The Village of Pelham Manor filed Friday morning an appeal of a state judge’s ruling that a referendum on moving the village’s election day must be put on the ballot Nov. 5, and at the same time, failed to “immediately” send the certified petition for the proposition to the Westchester Board of Elections, as ordered by the judge, according to papers submitted by both sides with the appeals court.
The delay could be critical, as is the appeal. In fact, whether the referendum to shift Pelham Manor elections from the third Tuesday in March to election day in November now appears to be a game of hours. Monday (today) is the state deadline for submitting ballot propositions to the board of elections.
Without providing additional information, John Murtagh, attorney for Village Clerk Lindsey Luft (who is also village manager) and the all-Republican village board, said in a notice of appeal that state Supreme Court Judge Linda Jamieson was incorrect in overturning the rejection by Luft of the 801-signature petition.
Jeffrey Gasbarro, who is representing the group that collected signatures for the referendum, said in a Friday email to the Manor’s attorneys that he would appear in person at 10 a.m. Monday before the Appellate Division’s Second Judicial Department to ask the court to grant a temporary restraining order to block any automatic stay of Jamieson’s ruling that could be imposed under state law as a result the appeal.
Without such an order in the next few hours, the petition will die by virtue of missing the deadline to get on the ballot.
Erica Winter, an organizer of the Committee to Move the Manor Village Election, delivered the petition on July 1 to Luft, who in her role as village clerk reviewed and rejected the petition four days later, on July 5. Winter and Pelham Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman Allison Frost sued in state civil court on July 8 seeking to reverse that decision and force the proposition on to the November ballot.
On Tuesday, Judge Jamieson ruled all of the reasons Luft gave for rejecting the petition were without merit, according to the judge’s decision and order.
With the deadline looming, Gasbarro highlighted the delay by Luft in sending the petition to the board of elections as well as the timing of communications he received from Pelham Manor’s attorney.
“The village clerk defied the Supreme Court’s directive to ‘immediately’ transmit a certified copy of the required paperwork to the board of elections,” he wrote in his request for a temporary restraining order.
Timeline
In his filing with the appeals court, Gasbarro provided the following timeline for the actions that followed Judge Jamieson’s ruling last Tuesday:
- Friday at 9:56 a.m. – Gasbarro sent an email to Pelham Manor’s attorneys requesting the status of Luft’s compliance with the judge’s order. (“Pelham Manor’s attorneys did not respond to that email,” he wrote.)
- Friday at 11:05 a.m. – Pelham Manor filed its notice of appeal.
- Friday at 2:47 p.m. – Westchester Republican Election Commissioner Douglas Colety filed a “purported” notice of appeal.
- Friday at 4:02 p.m. – Murtagh (Luft and the village’s lawyer) called Gasbarro and said it was Murtagh’s position the appeal would trigger an automatic stay provision in state law.
- Friday at 4:46 p.m. – Gasbarro emailed all parties that he would seek a temporary restraining order vacating any automatic stay in person at the appeals court in Brooklyn.
- Friday at 8:33 p.m. – Gasbarro sent an email to all parties saying he would seek a temporary restraining order for all notices of appeal, including Colety’s.
Separately in his filing, Gasbarro said Colety could not appeal as an individual, as the board of elections had been an original defendant in the case, not individual commissioners.
An attorney for Westchester Democratic Election Commissioner Tajian Nelson filed a motion in support of Gasbarro’s arguments and stated Colety’s appeal did not represent the Westchester Board of Elections.
- The Pelham Examiner delivers the facts when news breaks in town. Donate to support our nonprofit community newspaper.
Erica Winter • Aug 6, 2024 at 11:13 am
The August 5, 2024 deadline does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to place our referendum on the ballot.
Scott Wolfgang • Aug 7, 2024 at 6:01 pm
Hi Erica. This seems like an expensive endeavor in terms of plaintiff legal costs, especially as the appeals process plays out. Are there others beside you and Alison Frost (the two plaintiffs) paying your attorney fees? Ms. Frost is the chairperson of the Town of Pelham Democrat Committee so it would be helpful to know if that group or any of its other officers are providing material funding.
Adam Ilkowitz • Aug 8, 2024 at 8:27 am
Isn’t the bigger question why our elected officials are spending so much of OUR money to not allow people to take a simple vote? There was almost ZERO legal costs before it was denied. The Board could have simply adopted the vote despite the rejection, as has been done by other village boards elsewhere, and everyone saved money. I would not say “Yes, use my share of tax payments to sue” if I had the opportunity, and I doubt most would. Stop this ridiculousness and just let us vote and be done with it.
Erica Winter • Aug 9, 2024 at 11:01 am
I would be more concerned with how the village government is spending your/our tax money given 20% of voters signed our petition and a supreme court justice ruled in favor of letting the voters decide when to hold the village election. It’s pretty outrageous. But since you are asking, I’ll let you know that many Pelham Manor voters have contributed towards the legal fees. It’s not one big donor. We are private citizens.
Andrew Scott • Aug 6, 2024 at 9:02 am
I would love to hear an explanation for why the Village Board is so opposed to allowing this referendum? The proposal is simply to let voters decide when elections should be held.
Also curious how much the village is paying in legal fees to fight this proposal. Our self-proclaimed “fiscally responsible” board is sure willing to spend money on lawyers to fight its own constituency and to unnecessarily spend town money on March elections.
Peter Bazeli • Aug 6, 2024 at 10:17 am
I totally agree. I can understand spending public dollars to respond to litigation. However, once such a strongly-worded State Supreme Court ruling is handed down, it’s a waste of money to double down on an appeal, especially when there was a clear petition process followed with overwhelming support to see this measure offered to the voters as a referendum. What’s the threat against our residents here? There is an inflection point when spending public dollars becomes irresponsible – after being sternly told that the Village’s position was not correct, the Village is now going on offense to what end and for what purpose? I wonder about the quality of the legal advice we are paying for. How many thousands of dollars are we going to pay for losing arguments? The optics of this obstruction effort are shameful, and the waste of public dollars is irresponsible.
Scott Wolfgang • Aug 6, 2024 at 12:22 am
Has it been disclosed who is funding the plaintiff’s case? The timeline here lays out a solid 12 hours of work for counsel. I suspect the rate of the partner and any associated staff would be well in excess of $500 per hour so just the Friday described in this article was a $6K+ day of fees. My guess is this case has cost $15-20K+ for the plaintiffs so curious if it’s just the two named plaintiffs that are bearing the expense or if any other organizations or individuals are funding.
Peter Bazeli • Aug 6, 2024 at 9:59 am
With over 800 signatures on a petition, and the recent outreach appealing for donations toward legal fees, I suspect there is widespread and enthusiastic support for this effort!
Scott Wolfgang • Aug 6, 2024 at 9:55 pm
If you look at the petition there was in the neighborhood of 250 unique households that signed (even the controversial adult children signed!). If you generously assume 1/3 of the households would contribute to the case (signing is a lot different than giving $$), it would have to average $200+ per family. It’s more likely 2-3individuals or groups are providing thousands in funding so hopefully they can be revealed in the spirit of transparency.