CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 1

Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve 

Different Results from Unsuccessful 

State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

Ramratan v. New York City Board of Elections 

(Nicholas G. Garaufis and Dora L. Irizarry, 

1:06-cv-4770), Bert v. New York City Board 

of Elections (Charles P. Sifton, 1:06-cv-4789), 

Brown v. Board of Elections (Kiyo A. Matsumoto, 

1:08-cv-3512), Fischer v. Suffolk County Board 

of Elections (Joanna Seybert, 2:08-cv-4171), Minnus 

v. Board of Elections (Sandra L. Townes, 

1:10-cv-3918), Fischer v. NYS Board of Elections 

(Joanna Seybert, 2:12-cv-5397), and 

Pidot v. New York State Board of Elections (Joseph F. 

Bianco, 2:16-cv-3527) (E.D.N.Y.) and Williams-Bey 

v. Commissioners of Elections (Katherine B. Forrest, 

1:12-cv-3836), Thomas v. New York City Board 

of Elections (Shira A. Scheindlin, 1:12-cv-4223), 

and Moore v. McFadden 

(Edgardo Ramos, 1:14-cv-6643) (S.D.N.Y.) 

In ten cases, district judges denied relief contrary to state-court results to prospective candidates in the Eastern District of New York 

in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2016 and in the Southern District of 

New York in 2012 and 2014. 

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

matters for state courts; primary election; pro se party; case 

assignment; laches; recusal. 

In ten cases, federal district judges in New York denied relief to prospective 

candidates contrary to state-court results. The tenth case found a second life 

in another district, but the court of appeals ordered the case dismissed. 

Eastern District of New York 

2006: State Assembly and State Party Committee 

A federal complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York on August 31, 

2006, sought an injunction putting on the September 12 Democratic primary-election ballot a candidate for state assembly and a candidate for female 

member of the party’s state committee.1

 A suit in state court to achieve the 

same end was unsuccessful, pursuant to an August 22 decision by the su1. Complaint, Ramratan v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, No. 1:06-cv-4770 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 

31, 2006), D.E. 1. 
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 

preme court’s appellate division.2 The federal court assigned the federal case 

to Judge Edward R. Korman as related to a case filed on July 27 challenging 

New York’s requirement that witnesses to primary-election ballot-petition 

signatures be members of the party.3 Because Judge Korman determined that 

the two cases were not sufficiently related to each other to require assignment to the same judge, the court reassigned the new case to Judge Nicholas 

G. Garaufis.4

On September 7, Judge Garaufis denied the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, finding “extensive support” for the state court’s conclusion that the 

prospective candidates’ petition drives were “permeated with fraud.”5 On 

September 8, Judge Garaufis again denied the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction sought by a motion and an amended complaint filed that day.6

 On September 11, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,7

 which Judge Dora L. Irizarry denied,8

 ruling in place of Judge Garaufis because of his unavailability and the time-sensitive nature of the motion.9

 Judge Garaufis 

signed a stipulated dismissal on October 17.10

2006: State Senate 

Nine voters filed a federal complaint against New York City’s elections board 

on September 1 seeking to place their preferred candidate on the primaryelection ballot for state senate.11 The court assigned the case to Judge Charles 

P. Sifton.12 He was unavailable, and Judge Eric N. Vitaliano was on two-week 

miscellaneous duty, so Judge Vitalianao set the case for hearing before Judge 

Sifton on September 6.13 On September 7, Judge Sifton denied the voters a 

preliminary injunction.14

2. Butler v. Duvalle, 32 A.D.3d 514, 819 N.Y.S.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006); see Opinion 

at 1–2, Ramratan, No. 1:06-cv-4770 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2006), D.E. 8 [hereinafter Ramratan

Opinion], 2006 WL 2583742. 

3. Notice, Ramratan, No. 1:06-cv-4770 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2006), D.E. 2; see Docket 

Sheet, Maslow v. Wilson, No. 1:06-cv-3683 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2006). 

