posted elsewhere?  

Libertarian candidate Sundwall was disqualified in his bid for the 20th District seat the other day.  

Who cares?  I take notice because it draws attention, or should, to the complicated and prohibitive election law requirements that candidates face in seeking ballot spots in NY.

If we want more choice, the current laws have to change.  This guy sounds like he got a raw deal.  He collected over twice (6700) the required number (3500) of signatures but over half (3700) were declared invalid on address technicalities?  Do you know the kind of effort it takes to collect 6700 signatures?  Sounds like he got screwed to me.

He has sent a letter to his supporters urging them to vote for Democrat Scott Murphy.

Quoted Text

       Mr. Tedisco denies any involvement with the concerted effort by his supporters to knock me off the ballot. I don't believe him. The ruthless effort by his supporters to knock me off the ballot without a word of protest by him proves his unfitness for any office let alone Congress in these critical times.

       I will be voting for Scott Murphy on Tuesday. While we disagree on some important issues, I find him to be a man of honor, a good family man and successful businessman. Unlike Tedisco, he actually lives in the District. And, unlike Mr. Tedisco, I view Scott's business success as a virtue, not a vice.

       I urge my supporters and all those who believe in open and free elections to show their disgust at the tactics of the Republican political machine to win at all costs. Please join me in voting for Scott Murphy on Tuesday.

I'm VERY surprised he "endorsed" Murphy - he is (Murphy) nothing but another tax cheat, who still has unpaid tax leins (he apparently paid one) - and will be just one more "yes man" in the Washington bureaucratic circle, something I thought Libertarians were staunchly against.

I'd more suspect Murphy being responsible for the move to get him off the ballot

Michael, I definitely hear what you're saying...however, you've got to wonder how 3700 people have inaccuracies!  1, 5, 10, 1000, 2000 maybe...but 3700??? For all we know, impropriety on the part of the Libertarian candidate could have taken place, that could possibly explain 3700 inaccuracies.  

When it comes right down to it, whoever is pushing for the signatures to be invalidated (and whatever their reasons...) can succeed only if errors and inaccuracies are present.  They can't create invalid signatures out of nowhere! His removal from the ballot is undoubtedly a step backwards for a more open, diverse government.  But I would have to ask: Where do we lay blame...on those that point out the inaccuracies, or on those that allow them to happen in the first place?

And MT, I agree...I think he has cheapened his candidacy by endorsing another candidate in this race...ESPECIALLY Murphy!!!

Quoted Text

EDITORIALS Death by election law loophole

    Never mind the fact that Libertarian Party candidate Eric Sundwell’s presence on the 20th Congressional District ballot was unlikely to affect the outcome of the race between major-party contenders Jim Tedisco and Scott Murphy. That isn’t the point. Rather, it’s that technical loopholes in New York’s arcane elections shouldn’t be used to keep otherwise legitimate candidates off the ballot — as they certainly were in this case.
    More than half of the signatures collected on Sundwell’s nominating petitions were declared invalid by the state Board of Elections Wednesday. Were they fraudulent, as might be implied by so drastic a measure? No, in many cases the “flaw” was minute — a petitioner using a mailing address instead of his or her actual place of residence, or naming a hamlet or village instead of a town. Such quirks, when they involve the signature and address of the petition’s witness, can invalidate a whole page’s worth of signatures (as they did with some of Sundwell’s petitions)!
    Most major-party functionaries have had plenty of experience with these mistakes, and know enough to alert their petition carriers not to make them; they also know they can usually count on one to get some opponents’ signatures knocked off. But in this case, they hit the jackpot: When the dust settled, Sundwell — who thought he had 286 more names than he needed — ended up more than 550 short.
    Rules are rules, so ..........http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00702

Quoted from 210

Michael, I definitely hear what you're saying...however, you've got to wonder how 3700 people have inaccuracies!  1, 5, 10, 1000, 2000 maybe...but 3700??? For all we know, impropriety on the part of the Libertarian candidate could have taken place, that could possibly explain 3700 inaccuracies.  

When it comes right down to it, whoever is pushing for the signatures to be invalidated (and whatever their reasons...) can succeed only if errors and inaccuracies are present.  They can't create invalid signatures out of nowhere! His removal from the ballot is undoubtedly a step backwards for a more open, diverse government.  But I would have to ask: Where do we lay blame...on those that point out the inaccuracies, or on those that allow them to happen in the first place?

