CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 4/30/2023 1

A Disabled Candidate’s Challenge 

to Signature-and-Contribution Statutes 

Herschaft v. New York Board of Elections (1:00-cv-2748) 

and Herschaft v. New York City 

Campaign Finance Board (1:00-cv-3754) 

(Jack B. Weinstein and Carol B. Amon, E.D.N.Y.) 

A pro se federal complaint alleged that a six-week period for obtaining ballot-petition signatures failed to adequately accommodate 

a prospective candidate’s history of schizophrenia. A companion 

complaint challenged contribution-reporting requirements for 

small contributions. Two district judges denied the plaintiff relief. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

campaign finance; pro se party; recusal; case assignment. 

A prospective independent candidate for New York’s city council filed a pro 

se federal complaint in the Eastern District of New York on May 16, 2000, 

challenging the state’s requirement that he qualify for the November 2001 

ballot by obtaining ballot-petition signatures during a six-week period—

from July 10 to August 21, 2001.1 The plaintiff sought a year or more to gather the required 1,460 signatures to accommodate his schizophrenia, which 

was in remission.2

Judge Jack B. Weinstein heard the case two days later.3 Judge Weinstein 

dismissed the case a week after the hearing, finding that the time limitation 

on collecting ballot-petition signatures violated neither the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) nor the Constitution.4

On November 3, 2000, the court of appeals affirmed Judge Weinstein’s 

constitutional ruling but remanded the case for reconsideration of the ADA 

claim.5 The court ordered reconsideration of the claim because of a letter 

from the plaintiff’s clinical psychologist filed on Judge Weinstein’s invitation 

at the May 18, 2000, hearing to file additional supporting documents within 

1. Docket Sheet, Herschaft v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:00-cv-2748 (E.D.N.Y. May 16, 

2000) [hereinafter Signature Docket Sheet] (D.E. 1); A. v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections, 99 F. Supp. 

2d 258, 259–60 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). 

2. A., 99 F. Supp. 2d at 259–60. 

3. Signature Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 6). 

Judge Weinstein retired in 2020 and died in 2021. Federal Judicial Center Biographical 

Directory of Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges 

Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges; see Alan Feuer, At 98, a Judicial Lion Lays Down 

His Gavel to Pursue New Interests, N.Y. Times, Feb. 18, 2020, at A19; Laura Mansnerus, Jack 

B. Weinstein, Activist Judge Both Revered and Feared, Dies at 99, N.Y. Times, June 16, 2021, 

at A22. 

4. A., 99 F. Supp. 2d 258; see 52 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213. 

5. Herschaft v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections, No. 00-7698, 2000 WL 1655036 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 

2000), 234 F.3d 1262 (table), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1078 (2001). 
A Disabled Candidate’s Challenge to Signature-and-Contribution Statutes 

2 Federal Judicial Center 4/30/2023 

one month.6

Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed another pro se federal action in the Eastern 

District of New York on June 26, 2000, seeking relaxation of the city’s campaign-contribution reporting requirements for contributions less than ten 

dollars.7

 Judge Weinstein held a show-cause hearing three days later and 

granted the plaintiff’s motion for recusal.8 The court reassigned both cases to 

Judge Carol B. Amon.9

Reviewing an amended complaint filed on October 3,10 Judge Amon dismissed the case on December 8.11 Because the reporting requirements were 

tied to matching public funding, “The instant provisions are substantially 

related to significant governmental interests.”12 The court of appeals affirmed 

the dismissal on May 17, 2001.13

Reviewing an amended complaint filed in the first case on April 17, 

2001,14 Judge Amon granted the defendant board of elections summary 

judgment on August 13:15 (1) “These undisputed facts are not sufficient to 

establish that plaintiff is presently substantially limited in a major life activity.”16 (2) “At best, . . . whether plaintiff’s disability in fact precludes him from 

participating in the election is speculative.”17 (3) “It is the Court’s opinion 

that an accommodation that would require a defendant to violate an otherwise constitutional state law is inherently unreasonable.”18 The court of appeals affirmed the judgment on May 13, 2002.19

6. Id. at *1. 

7. Docket Sheet, Herschaft v. N.Y. City Campaign Fin. Bd., No. 1:00-cv-3754 (E.D.N.Y. 

June 26, 2000) [hereinafter Contribution Docket Sheet] (D.E. 1); Herschaft v. N.Y. City 

Campaign Fin. Bd., 127 F. Supp. 2d 164, 166–67 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). 

8. Contribution Docket Sheet, supra note 7 (D.E. 2). 

9. Id. (Aug. 3, 2000); Signature Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (June 29, 2000). 

10. Contribution Docket Sheet, supra note 7 (D.E. 13). 

11. Herschaft, 127 F. Supp. 2d 164; see Herschaft v. N.Y. City Campaign Fin. Bd., 139 F. 

Supp. 2d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (denying reconsideration). 

12. Herschaft, 127 F. Supp. 2d at 168. 

13. Herschaft v. N.Y. City Campaign Fin. Bd., 10 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 534 

U.S. 888 (2001). 

14. Signature Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 27). 

15. Herschaft v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:00-cv-2748, 2001 WL 940923 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 

13, 2001). 

16. Id. at *4. 

17. Id. at *5. 

18. Id. at *6 (footnote omitted). 

19. Herschaft v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections, 37 F. App’x 17 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 825 

(2002).