4. Docket Sheet, Ramratan, No. 1:06-cv-4770 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2006). 

5. Ramratan Opinion, supra note 2, at 5. 

6. Order, Ramratan, No. 1:06-cv-4770 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2006), D.E. 15; see Motion, id.

(Sept. 8, 2006), D.E. 13, 14; Amended Complaint, id. (Sept. 8, 2006), D.E. 12. 

7. Motion, id. (Sept. 11, 2006), D.E. 17. 

8. Order, id. (Sept. 11, 2006), D.E. 20, 2006 WL 2614256. 

9. Id. at 1 n.1. 

10. Stipulated Dismissal, id. (Oct. 31, 2006), D.E. 22. 

11. Complaint, Bert v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, No. 1:06-cv-4789 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 

2006), D.E. 1. 

12. Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 1, 2006). 

Judge Sifton died on November 9, 2009. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory 

of Article III Federal Judges [FJC Biographical Directory], www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

13. Order to Show Cause, Bert, No. 1:06-cv-4789 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2006), D.E. 6; see

Minutes, id. (Sept. 6, 2006), D.E. 11; Interview with Hon. Eric N. Vitaliano, Sept. 23, 2015. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Vitaliano for this report by telephone. 

14. Opinion, Bert, No. 1:06-cv-4789 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2006), D.E. 7, 2006 WL 2583741. 
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 3

The plaintiffs alleged that a proper hearing would result in the recertification of enough signatures to qualify their candidate for the ballot.15 First, 

“Plaintiffs fail . . . to specify even now which signatures they propose to validate or why the Board was wrong in invalidating the signatures. . . . This 

Court cannot be expected to issue a preliminary injunction on mere conclusory statements by movants.”16 Second, “there is reason to conclude that the 

plaintiffs are merely acting as the pawns of the candidate in order to give him 

a second bite at the apple in federal court. . . . [I]t seems likely that res judicata would bar plaintiffs’ claims if this case were to be heard on the merits.”17

Third, “Whatever injury has been suffered as a result of any erroneous decision by the Board of Elections could not conceivably be remedied in the few 

days remaining before the election.”18 The plaintiffs did not bring the federal 

action until more than three weeks after their candidate lost his case in state 

court.19 Judge Sifton signed a stipulated dismissal on November 13, 2007.20

2008: Congress 

On August 27, 2008, eleven voters filed a federal complaint seeking an injunction placing their candidate for Congress on the September 9 Democratic Party primary-election ballot.21 Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto set the case for 

hearing on September 5, the Friday after Labor Day.22

Judge Matsumoto granted the plaintiffs an extension of five hours for 

service on the defendants, granted the defendants an additional day to respond, and reset the hearing for one hour later.23 Finding no deprivation of 

federal rights in the candidate’s state-court efforts to reverse invalidation of 

ballot-petition signatures, Judge Matsumoto issued an opinion on September 

8 denying the plaintiffs immediate relief.24 Following a September 26 status 

conference,25 Judge Matsumoto signed a stipulated dismissal of the case on 

September 29.26

2008: State Senate 

A prospective candidate for state senate filed a pro se federal complaint on 

October 14, 2008, seeking an injunction putting him on the November 4 ballot as the Democratic Party’s nominee.27 The court assigned the case to Judge 

15. Id. at 6. 

16. Id. at 6, 10. 

17. Id. at 15. 

18. Id. at 9. 

19. Id. at 8–9. 

20. Stipulated Dismissal, id. (Nov. 14, 2007), D.E. 14. 

21. Complaint, Brown v. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:08-cv-3512 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2008), 

D.E. 1. 

22. Order to Show Cause, id. (Aug. 28, 2008), D.E. 2; see Transcript, id. (Sept. 5, 2008, 

filed Sept. 30, 2008), D.E. 15. 

