Case: Cottman v. Erie County Board of Elections

On July 17, 2017, a resident and voter in Buffalo, New York submitted over 850 designated signature petitions for the opportunity to ballot for Erie County Legislator 1st District. Although the number of the submitted petitions surpassed the minimum amount of 500, the Erie County Board of Elections deemed almost 500 of the signatures invalid, concluding that Plaintiff was 129 signatures short of the minimum threshold.

In response, on August 4, 2017, the resident filed a complaint pro se in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York against the Erie County Board of Elections. According to the Plaintiff, the Board held an impromptu Petition Objection hearing to decide the validity of the petitions without timely notice and had unjustifiably deemed valid signatures invalid. According to the Board of Elections Petition Objection Report, signatures were deemed invalid pursuant to Board of Election codes 5A, 8A, 7B, or 11B. 5A refers to signatures unidentifiable, 8A refers to signatures whose names are hand printed, 7B to subscribing witness who is not identified by correct city or town, or county, and 11B to subscribing witness who fails to witness signatures on date claimed. Plaintiff claimed that such removal of valid designated petition signatures constituted an attempt to deprive of petitioners’ voter rights under the U.S. Civil Statute Code 42 1983 and Alabama v. U.S. USCA #11-5256 Section 5. Plaintiff thus sought an immediate injunction, requesting immediate revocation of the Board’s determination and compelling Defendant to allow Plaintiff to lawfully ballot on the September 12, 2012 Election Primary.

The case was assigned to Honorable Senior District Judge Frank Paul Geraci Jr. 

On the same date was the complaint, Plaintiff also moved for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, which the court granted on February 2, 2018. 

However, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint after finding a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court held that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a “personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.” Further, the court held that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring this case as Plaintiff did not allege any injury. The court also stated that Plaintiff could not establish redressability as past injury alone did not suffice. As for Constitutional issues, the court found that Plaintiff merely stated in a conclusory fashion that Plaintiff’s rights were violated without stating a claim. The Court recommended that Plaintiff amend Complaint to support his assert under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

On March 20, 2018, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, as Plaintiff took no action to amend his complaint. 

This case is now closed.