Filed Date: Sept. 8, 2017
Closed Date: March 16, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involves allegations that the ballot access procedures developed by the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBE) the New York City Board of Elections (NYCBE) and the New York City Campaign Finance Board (NYCFB) are arbitrary and capricious and therefore violate the constitutional rights of the people of New York and those who seek to run for office, in particular those who are not part of a major political party.
On September 8, 2017, a pro se voting rights advocate and attempted mayoral candidate filed this class action suit on behalf of all persons who filed with the NYSBE to run for city-wide and local elective offices in the City of New York in the Primary Election that was held on September 12, 2017 and the General Election that was held on November 7, 2017 and were “knocked off the ballot” as a result of the policies and procedures of the NYSBE and the NYCBE. The attempted mayoral candidate filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants included the NYSBE, the NYCBE and the NYCFB. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights; 42 U.S. Code 42 § 1986 (2) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker but was reassigned to Judge Robert W. Sweet because the parties did not consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs alleged that the scheduling of primary elections by the NYSBE and NYCBE violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; that New York State Election Law violated the 1st Amendment by prohibiting registered voters not enrolled in a political parties from participating in the primary process; and that the NYCBOE working with the NYCFB violated the attempted mayoral candidates First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during ballot access process for attaining ballot access for the Democratic Primary held on September 12, 2017.
Plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order on the Primary Elections held September 12, 2017 until the NYCBE placed the attempted mayoral candidate on the ballot for Mayor in the Democratic Primary, placed any similarly situated plaintiffs on the ballot as candidates for their applicable office; and allowed voters who were not part of a major political party to vote in the Primary Elections. Additionally, the plaintiffs asked the court to order the NYCBE and the NYSBE to develop a ballot access procedure that would allow candidates to obtain access to the ballot such as a bond requirement, allow voters not registered in any part to vote in all Primary Elections in New York State and make changes to the dates on which Primary Elections were held in New York State, including holding them more than a week from the anniversary of September 11, 2001 and on the same day to cut down on costs, among other reforms.
The complaint alleged that the attempted mayoral candidate submitted petitions to the New York City Board of Elections to be placed on the ballot as a candidate for Mayor of the City of New York for the Democratic Primary to be held on September 12, 2017 and in the General Election to be held on November 7, 2017 but was not timely informed that the NYCBE had determined that he had not met the requirements to be placed on the ballot until the first day of hearings addressing issues with city-wide candidates. The attempted mayoral candidate did not receive the official memo that he was knocked off the ballot until nine days later, which he alleged prevented him from filing the complaint sooner. The complaint also alleged that the NYCBE prevented other candidates who were placed on the ballot from participating in televised debates due to a lack of fundraising, and that the NYCBE violated the HAVA by using mechanical voting machines that should have been replaced as required by the HAVA.
The defendant NYSBE filed a motion to dismiss on October 6, 2017, claiming that the allegations against the NYSBE were barred by sovereign immunity, and on October 16, 2017, the NYCEB filed a letter noting that it and the NYCFB had not been served with process, and that even if they had, the complaint, as amended, should be dismissed at the summary judgement stage because the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, and that any claims related to the September primary elections were moot.
On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and sought a temporary restraining order to postpone the general election to be held on November 7, 2017, which was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On January 25, 2018, Judge Robert W. Sweet issued an opinion dismissing the claims against the NYSBE based on sovereign immunity and the remainder of the claims for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
The Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ mandamus petition as moot on March 16, 2018.
Summary Authors
(10/4/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6283945/parties/murawski-v-new-york-state-board-of-elections/
Sweet, Robert Workman (New York)
Conroy, Owen Thomas (New York)
Dervin, James Monroe (New York)
Kellner, Douglas A. (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6283945/murawski-v-new-york-state-board-of-elections/
Last updated Sept. 28, 2025, 11:56 p.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 8, 2017
Closing Date: March 16, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Pro se voting rights advocate and attempted mayoral candidate
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
New York State Board of Elections (Manhattan, New Jersey), State
New York City Board of Elections (Manhattan), City
New York City Campaign Finance Board (Manhattan), City
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 52 U.S.C. § 20901 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting:
Challenges to at-large/multimember district/election