Late Nominations Under New York Election Law Remain a Trap
By: Joseph T. Burns
On August 13, 2026, a Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice issued two related decisions arising from the same dispute over a Staten Island Civil Court nomination. In one, the court dismissed a proceeding to invalidate the Richmond County Democratic Committee's certificate of nomination for a newly created Civil Court judgeship. In the other, the court validated that same certificate and ordered the New York City Board of Elections to restore the Democratic nominee to the November ballot. Together, the decisions are a useful illustration of just how technical and complex the New York State Election Law’s procedure governing post-primary, or late, nominations can be, and how a single missed step can put a nomination in jeopardy.
The Civil Court seat at issue was created when Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026. Because this seat came into existence too late for the parties to nominate at the primary election, nominations would occur through a vote of each party’s committee after the primary election.
On July 15, 2026, the Democratic committee empowered to make nominations for this office met to nominate a candidate; a certificate of nomination for this candidate was filed with the New York City Board of Elections on July 20, 2026. While this document was signed by the committee’s chair and secretary and notarized, it did not contain the affidavits of the chair and secretary required by Election Law Sec. 6-148(4) attesting that they were the officers of the meeting and to the truth of the certificate of nomination.
Objections were then filed against this certificate for not containing this affidavit. After the deadline for filing certificates of nomination for this office had passed, the chair and secretary filed the affidavits required under Election Law Sec. 6-148(4). In addition to filing objections, the objectors also filed a proceeding to invalidate the certificate in Supreme Court.
The NYCBOE agreed with the objectors and voted to remove the Democratic candidate from the ballot. On the same day, the candidate filed a proceeding to validate the certificate of nomination, and that case was heard along with the objectors’ proceeding to invalidate the certificate.
The objectors to the certificate argued that the various provisions relating to late nominations in Article 6 of the Election Law must be read together: Election Law Sec. 6-116 empowered the appropriate committee to fill it; Election Law Sec. 6-158 governs the substance of the certificate; and Election Law Sec. 6-148(4) governed how the certificate is to be authenticated, specifically through the affidavit requirement. Additionally, the objectors argued that the committee’s attempt to “cure” the lack of an affidavit through the filing of affidavits from the chair and secretary was defective because the affidavits were filed after the deadline for filing the certificate of nomination.
The committee officers and candidate argued that the affidavit requirement found in Election Law Sec. 6-148 applies only when the vacancy being filled occurs due to a candidate’s death, declination, or disqualification or when there has been a tie vote in a primary; the affidavit requirement, they argued, is inapplicable due to the creation of an office through a newly enacted law. The certificate, therefore, need only comply with Election Law Sec. 6-158, which does not contain the affidavit requirement.
The court agreed with the arguments made by the candidate and committee officers, validated the certificate of nomination, and ordered that the NYCBOE place the candidate’s name on the Democratic line for Civil Court Judge. A notice of appeal has been filed on behalf of the objectors, so ultimately the Second Department may have the final word on this matter.
While this dispute may only concern one party nomination for one judgeship in one of New York State’s sixty-two counties, it illustrates how the Election Law’s processes and procedures for late nominations can be confusing even for the state’s most seasoned political veterans. Using the wrong document or filing a document late can be catastrophic and mean a party is left without a candidate in a critical election.
While the court in this matter found that the candidate’s certificate of nomination was valid, it only occurred after the NYCBOE ruled it was invalid and the candidate was removed from the ballot. The candidate had to litigate to be restored to the ballot and must still survive an appeal. A case involving a different late nomination and different facts and circumstances could easily have gone the other way.
Take, for example, Matter of Cox v. Spoth, 165 A.D.3d 1637 (4th Dept. 2018), where the Fourth Department affirmed a trial court decision invalidating a Democratic committee’s certificate of nomination for a candidate running for Amherst Town Clerk. In this matter, a vacancy was triggered due to a resignation by an incumbent town clerk. Because the vacancy occurred too late in the year for candidates to be nominated by primary, nominations were made by the party committees. The Democratic committee making the late nomination, however, was not the one legally empowered to do so. The Fourth Department found that as it was a reorganizational year for the county Democratic committee, only the newly reorganized committee had the legal authority to make the nomination for town clerk. Because the committee making the nomination had not yet reorganized, the Fourth Department upheld the lower court’s decision to invalidate the candidate’s nomination, leaving the Democrats without a candidate for town clerk.
Complying with the Election Law’s requirements for making late, post-primary nominations can be confusing, and even small errors or minor deviations from the Election Law’s mandates can result in a party losing its General Election candidate. Party committees facing nominations outside the ordinary primary process would be wise to involve experienced counsel before the committee meeting is held and the certificate of nomination is filed, not after objections have been made or a proceeding to invalidate has been commenced.