23. Opinion at 2–4, id. (Sept. 8, 2008), D.E. 9. 

24. Id. at 31. 

25. Transcript, id. (Sept. 26, 2008, filed Oct. 1, 2008), D.E. 16. 

26. Stipulated Dismissal, id. (Sept. 29, 2008), D.E. 14. 

27. Complaint, Fischer v. Suffolk Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2:08-cv-4171 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

4 Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 

Joanna Seybert as related to three previous pro se actions by the same plaintiff.28

Judge Seybert heard the case on October 2329 and denied immediate relief 

on October 27.30 Although the appellate division of New York’s supreme 

court had affirmed, on October 16, a decision that the plaintiff had not submitted enough valid ballot-petition signatures,31 the plaintiff argued that “the 

electorate wants a democratic candidate.”32 Judge Seybert determined that 

the federal action was barred by res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that among federal courts only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings, because the federal case followed an unsuccessful similar action in state court.33 Judge Seybert dismissed 

14, 2008), D.E. 1. 

28. Notice, id. (Oct. 14, 2008), D.E. 5. 

An October 31, 2007, complaint “alleges that Defendants have been using Plaintiff’s 

software without obtaining a license for its use.” Opinion at 2, Fischer v. Talco Trucking, 

Inc., No. 2:07-cv-4564 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2008), D.E. 1, 2008 WL 4415280; Second Amended Complaint, id. (June 29, 2009), D.E. 42; First Amended Complaint, id. (Nov. 15, 2007), 

D.E. 4; Complaint, id. (Oct. 31, 2007), D.E. 1. Judge Seybert dismissed the case on December 

21, 2009. Opinion, id. (Dec. 21, 2009), D.E. 47, 2009 WL 5066902; Opinion, id. (Jan. 27, 

2010), D.E. 50, 2010 WL 409104 (denying reconsideration). 

A November 21, 2007, notice of removal attempted to remove actions pending in Wyoming’s state court involving a dispute over children of the plaintiff and the defendant. 

Amended Complaint, Fischer v. Clark, No. 2:07-cv-4871 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2007), D.E. 2; 

Notice of Removal, id. (Nov. 21, 2007), D.E. 1. Judge Seybert dismissed the case on December 7 for lack of jurisdiction over a case removed from another state. Order, id. (Dec. 7, 

2007), D.E. 5, 2007 WL 4327872. The plaintiff filed an original federal action on September 

16, 2008, challenging removal of his children from New York to Wyoming by their mother. 

Complaint, Fischer v. Clark, No. 2:08-cv-3807 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2008), D.E. 1; see Notice, 

id. (Oct. 15, 2008), D.E. 8 (assigning the case to Judge Seybert as related to the previous two 

pro se actions by the same defendant). On July 14, 2010, Judge Seybert dismissed the case. 

Order, id. (July 14, 2010), D.E. 22 (dismissing the case for failure to file an amended complaint); Opinion, id. (Sept. 24, 2009), D.E. 17, 2009 WL 3063313 (dismissing the case for lack 

of jurisdiction, but allowing amendment of the complaint). 

29. Transcript, Fischer, No. 2:08-cv-4171 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2008, filed Nov. 13, 2012), 

D.E. 33 [hereinafter Fischer Transcript]; Minutes, id. (Oct. 23, 2008), D.E. 17. 

30. Opinion, id. (Oct. 27, 2008), D.E. 21 [hereinafter Oct. 27, 2008, Fischer Opinion], 

2008 WL 4865941. 

31. Id. at 3; see Rick Brand, A First: LaValle Runs Unopposed, Newsday, Oct. 12, 2008, at 

G5; Zachary Dowdy, LaValle Challenger Seeks Ways to Fight On, Newsday, July 30, 2008, at 

A24 (“Fischer had amassed 1,475 signatures in his effort to challenge the eight-term incumbent, but the Board of Elections ruled out 620 of them, leaving him 145 signatures short of 

qualifying for the ballot.”). 

