CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/16/2023 1

No Relief from New York’s Ballot-Petition 

Signature Requirements 

During the Covid-19 Pandemic 

Murray v. Cuomo (Mary Kay Vyskocil, 1:20-cv-3571) 

and Eisen v. Cuomo (Philip M. Halpern, 7:20-cv-5121) 

(S.D.N.Y.) 

A plaintiff, whose ballot-petition signatures for a primary election 

were ruled invalid because the signatures had not been collected or 

witnessed by a member of the party, was denied relief from a signature requirement that was shortened both in time and in number because of an infectious pandemic. Later, a different judge denied another prospective congressional candidate relief from ballot-petition 

signature requirements. 

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

Covid-19; matters for state courts; primary election; party 

procedures. 

Prospective congressional candidates in New York were unable to persuade 

federal judges to provide them with relief from New York’s ballot-petition signature requirements during the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic. 

The Primary Election 

A prospective candidate for Congress filed a federal complaint in the Southern 

District of New York on May 7, 2020, seeking an order placing her on the June 

23 Republican primary-election ballot.1 On May 8, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil 

signed an order that defendants show cause, at a telephone conference on May 

15, why relief should not be granted, with briefing to be completed by May 13.2

On May 18, Judge Vyskocil denied the plaintiff immediate relief.3

Observing that the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in a related state-court 

proceeding, Judge Vyskocil rejected the defendants’ argument that the action 

was foreclosed by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that among federal courts only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court 

proceedings,4 because the state-court ruling did not cause the plaintiff’s alleged 

injury.5 The issue of res judicata had not been briefed adequately for a ruling 

on that.6

Observing also that all of the signatures submitted to support the plaintiff’s 

ballot application were ruled invalid because they were not collected or witnessed by a member of the Republican Party, Judge Vyskocil ruled that it was 

1. Complaint, Murray v. Cuomo, No. 1:20-cv-3571 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Order, id. (May 8, 2020), D.E. 6 (providing contact information in the public record). 

3. Murray v. Cuomo, 460 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). 

4. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 

263 U.S. 413 (1923). 

5. Murray, 460 F. Supp. 3d at 438–39. 

6. Id. at 439–42. 
No Relief from New York’s Ballot-Petition Signature Requirements 

During the COVID-19 Pandemic 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/16/2023 

reasonable for the governor to cut short the time allowed to collect signatures, 

while substantially reducing the number required in light of the Covid-19 infectious pandemic.7

The plaintiff withdrew an interlocutory appeal on May 298 and voluntarily 

dismissed the case on June 7.9

The General Election 

A prospective independent candidate for Congress in the November general 

election filed a federal complaint in the Southern District on July 3, 2020, challenging New York’s in-person signature and witnessing requirements for ballot petitions.10 One week later, the plaintiff filed a proposed order to show 

cause why relief should not be granted.11 He filed a letter motion for expedited 

consideration four days after that.12

Judge Philip M. Halpern set the case for a telephone conference on July 17, 

publishing telephone-access information in the public record.13 On July 17, 

Judge Halpern set the case for hearing on July 27.14 “Counsel for defendants 

appeared in the courtroom and plaintiff’s counsel by means of videoconference. Court heard argument from the parties. Neither party called any witnesses. The Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.”15 At the 

hearing, Judge Halpern concluded, with respect to signature requirements as 

modified because of the pandemic, that “the restrictions are not severe, but 

reasonable and nondiscriminatory.”16

The parties stipulated dismissal of the case on August 12.17

7. Id. at 444–48. 

8. Order, Murray v. Cuomo, No. 20-1584 (2d Cir. May 29, 2020), D.E. 20. 

9. Notice, Murray v. Cuomo, No. 1:20-cv-3571 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2020), D.E. 18. 

10. Complaint, Eisen v. Cuomo, No. 7:20-cv-5121 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2020), D.E. 1; see

Amended Complaint, id. (July 20, 2020), D.E. 28 (adding as a plaintiff a candidate for the state 

legislature). 

11. Proposed Order, id. (July 10, 2020), D.E. 18. 

12. Letter, id. (July 14, 2020), D.E. 24. 

13. Endorsed Letter, id. (July 15, 2020), D.E. 25. 

14. Order, id. (July 17, 2020), D.E. 27. 

15. Docket Sheet, id. (July 3, 2020); see Order, id. (July 27, 2020), D.E. 36. 

16. Transcript at 25, id. (July 27, 2020, filed Aug. 5, 2020), D.E. 39. 

17. Stipulation, id. (Aug. 12, 2020), D.E. 42.