Residents can watch oral arguments Thursday in the Village of Pelham Manor’s appeal of a state court ruling ordering a ballot referendum be held on changing the village’s election day.
The Pelham Manor case is eighth on the docket for the four-judge panel of the Appellate Division’s Second Department in Brooklyn. The court sits at 10 a.m., though exactly what time the election case will come up is not known. The live stream from the courtroom can be watched here.
Based on court documents, attorneys for both sides in the referendum battle have asked for 15 minutes to make their cases, as have each of the lawyers for the two Westchester County election commissioners, who are on opposite sides of the appeal. Douglas Colety, the Republican commissioner, backs the Pelham Manor in its effort to block the referendum, while Democratic Commissioner Tajian Nelson supports the effort to put the proposition on the ballot. The appellate division justices hearing the case are Robert Miller, Paul Wooten, Deborah Dowling and Janice Taylor.
In the appeal, Pelham Manor is seeking to reverse state Supreme Court Judge Linda Jamieson’s decision on July 30 that a referendum on changing the village’s election day must be put on the ballot Nov. 5. Jamieson threw out all of the reasons Pelham Manor Village Clerk Lindsey Luft (who is also village manager) gave for ruling invalid the 801-signature petition calling for the public vote.
Erica Winter, an organizer of the petition drive, 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 brought suit July 8 against Luft, the Pelham Manor Board of Trustees and the Westchester Board of Elections seeking to reverse Luft’s decision.
Winter and Frost won the case, prompting Pelham Manor’s appeal on Aug. 2. The five-member all-Republican village board is opposed to the referendum’s goal of shifting Pelham Manor elections from the third Tuesday in March to election day in November.
Scott Wolfgang • Sep 4, 2024 at 9:45 pm
So Allison Frost is one plaintiff bringing the case and she is a District Leader of the Town of Pelham Democrat Committee. Erica Winter is the other plaintiff and one of the Democrat Committee’s largest financial contributors. The Democrat on the County Board of Elections is speaking out in favor of the referendum while the Republican county election official is against. I guess there goes the argument from those circulating the petition that it is a non partisan effort. We should all be thankful that our Village leadership is trying to keep unnecessary partisanship out of our local politics and elections by fighting to maintain the independent March date.
Peter Bazeli • Sep 5, 2024 at 8:21 am
Republicans, Independents, and Democrats all signed the petition to allow all of us to cast a vote for or against the proposed November election date. There is nothing more democratic than letting the voters decide what to do about our elections, and nothing more obstructionist than an entirely partisan, 100% Republican Board of Trustees deciding not only to say no to a referendum, but to actively fight it, and waste financial and staff resources to do so. The optics here are terrible, and an embarrassment.
Scott Wolfgang • Sep 5, 2024 at 7:46 pm
Hi Peter. While of course people of all political affiliations signed, 75-80% of them were registered Democrats (both signers and their party affiliation are public info). Im just not a fan of partisan ballot initiatives, especially in a local village, brought forth and overwhelmingly advanced by a single party. We are a democratic republic where I would rather elected officials make important decisions like this. The candidates in our last election who ran with changing the election date and authority lost so now they have turned to a partisan referendum to try to improve their chances of winning in the future. Again, they have the right to bring such a petition but let’s all stop pretending it’s not overwhelmingly a partisan initiative. All evidence points to the contrary.
Peter Bazeli • Sep 6, 2024 at 8:24 am
Certainly there is partisanship on both sides of this matter. However, I and many others believe that there are very clear issues involved in the Village running its own election, there is obstruction in rejecting a good faith petition put forth by constituents (regardless of political affiliation), and that we should share the admirable goal of maximizing voter turnout so that participation in our elections and community matters is all that it can be. There is no better way for our residents to feel engaged and invested in the future of our Village than to be encouraged to vote their opinions and values, and to be supported in doing so. Sadly, the VOPM’s obstruction of the referendum offends our democratic values. Let’s put the matter before the voters, as petitioned, and let our residents decide what to do about our elections. There’s no harm here in allowing all of our residents, regardless of their political persuasion, an opportunity to make their vote count. I trust my neighbors to make a collective judgement on how our Village should operate. Discussion, discourse, debate and consensus-building is the best way to move forward together – but blocking the democratic process because of a fear of losing power or control is a losing position that irresponsibly wastes resources.
Melissa Labonte • Sep 5, 2024 at 11:35 am
In democracies, the people get to decide when elections are held, not the people in power. Village Law allows for that through the referendum process. This is exactly what over 800 registered VOPM voters are seeking — to have our voices heard. Our elected officials should support, not oppose, the will of the people.