32. Fischer Transcript, supra note 29, at 16. 

33. Oct. 27, 2008, Fischer Opinion, supra note 30, at 6–10, aff’d, Order, Fischer v. Suffolk 

Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 08-5329 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2008), filed as Order, Fischer, No. 2:08-cv4171 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2008), D.E. 29; Opinion, Fischer, No. 2:08-cv-4171 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 

2008), D.E. 24 (denying reconsideration); see D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); see also Martin A. Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation 21–24 (Federal Judicial Center 3d ed. 2014). 
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 5

the case on August 14, 2009.34

2010: District Leader 

An incumbent female district leader and four other voters filed a federal 

complaint on August 25, 2010, seeking an injunction placing the incumbent 

on the September 14 primary-election ballot.35 Judge Sandra L. Townes set 

the case for hearing on September 2.36 On September 3, Judge Townes denied 

the plaintiffs immediate relief.37 She noted, “The complaint is completely devoid of factual contentions and evidentiary support.”38 Moreover, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of state statutes without showing proper 

notice to the state’s attorney general.39 A previous state-court proceeding 

challenging the incumbent’s removal from the ballot for failure to include 

the word “female” in the position title on ballot-petition papers was dismissed because neither the incumbent nor a qualified attorney appeared at 

court.40

On December 13, Judge Townes presided over a proceeding at which the 

incumbent’s attorney acknowledged that the plaintiffs no longer had a case, 

and he asked for a dismissal.41 The attorney requested the proceeding so that 

the incumbent could address the court.42

2012: Power Authority 

The prospective 2008 senate candidate filed another pro se federal complaint 

on October 26, 2012, with two other pro se plaintiffs, seeking an injunction 

putting them on the ballot for Long Island Power Authority trustee.43 Assigned the case as related to the previous cases filed by the first plaintiff,44

Judge Seybert set the case for hearing on November 1.45 On October 31, she 

heard the plaintiffs ex parte, but denied them immediate relief, and reset the 

34. Opinion, Fischer, No. 2:08-cv-4171 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009), D.E. 30, 2009 WL 

2524859. 

35. Complaint, Minnus v. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:10-cv-3918 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2010), 

D.E. 1. 

36. Order to Show Cause, id. (Aug. 26, 2010, filed Aug. 30, 2010), D.E. 4. 

Judge Townes died on February 8, 2018. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 12. 

37. Opinion, Minnus, No. 1:10-cv-3918 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2010, filed Sept. 3, 2010), D.E. 

9, 2010 WL 3528544. 

38. Id. at 2 n.2. 

39. Id. n.1. 

40. Id. at 3–4. 

41. Transcript, id. (Dec. 13, 2010, filed Dec. 16, 2010), D.E. 12. 

42. Id.; see id. at 8 (“So for the record and moving forward, I know that there’s nothing 

that we can do about my situation right now but there is something that can be done in the 

future.”). 

43. Complaint, Fischer v. NYS Bd. of Elections, No. 2:12-cv-5397 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 

2012), D.E. 1; see Mark Harrington, Sparring Over “Legitimacy” of LIPA’s Board, Newsday, 

Oct. 28, 2012, at A26 (describing the repeat plaintiff as someone “who has filed lawsuits in 

state and federal court seeking to force LIPA to hold trustee elections”); Rick Brand, Lawsuit: 

Hold Elections for LIPA Trustees, Newsday, July 27, 2012, at A14. 

