WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. March 24, 2004, UPDATED 5:30 P.M. E.S.T.: Assemblyman Adam Bradley’s Election Law Reform Bill he is sponsoring in the Assembly, and attempting to find backers for in the New York Senate, contrasts with Attorney General Elliot Spitzer’s Election Law Reform in that Bradley’s would not give Supreme Court Justices the power to declare the winner in an election dispute. Spitzer’s does.

The Bradley bill grants to the Supreme Court Judge a new power in evaluation of protested general elections:

“The court, in a proceeding involving a dispute over the winner of a general or a special election, shall order that a new election be held, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the wrong candidate was or would be determined to be the winner.”

Eliminates Usurpation.

Mr. Bradley’s bill, in enacted,  would prevent a repetition of the Glen Hockley-Larry Delgado situation where Mr. Hockley still occupies a Council Seat after 1 year and 3 months as an alleged “usurper” by Mr. Delgado’s quo warranto suit.

The Bradley Solution would carryover the existing officer currently in the contested office, so there would be no disruption of the ability to conduct government business while a new election was awaited to resolve the dispute between deadlocked or “in doubt” contests. The language of the bill reads:

“The provisions of section five of the public officer’s law shall apply to any candidate who held the office of the disputed candidates prior to the election that yielded the disputed results.”

Would Have Resolved Delgado Problem Faster.

Bradley, speaking to WPCNR by phone Wednesday, said that the current situation whereby Mr. Hockley occupies a council seat while Mr. Delgado is asking to be appointed to it, and Mr. Hockley removed, would not occur under this law. Speaking hypothetically, Bradley said either Pauline Oliva or Mr. Delgado, the incumbent, would continue to serve in the seat until the new general election called for by the judge were to be held.  Bradley’s bill would call for a new election, “the sixth Tuesday after the court’s determination is issued.”

“Dangerous” to Have Judges Declare Winners.

Bradley was asked why he did not concur with Attorney General Elliot Spitzer’s bill which gives judges the power to declare a winner in a disputed election.

He said he felt judges had the right to determine issues on the validity of ballots, but felt that allowing them to make a judgement on who the winner is would be a dangerous precedent, considering judges are themselves elected.

Bradley said the right to call a new election had to be based on “clear and convincing evidence,” which the bill in the form sent to WPCNR, does not spell out.

Clear and Convincing Evidence is Very High Standard: Bradley

Mr. Bradley, contacting WPCNR Wednesday afternoon, clarified to WPCNR  that the term "clear and convincing evidence" is a legal term and does not have to be spelled out, and constitutes a very high legal standard.

Bradley patiently explained that  "clear and convincing evidence"  was a standard term where circumstances in which a new election could be called did not have to be "spelled out," and that what constituted "clear and convincing evidence" would vary upon the situation. 

Asked if the affidavits that Larry Delgado submitted to show proof that persons disenfranchised by the jammed voting maching in District 18, would be "clear and convincing evidence," Bradley said "maybe, but at least the judge would have the right to call for a new election. Under present law, the judge does not."

In the "Memorandum In Support of Legislation," Mr. Bradley concludes,

"This law is important because it contains a mechanism to ensure fairness and transparency in elections throughout New York State by giving courts a meaninful remedy, and insuring that an aggrieved candidate can obtain a new election when it is clear that a losing candidate would otherwise be declared the winner."