MONTGOMERY Et Al. v. JEFFERSON Et Al.
Headline: Court refuses to block two candidates from New York’s Democratic primary, allowing their names to stay on tomorrow’s ballot while appeals proceed and lower-court orders remain in effect.
Holding:
- Keeps Jefferson and Clark on tomorrow’s Kings County Democratic primary ballot.
- Leaves the New York Board of Elections ordered to accept their designating petitions.
- Allows an expedited appeal to proceed without a temporary block before the primary.
Summary
Background
Two candidates, Jefferson and Clark, sought placement on the Kings County Democratic primary ballot. Their designating petitions were challenged at the Board of Elections. On August 28, 1984, the New York Court of Appeals found the petitions invalid because the petitions’ cover sheets overstated the number of signatures. Jefferson and Clark then sued, arguing the state rule requiring a cover sheet to state the number of signatures was unconstitutional.
Reasoning
On September 6, a federal District Court held the cover-sheet requirement unconstitutional as applied and ordered the Board of Elections in New York City to accept Jefferson’s and Clark’s petitions and put their names on the ballot. The District Court denied a request to pause that order on September 7. The parties sought emergency review in the Second Circuit, which denied a stay but granted an expedited appeal and set oral argument for the week of September 24. An application for a stay to me was filed at about 3:30 p.m. today. Given the little time left before tomorrow’s primary, Justice Marshall said he was not persuaded to interfere with the Second Circuit and denied the stay application.
Real world impact
As a result, Jefferson and Clark remain on the Democratic primary ballot for tomorrow’s election and the Board must accept their petitions under the District Court’s order. The ruling is temporary in the sense that the Second Circuit will hear an expedited appeal and the outcome could change on review.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?