44. Notice, Fischer, No. 2:12-cv-5397 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2012), D.E. 11. 

45. Order to Show Cause, id. (Oct. 26, 2012), D.E. 15. 
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

6 Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 

November 1 hearing for November 2.46 Judge Seybert found the action 

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as an improper appeal from the state 

courts’ determination that the trustee position was properly a position that 

was appointed and not elected.47 She dismissed the case on January 28, 

2014.48

Southern District of New York 

2012: Congress 

A prospective candidate and two other voters filed a pro se federal complaint 

in the Southern District of New York on May 14, 2012, seeking an order 

placing the candidate’s name on the Democratic primary-election ballot for a 

congressional district.49

Three days later, the court assigned the case to Judge Katherine B. Forrest,50 who ruled that day that the suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine.51

On May 29, an attorney filed a second federal complaint on behalf of five 

voters seeking an injunction putting the candidate on the ballot.52 Judge Shira A. Scheindlin heard the case on May 3053 and issued an opinion denying 

the plaintiffs relief on June 4.54

There are many potential grounds that would bar plaintiffs from obtaining relief from this Court. But because of the parties’ need for a rapid 

resolution of this motion—and in accordance with the principle that the 

Court should not reach questions unnecessary for that resolution—I address only the two simplest ones here: (1) plaintiffs have not shown that the 

Board has deprived them of any constitutionally-protected interest and 

(2) even if such a deprivation did occur, plaintiffs have received due process 

through the putative candidate’s challenge to his exclusion from the ballot.55

An appeal was dismissed on August 23 for failure to prosecute it.56

46. Minutes, id. (Oct. 31, 2012), D.E. 13; Order to Show Cause, id. (Oct. 31, 2012), D.E. 

12; see Minutes, id. (Nov. 2, 2012), D.E. 16. 

47. Opinion, id. (Nov. 7, 2012), D.E. 17 (noting that the state’s court of appeals dismissed 

an appeal on October 18, 2012); Opinion, id. (May 28, 2013), D.E. 25, 2013 WL 2316665 

(denying reconsideration and recusal). 

48. Order, id. (Jan. 28, 2014), D.E. 29. 

49. Complaint, Williams-Bey v. Comm’rs of Elections, No. 1:12-cv-3836 (S.D.N.Y. May 

14, 2012), D.E. 1. 

50. Order, id. (May 17, 2012), D.E. 4. 

Judge Forrest resigned on September 11, 2018. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 

12. 

51. Opinion, Williams-Bey, No. 1:12-cv-3836 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2012), D.E. 6. 

52. Complaint, Thomas v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, No. 1:12-cv-4223 (S.D.N.Y. May 

29, 2012), D.E. 1. 

53. Docket Sheet, id. (May 29, 2012). 

Judge Scheindlin retired on April 29, 2016. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 12. 

54. Thomas v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, 898 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 

55. Id. at 598. 

56. Docket Sheet, Thomas v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, No. 12-2766 (2d Cir. July 13, 
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 7

2014: State Senate 

Three voters filed a pro se federal complaint in the Southern District on August 19, 2014, seeking an injunction putting a candidate they supported on 

the September 9 Democratic primary-election ballot for state senator.57 Judge 

Edgardo Ramos issued an order on the following day that the defendants 

show cause on August 22 why relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs.58

At the hearing, Judge Ramos took under advisement the plaintiffs’ plea for a 

preliminary injunction.59

An attorney filed an amended complaint on the plaintiffs’ behalf on August 25.60 Judge Ramos denied the preliminary injunction two days later.61

The candidate initially qualified for the ballot, but a few days after confirming the candidate’s qualification based on a sufficient number of valid ballotpetition signatures, the county board of elections determined that the number of valid signatures was not sufficient.62 A state-court challenge to the 

candidate’s ballot exclusion was unsuccessful because of defective service on 

the person whose objection resulted in the candidate’s disqualification.63 On 

August 29, Judge Ramos explained in an opinion supporting his denial of the 

preliminary injunction that procedures offered the candidate to contest his 

exclusion from the ballot were adequate.64

The plaintiffs dismissed their action on September 1.65

Eastern District 

2016: Congress 

On the day before the June 28, 2016, congressional primary election, a prospective candidate and a voter filed a federal class action in the Eastern District to modify the primary-election date or otherwise remedy the candidate’s 

exclusion from the ballot.66 On June 24, following a three-day hearing, a 

state-court judge found that the candidate had submitted a sufficient number 

of valid signatures to merit a place on the ballot, but the judge also found that 

it was too late for a remedy.67 On the day that the federal complaint was filed, 

2012) (D.E. 15). 

