CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/1/2023 1

Court Supervision 

Over Absentee-Ballot Procedures 

Willingham v. County of Albany (Norman A. Mordue, 

1:04-cv-369) and Hoblock v. Albany County Board 

of Elections (Lawrence E. Kahn, 1:04-cv-1205) (N.D.N.Y.) 

A federal complaint sought an emergency injunction against absentee-ballot fraud in an ongoing special-election cycle, but the district 

judge determined that the plaintiffs did not establish a need for 

immediate federal relief beyond the relief provided by the state 

court. At the end of approximately three years of litigation, the case 

was resolved by consent decrees. Meanwhile, a different federal 

judge in the same district resolved a dispute over the counting of 

some absentee ballots by overruling the state high court’s rejection 

of absentee ballots cast by voters who received them because of errors by the election board. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

matters for state courts; case assignment; primary election; 

enjoining certification; class action; attorney fees; intervention; 

malapportionment. 

On April 2, 2004, three candidates, six other voters, and two organizations 

filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of New York challenging 

absentee-voting procedures in an ongoing election cycle for a special election 

made necessary by the redistricting of Albany County’s legislature.1 An 

amended complaint filed four days later added one candidate and five other 

voters as plaintiffs.2

 A primary election was held on March 2, a replacement 

primary election was scheduled for April 8 in one district, and the general 

special election was scheduled for April 27.3

The special elections were ordered by federal courts to remedy voting 

rights violations for the thirty-nine-member legislature’s districting after the 

2000 census.4 The court reassigned the new case from Judge Frederick J. 

1. Complaint, Willingham v. County of Albany, No. 1:04-cv-369 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 

2004), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Willingham Complaint]; see Cathy Woodruff, Lawsuit Aims to 

Protect Ballots, Albany Times Union, Apr. 2, 2004, at B1. 

2. Amended Complaint, Willingham, No. 1:04-cv-369 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2004), D.E. 3. 

3. See Willingham Complaint, supra note 1, at 7; Cathy Woodruff, Vote to End Ballot Crisis, Albany Times Union, Mar. 20, 2004, at A1 (reporting that the replacement primary election was agreed on by the two leading candidates in the very close original primary election 

in light of allegations of absentee-ballot fraud). 

4. Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 357 F.3d 

260 (2d Cir. 2004); Order, Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of 

Albany, No. 1:03-cv-502 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2004), D.E. 81; see Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens 

Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 183–84 (2d Cir. 2008) (“the district 

court may adjust [the base hourly rate in a fee award] to account for a plaintiff’s reasonable 

decision to retain out-of-district counsel”); Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood 

Ass’n v. County of Albany, 369 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2004) (determining that the plaintiffs were 
Court Supervision Over Absentee-Ballot Procedures 

2 Federal Judicial Center 11/1/2023 

Scullin, Jr., to Judge Norman A. Mordue, who was presiding over the earlier 

litigation.5

On April 14, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.6

 At 3:00 p.m. that day, Judge Mordue 

conducted a telephonic conference.7

 At a second conference two days later, 

hedenied the plaintiffs immediate relief.8 The plaintiffs’ concerns in some of 

the districts had already been remedied by a state-court settlement, and the 

plaintiffs had not submitted evidence of improprieties in other districts or 

demonstrated a federal question.9

The litigation was resolved over the course of three years by consent decrees.10

Meanwhile, the April 27, 2004, special general election resulted in two 

races only three or four votes apart and the validity of a few dozen absentee 

ballots in question.11 Following state-court litigation, New York’s court of 

appeals ruled on October 14 that the county board of elections, apparently 

misinterpreting Judge Mordue’s orders, wrongfully issued absentee ballots to 

voters who requested them for the canceled November 2003 election, even if 

the voters did not make a new request for the April 2004 election, and ballots 

cast by those voters should not be counted.12 Two candidates and seven votentitled to attorney fees on appeal, but at the market rate for attorneys in the Northern District of New York, not in Manhattan where the court of appeals typically sits); Arbor Hill 

Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 419 F. Supp. 2d 206 

(N.D.N.Y. 2005) (awarding the plaintiffs $160,763.07 in fees and costs). 

5. Order, Willingham, No. 1:04-cv-369 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2004), D.E. 6. 

Judge Mordue died on December 29, 2022. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

6. Motion, Willingham, No. 1:04-cv-369 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2004), D.E. 9. 

7. Minutes, id. (Apr. 14, 2004), D.E. 10. 

8. Opinion, id. (Apr. 16, 2004), D.E. 21 [hereinafter Apr. 16, 2004, Willingham Opinion]; 

Minutes, id. (Apr. 16, 2004), D.E. 20. 

9. Apr. 16, 2004, Willingham Opinion, supra note 8. 

10. Consent Decrees, Willingham, No. 1:04-cv-369 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2005, and Jan. 22, 

2007), D.E. 55, 143 to 146; see Willingham v. County of Albany, 593 F. Supp. 2d 446 

(N.D.N.Y. 2006) (magistrate judge opinion discussing allegations that one or more defendants filled out absentee ballots for voters or influenced absentee votes through intimidation); 

Magistrate Judge Opinion, Willingham, No. 1:04-cv-369 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2005), D.E. 85, 

2005 WL 1660114 (same); see also Default Judgment, id. (May 11, 2005), D.E. 80 (enjoining 

five defendants from enumerated activities involving absentee ballots); Second Amended 

Complaint, id. (Mar. 15, 2005), D.E. 67. 

11. Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 341 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 

2004) (noting twenty-seven absentee ballots at issue according to the plaintiffs and forty at 

issue according to the defendants); see Complaint at 8–9, Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of 

Elections, No. 1:04-cv-1205 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2004), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Hoblock Complaint]; Carol DeMare, Federal Court to Rule on Legislature Elections, Albany Times Union, 

Sept. 28, 2005, at B8; see also Carol DeMare, Legislature at Full Strength, Albany Times Union, Nov. 9, 2004, at B1 (reporting that incumbents continued to serve until the elections 

were resolved). 

12. In re Gross v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 3 N.Y.3d 251, 819 N.E.2d 197, 785 

N.Y.S.2d 729 (2004); Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 81–82 (2d Cir. 
Court Supervision Over Absentee-Ballot Procedures 

Federal Judicial Center 11/1/2023 3

ers filed a federal class-action complaint in the Northern District on October 

19, 2004, challenging the state high court’s decision.13

With their complaint, the class action plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.14 Judge Lawrence E. 

Kahn issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until 

the motion for the preliminary injunction could be heard.15

On October 25, Judge Kahn dismissed the candidate plaintiffs pursuant 

to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that among federal courts only 

the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings.16

Because the voters, however, were not parties to the state-court proceedings, 

Judge Kahn granted them preliminary relief by enjoining certification of the 

election in the two districts at issue.17 “[B]y providing absentee ballots that 

voters rely upon in good faith to cast their vote, and then invalidating them, 

the Board has effectively taken away their guaranteed right to vote in the 

election. . . . The unfairness to the Plaintiff voters is unmistakenly 

clear . . . .”18

On September 2, 2005, the court of appeals reviewed Judge Kahn’s injunction and ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply to the 

voters’ claims so long as the voter plaintiffs represented all voters who were 

similarly issued absentee ballots improperly and not just voters supporting 

and controlled by the candidate plaintiffs; so the court remanded the case to 

provide the voter plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend their complaint if 

their claims were really independent of the candidate plaintiffs’.19 The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 9.20 On December 5, Judge 

Kahn determined that the candidate plaintiffs were entitled to intervene.21

Judge Kahn granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on May 24, 2006.22

Following the June 12 counting of absentee ballots, one of the candidate 

2005); Hoblock, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 172; see Carol DeMare, Court of Appeals Tosses Out Absentee Ballots, Albany Times Union, Oct. 15, 2004, at B4. 

13. Hoblock Complaint, supra note 11; Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 82–83; Hoblock, 341 F. Supp. 

2d at 171–72. 

14. Injunction Brief, Hoblock, No. 1:04-cv-1205 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2004), D.E. 10. 

15. Hoblock, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 172; see Carol DeMare, Ballot Counting Halted in County 

Races, Albany Times Union, Oct. 21, 2004, at B4. 

16. Hoblock, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 172–75; see D.C. Ct. App. 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). 

17. Hoblock, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 175–78; see Carol DeMare, Legislature Races Remain on 

Hold, Albany Times Union, Nov. 2, 2004, at B4. 

18. Hoblock, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 176–77. 

19. Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 92, 98 (2d Cir. 2005). 

20. Amended Complaint, Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:04-cv-1205 

(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2005), D.E. 27. 

21. Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 233 F.R.D. 95 (N.D.N.Y. 2005). 

22. Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 487 F. Supp. 2d 90 (N.D.N.Y. 2006); see

Carol DeMare, Court Orders Ballots to Be Counted, Albany Times Union, May 26, 2006, at 

B9. 
Court Supervision Over Absentee-Ballot Procedures 

4 Federal Judicial Center 11/1/2023 

plaintiffs prevailed by four votes.23 The other candidate plaintiff remained 

tied with his opponent, and two absentee ballots remained in dispute because 

they were faxed to the board.24 On June 14, Judge Kahn overruled the lastminute challenge to those two ballots and ordered them counted because 

they were covered by the terms of previous orders.25 The last two ballots in 

question went to the candidate plaintiff, who was certified the winner of the 

election.26

On November 7, Judge Kahn awarded the voter plaintiffs $46,038.68 in 

attorney fees and costs and awarded the candidate plaintiffs $19,529.50.27

In 2015, Judge Kahn found that the 2011 redistricting of the legislature 

impermissibly diluted the voting strength of Black voters and approved a 

substitute districting plan for use in 2015 elections.28

23. Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 488 F. Supp. 2d 163, 164 (N.D.N.Y. 2006) 

(noting that the vote was 706 to 702); see Carol DeMare, Elections Resolved After Two-Year 

Dispute, Albany Times Union, June 13, 2006, at B1. 

24. Hoblock, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 164–65 (noting that the candidates had 508 votes each). 

25. Id. at 165–66; see Carol DeMare, Judge Orders Ballots Opened in Deadlocked Election, 

Albany Times Union, June 15, 2006, at B9. 

26. See Carol DeMare, Years Later, Election Is Over, Albany Times Union, June 17, 2006, 

at B1. 

27. Opinion, Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:04-cv-1205 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 

7, 2006), D.E. 87, 2006 WL 3248402. 

28. Pope v. Cty. of Albany, 94 F. Supp. 3d 302 (N.D.N.Y. 2015); Docket Sheet, Pope v. 

County of Albany, No. 1:11-cv-736 (N.D.N.Y. June 29, 2011) (Apr. 21, 2015, D.E. 437).