And MT, I agree...I think he has cheapened his candidacy by endorsing another candidate in this race...ESPECIALLY Murphy!!!

Don't misunderstand me...materially inaccurate or fraudulent signatures ought to be challenged.  However, as the editorial that got posted points out, that doesn't appear to have been the case here.  Disqualifying the signatures undermined honest intent to comply.  The law needs to be simplified and made less restrictive.  Let the voters decide which candidates to eliminate.

Some people actually sit there and falsify signatures all day long, sad but true. It has been proven to happen.

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

Some people actually sit there and falsify signatures all day long, sad but true. It has been proven to happen.

I'm sure some do.  BUT this case appeared to turn more on technicality, rather than fraud, no?  So I ask you - do you agree that NYS election law is too cumbersome?  If so, do you believe it ought to be changed?

I believe that our government is set up so it is predominately  a 2 party system. There is very little wiggle room for another party or new candidate to emerge. So 'yes' I think that the system needs to be changed. The rep, dem or con parties are not parties I would want to align myself with. They have all abandoned their ideology. Nor is there any present candidate of these major parties that I would support.

A third viable party or candidate would be refreshing to say the least. I see it as there are people out there that would bring a refreshing change to our present system. A change that would bring us back to basics and serving the people as opposed to self-serving.

As far as petitions and signatures are concerned....that should be banned. There are many signatures that are discounted for a mere technicality. And although I agree that it can be deliberately abused, it just goes to prove that that petition system is outdated with the present technology that is available. IMHO

I see there is some confusion about NYS Election Law...including the editors at the Gazette.
In this case we are talking about a Designating Petition (used in the official title on the petition, but also referred to as a nominating petition),
which designates (or nominates) a named candidate to run for public office on a Party ballot line. It is worthy to note that in NYS exclusively, the
nominee may or may not be a member of the party for which the petition is being circulated, as NYS is the only state that still "cross endorses"
candidates.
While there are a number of requirements that must be met for an election petition to be valid, the NYS Election Law is very clear about these
requirements, including those under discussion here. Most people would not know about them unless and until they have to collect and witness
election petition signatures. Even then, it is clear that some, for whatever reason, fail to fully educate themselves and/or others carrying the
petitions about these requirements. All signatories must be a enrolled member of the party for which the petition is being circulated and must
reside in the political unit involved. The witness of these signatures can be an enrolled member of the involved party who resides anywhere in NYS.
Signatures can also be collected by those not enrolled in the party as a Notary or Commissioner of Deeds, but these witnesses are required to
swear each signature and to include their Notary/COD information. As such, they also sign the "Notary or Commissioner of Deeds" statement,
as opposed to the "Statement of Witness" from the enrolled member of the party for which it is circulated. Both appear on every petition.
If you were to look at a list of the members of a political party in a political unit (in this case a Congressional District), you will see that their mailing
addresses may or may not be a town or city...it may, for example, be a village or a post office box. Even if both the mailing address and the residence
address are a town or city, they can still be different addresses in the same town or city.  Electors are registered to VOTE according to the
TOWN or CITY in which they RESIDE...but election correspondence, whether it be from the Boards of Elections or candidate literature is obviously sent
to wherever registered voters receive their mail. This is where the law's logic and the necessity of this rule become evident. If for example you live in
Rotterdam, but receive mail at a PO Box in Schenectady, you would get election mail in Schenectady for Rotterdam elections because that is where
you reside and therefore VOTE for ROTTERDAM elected representatives.
A party member "Witness" must enter their RESIDENCE address to confirm the witness's eligibility, if challenged, to witness these signatures which
is confirmed through voter registration which, again, is according to the town or city in which they reside. The county/state is also stated on the
petition. A Notary or Commissioner of Deeds requires no address, as they are not party members and their qualification and validity of their status as
one or the other can be confirmed through the information filed to obtain a Notary Public or COD. For these, however, the identity of these types of
witnesses must be clear...if not, they can be challenged (if handwriting is illegible, for example, or the Notary or COD is expired).
Now...a petition may or may not be challenged whether or not flaws exist. Only an eligible OBJECTOR can initiate a challenge. This can be either an
enrolled member of the party for which the petition is being circulated and who is registered in the political unit involved, or a candidate running for
the position and political unit involved.
For those wondering who challenged the Libertarian petitions, there will be a record with the State Board of Elections, as the Objector must file a
written objection which reveals their identity. (They are filed with the County Boards of Elections involving a single county or political units contained
therein - town, city, county legislative districts, etc.) I have not and will not check myself, but I think a Libertarian candidate would be more likely
to hurt a Republican or Conservative candidate since Libertarians have more in common with them ideologically than they do with Democrats/Liberals...
the "Ralph Nader" of the Republican Party, if you will.
That said, it is, in my opinion, ridiculous to suggest that the objection process is "picayune" as the Gazette calls it. All candidates and/or their
petition signature collectors must meet the same standards in order for petitions at large or single signatures to be valid. Those standards, again,
are clearly spelled out in the Election Law, as well as the sample petitions that can be requested and provided by the BOE. If one candidate has failed
to meet the required standards, other candidates who go to the painstaking lengths to ensure that they and their signature collectors produce
valid petitions have every right to hold opponents to the same standards - precisely the reason for the objection process, and a legitimate part of
the electoral process. It is worthy to note that even flawed petitions may never be challenged for one reason or another - failure to secure eligible
objectors, failure to even bother with examination for flaws, lack of knowledge as to what constitutes flaws, etc. To simply hope that won't happen
is a risk for which the candidate(s) and their organizers must take responsibility...just as it is their responsibilty to know what is required in their
petitions. Sympathy for a candidate who gathers thousands of signatures only to have them invalidated due to his own ignorance is no reason to
let invalid petitions stand. You would think that to have to collect that many signatures, one would make it a priority to know exactly what is required
and would take every possible measure to ensure that their petitions are unchallengeable. The Gazette's suggestion that the law should be changed
AFTER the candidate fails to comply is ludicrous, especially when you consider that the only basis for that suggestion is an obvious sympathy for a
candidate who didn't bother to do his homework...and likely disappointed for the Democrat candidate who would have benefitted from this third
party candidacy. IMHO, as Bumble would say.