57. Complaint, Moore v. McFadden, No. 1:14-cv-6643 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014), D.E. 2. 

58. Order, id. (Aug. 20, 2014), D.E. 4. 

59. Docket Sheet, id. (Aug. 19, 2014). 

60. Amended Complaint, id. (Aug. 25, 2014), D.E. 7. 

61. Order, id. (Aug. 27, 2014), D.E. 17. 

62. Opinion at 3, id. (Aug. 29, 2014), D.E. 21. 

63. Id. at 3–5. 

64. Id. at 8–19. 

65. Voluntary Dismissal, id. (Sept. 1, 2014), D.E. 22. 

66. Complaint, Pidot v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 2:16-cv-3527 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 

2016), D.E. 1 [hereinafter E.D.N.Y. Pidot Complaint]; see Proposed Order to Show Cause, id.

(June 27, 2016), D.E. 10; see also Rick Brand, Philip Pidot Lawsuit in 3rd C.D. Gets July 11 

Hearing, Newsday, June 30, 2016, at 12. 

67. Opinion, Pidot v. Macedo, No. 3448/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 24, 2016), filed as Ex. 

A, E.D.N.Y. Pidot Complaint, supra note 66; see Paul LaRocco, Philip Pidot Bid for Primary 

Ballot “Impossible,” Judge Says, Newsday, June 25, 2016, at 10. 
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

8 Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 

Judge Joseph F. Bianco denied the plaintiffs immediate relief upon a determination that they were not seeking to enjoin the next day’s election but to 

enjoin certification of a victor for the candidate’s party.68 On July 6, Judge 

Bianco granted the plaintiffs a voluntary dismissal.69

Related Action in the Northern District of New York 

Adding an additional voter as a named plaintiff, the candidate filed a federal 

class-action complaint in the Northern District of New York on July 13.70

New York’s congressional primary-election date was set in advance of New 

York’s customary September primary-election date by Northern District 

Judge Gary L. Sharpe in 2012 to comply with the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA), which requires federal 

absentee ballots to be sent to overseas voters at least forty-five days before the 

general election.71 On July 18, Judge Sharpe denied the candidate’s request to 

regard the new case as related to the closed case resulting in the date order.72

At an August 17 hearing, Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., dismissed the 

candidate’s prospective primary-election opponent as a defendant, because 

the plaintiffs sought no relief against him, but permitted the opponent to intervene.73 Judge Scullin granted the plaintiffs a special primary election to be 

held on October 6 and ordered election officials to seek a UOCAVA hardship waiver,74 which the federal government granted.75 The candidate’s primary-election opponent filed a notice of appeal on August 30 challenging the 

order requiring him to face the candidate plaintiff in a primary election.76

68. Order, Pidot, No. 2:16-cv-3527 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2016), D.E. 11. 

Judge Bianco was elevated to the court of appeals on May 13, 2019. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 12. 

69. Order, Pidot, No. 2:16-cv-3527 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2016), D.E. 26; see Rick Brand, Philip 

Pidot Drops Federal Suit, Plans New One, Newsday, July 11, 2016, at 12. 

70. Complaint, Pidot v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:16-cv-859 (N.D.N.Y. July 13, 

2016), D.E. 1. 

71. Opinion, United States v. New York, No. 1:10-cv-1214 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2012), D.E. 

59, 2012 WL 254263; see Pub. L. No. 99-410, 100 Stat. 924, as amended, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301–

20311; see also Robert Timothy Reagan, Overseas Voting: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 11–12 (Federal Judicial Center 2016).

72. Order, Pidot, No. 1:16-cv-859 (N.D.N.Y. July 18, 2016), D.E. 11; see Notice, id. (July 

14, 2016), D.E. 6. 

73. Transcript at 3–4, 20, 24, id. (Aug. 17, 2016, filed Sept. 7, 2016), D.E. 116. 

74. Order, id. (Aug. 17, 2016), D.E. 66; see Rick Brand, Judge Orders Oct. 6 Primary in 3rd 

Congressional District, Newsday, Aug. 18, 2016, at 8. 

“In all, there are only 246 military and overseas absentees that could play a role in the 

Oct. 6 GOP primary. State election officials say there are 1,012 military and absentee ballots 

that could be affected in the general election.” Rick Brand, Military Ballots Go Out for 3rd 

District Congressional Primary, Newsday, Aug. 24, 2016, at 10. 

75. Notice, Pidot, No. 1:16-cv-859 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2016), D.E. 99; see Michael Gormley, Jack Martins Loses Bid to Stop Absentee Ballots in 3rd CD Race, Newsday, Sept. 7, 2016, 

at 12. 

76. Notice of Appeal, Pidot, No. 1:16-cv-859 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2016), D.E. 101; see Michael Gormley, Jack Martins Considers Appeal After Denied Moving 3rd CD Election, News-
Unsuccessful Federal Actions to Achieve Different Results 

from Unsuccessful State-Court Efforts to Get on a Ballot 

Federal Judicial Center 10/10/2023 9

Judge Scullin granted a motion by the opposing political party’s nominee 

to intervene to oppose any effort to move the date of the general election.77

Judge Scullin also accepted an amicus curiae brief from the Reserve Officers 

Association urging a delay in the general election for the one congressional 

seat to allow enough time for overseas voters to participate.78 On August 30, 

Judge Scullin decided not to order a change in the general-election date.79

At the conclusion of oral argument on September 14, the court of appeals 

vacated Judge Scullin’s injunction and ordered the district court to dismiss 

the complaint.80 In a summary order issued two days later, the court explained that although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the relief that 

Judge Scullin ordered, because the candidate actually won in state court, injunctive relief was not supported by the equities, especially because the disappointing outcome of failing to be included on the primary-election ballot 

nevertheless resulted from due process.81

day, Sept. 1, 2016, at 33. 

77. Docket Sheet, Pidot, No. 1:16-cv-859 (N.D.N.Y. July 13, 2016) [hereinafter N.D.N.Y. 

Pidot Docket Sheet] (D.E. 98); see Intervention Motion, id. (Aug. 25, 2016), D.E. 81; see also

Michael Gormley, Martins Appeals to Move 3rd CD General Election to December, Newsday, 

Sept. 2, 2016, at 11. 

78. Amicus Brief, Pidot, No. 1:16-cv-859 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2016), D.E. 91; N.D.N.Y. Pidot Docket Sheet, supra note 77 (D.E. 90). 

79. Opinion, Pidot, No. 1:16-cv-859 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016), D.E. 103; Transcript at 25, 

id. (Aug. 30, 2016, filed Sept. 6, 2016), D.E. 115; Minutes, id. (Aug. 30, 2016), D.E. 102; see

Michael Gormley, Judge Keeps Key LI Congressional Election in November, Newsday, Aug. 

31, 2016, at 6. 

80. Oral Argument, Pidot v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 16-3028 (2d Cir. Sept. 14, 

2016), D.E. 132, ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b4e03066-0e5e-4942-801c69efd89e4c32/1/doc/16-3028.mp3 (audio recording); see Order to Expedite, id. (Sept. 2, 

2016), D.E. 33; see also Rick Brand, Federal Appeals Court Rejects GOP Primary in 3rd CD, 

Newsday, Sept. 15, 2016, at 14. 

81. Martins v. Pidot, 663 F. App’x 14 (2d Cir. 2016).