Quoted from gadfly

That said, it is, in my opinion, ridiculous to suggest that the objection process is "picayune" as the Gazette calls it. All candidates and/or their
petition signature collectors must meet the same standards in order for petitions at large or single signatures to be valid. Those standards, again,
are clearly spelled out in the Election Law, as well as the sample petitions that can be requested and provided by the BOE. If one candidate has failed
to meet the required standards, other candidates who go to the painstaking lengths to ensure that they and their signature collectors produce
valid petitions have every right to hold opponents to the same standards - precisely the reason for the objection process, and a legitimate part of
the electoral process. It is worthy to note that even flawed petitions may never be challenged for one reason or another - failure to secure eligible
objectors, failure to even bother with examination for flaws, lack of knowledge as to what constitutes flaws, etc. To simply hope that won't happen
is a risk for which the candidate(s) and their organizers must take responsibility...just as it is their responsibilty to know what is required in their
petitions. Sympathy for a candidate who gathers thousands of signatures only to have them invalidated due to his own ignorance is no reason to
let invalid petitions stand. You would think that to have to collect that many signatures, one would make it a priority to know exactly what is required
and would take every possible measure to ensure that their petitions are unchallengeable. The Gazette's suggestion that the law should be changed
AFTER the candidate fails to comply is ludicrous, especially when you consider that the only basis for that suggestion is an obvious sympathy for a
candidate who didn't bother to do his homework...and likely disappointed for the Democrat candidate who would have benefitted from this third
party candidacy. IMHO, as Bumble would say.

First, thanks for the clarification of some of the election law details.  I thought I'd try to clarify my point a bit with regard to your explanation.

I've purposely edited your quote down to just the end.  I wholeheartedly agree that this campaign fell down on themselves to whatever degree.  If you collect 6700 signatures, you're a fool to not be more diligent in vetting their accuracy.  That was a lot of effort just plain wasted.  A challenge should have been anticipated and addressed beforehand.

Your point about the same standards being applied to all candidates is fair too.  HOWEVER, I still believe that the law is way too complicated and convoluted, and disagree with your assertion that it is "clear".  (I think your explanation alone ought to be proof of that. )  I think the law is too "party driven." - by design, of course.  Also, doesn't the allowable timetable of signature gathering favor those established parties and put independent candidates at a disadvantage?  

Anyway, thanks for the explanation.  You obviously understand the requirements better than I do which probably accounts for our small difference of opinion.

NYS likes things convoluted and confusing.....the less able we are to get to the truth at hand(or underhand)......but, the podium will tout consolidation
for simplification......well, they injected themselves down into the local to extract $$......