- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
Will Matthew Eugene be disqualified due to residency issue?There are some experts saying Matthew Eugene cannot legally be certified the winner and sworn in as new city councilman for Flatbush because he was not living in the district on the day he was elected. It appears as though this could wind up in court, as Eugene's people and the Board of Elections may have different interpretations of the rules. Eugene was going by the assumption that he had to be a resident of the district by the time the votes are certified, at which time his election becomes official, and that has not happened yet and he has signed a lease on a new apartment. But election lawyers, including the one quoted in the article, insist one has to be a resident of the district on the day he is elected in that district. That the board of elections cannot certify a non-resident of a district as the winner of an election. What I am wondering is what happens if Eugene is disqualified? Do they swear in the second place finisher or do they have another election? This whole mess could have been avoided if Eugene had simply moved before the election. But he wanted to wait and make sure he won before he moved, which seems to indicate he only wanted to live in the district if he could represent the district. This is not as bad as Diane Gordon trying to get a free house and move out of her district while she is representing it, but its not too good either. MORE ON THE EUGENE SAGA
reply | email this comment
 Maybe our resident elections expert can weigh in here? Has this happened before and to what result?
I do not recall any situation like this in New York. I defer to Jerry Goldfeder who says that if Eugene is found to be ineligible, a new election will be held.
The blame for this could fall on the Board of Elections. After all, is it not the responsibility of the B of E to notify candidates *ahead of time* that they are not eligible? They should have told Eugene he had to move by election day if that is the case, instead of waiting until he won to say he needed to have moved and declare him ineligible. Another question is whether the other candidates would run in a new election, or if they would show solidarity with the original results by letting Eugene run unopposed. It's completely irrelevent whether Dr. Eugene is a Dr. What matters is whether he's a resident. Not a medical resident, but an actual resident of the 40th district. No one has questioned the authenticity of the "ambassodors" claim that he was indeed the ambassador from that tiny little island. But residency alone is not enough. Toney was rejected because he was too arrogant and pretentious and had absolutly no record of accomplishment other than that supposed ambassadorship.
Will those candidates that couldn't have served if elected, if the courts rule that they had to reside in the district as of election day, be forced to repay the matching taxpaper funds? Toney -if everyone else is eliminated you may have a chance on the next go round. If one candidate in a multi-candidate field is declared ineligible, how does that invalidate the votes the other candidates received? Holding another election only benefits the candidate whose votes were thrown out. Wouldn't the B of E have the responsibility to certify the winner as being the eligible candidate who received the most votes, rather than throwing out the whole election? It seems like Jennifer James could make a legal case against a new election being held, that if Eugene is ineligible, that she should be certified as the winner among eligible candidates and immediately sworn in. rwallnerny I hate to bust your bubble but it is not the Board of Elections fault that Mr./Dr. Eugene has a terrible lawyer. It is the responsibility of his attorney to explain to him the law. Not the Baord od Elections, my friend. This is a nightmare for us residents of the 40th and I for one am going to remember this in 2008 when Congressmember Clarke is up for reelection. We have noone advocating for us and budget hearings are scheduled already, this is a complete mess.
If the B of E schedules a new election, voters who voted in this election could also sue. I mean if you voted for one of the other candidates, the B of E is essentially invalidating your votes if they schedule another election. Would it be right to make all these voters who voted for eligible candidates vote again because one guy got ruled ineligible? If they schedule a new election, Eugene should not be allowed to run anyway because the point of new election shouldn't be to give ineligible candidates time to become eligible. That is saying its okay to risk breaking the rules, because you'll get a second chance to not break them. The results should stand. The runnerup should be certified if the winner is ineligible. The district does not deserve to have a vacant board seat for more months, nor to have to pay the expense of a new election. Wasn't there a question about the residency of the candiates that placed 2nd and 3rd? If they're thrown out too, doesn't the race go to Schiffman a 5 year resident of Prospect Park South within the 40th?
Rwall: There is no precedent in New York State law for a runner up to take a seat when the winner is found ineligle to serve. All of the precedent is on the side of declaring a vacancy. And it makes sense. If a victor wins on the Democratic side and is then deemed ineligle, thenit would be a slap in the face to the intent of the electorate to replace him with the Republican runner-up.
I dread the thought of another election. That means another 100 automated telephone calls! Has anyone ever not hung up and actually listened to the message? If it happens again I'm going to tape them and play them on the candidates home phones all hours of the night.
The "Friends of Joel Toney" website has a link to the news story of yesterdays aborted swearing in! This is from the candidate that got 2% of the vote. Message to Ambassador Toney - you lost in a landslide, it's over. anonymous 3:47, wouldn't it also be a slap in the face to all those voters who legitimately voted for eligible candidates, to be told that their votes are invalidated and that they must go vote all over again? It is also a slap in the face of all those candidates who rigourously adhered to the eligibility rulesand ran fairly to say the votes they received can't count, that all of their votes must be invalidated and a new election held. If a candidate is declared ineligible, shouldn't the board simply treat it as if that candidate was never in the race, and consider the race as having been held among the eligible candidates? I think there is going to be an interesting court battle over this, because you are punishing the voters if you tell them their votes don't count anymore and they have to vote all over again just because one candidate didn't follow the rules. In terms of precedent as you mentioned, when and where has anything like happened before in the state? What comparable precedent is there?
Yvette and Una Clarke have gotta go. They have made a mockery of this system that we call a democracy and have turned the 40th Council district into there own playground. I urge the resident of the 40th to write to the Board of Elections (certified letters only, you know how these paper pushers are) and tell them HELL NO! This is not right. Call the Mayor and demmand an investigation and another election, so the voters can choose someone quick. We are all suffering here. To Una Clark and Yvette you two should be ashamed of yourselves, you have turned my community into a laughing stock and have embarrassed an entire race with your antics. This will not be forgotten. Do you really think that they ar astute enough to think this through to the end. They wanted a candidate that was not a threat and they found him in "Dr." Eugene. 1199 also deserves condemnation for foisting this candidate on we who long for a real Councilperson.
Do you really think that they are astute enough to think this through to the end. They wanted a candidate that was not a threat and they found him in "Dr." Eugene. 1199 also deserves condemnation for foisting this candidate on we who long for a real Councilperson.
If there was a new election called, and Eugene were allowed to run in it, it would have the effect of being like a runoff in all likelihood, because surely not all the also-rans would bother to run again. Jennifer James, Wellington Sharpe, Harry Shiffman, Zenobia .etc could all get together as a "Stop Eugene" coalition and one of them would run as the coalition's candidate. If they combine their votes and can bring out the same level of support, there would be more than enough to defeat Eugene. Coalescing behind the top finishers is what usually happens in a runoff anyway right? I don't envy those guys having to go out and do more petitoning. Its enough of a hassle to get all those signatures together just once. Besides some of those guys probably got fewer votes than they got petition signatures the first time! Honestly, I have to say... if this all turns out to be true, then the guy shouldn't even run again. I appreciate wanting to serve the community, but how well can Eugene serve if he lies about his medical liscence and his residency like this?
ALong with this whole illegal loan nonsense, somebody should step in and tell the guy to back out. Voting issues are not generally a main concern. But if we had a variant of instant runoff voting, with voters permitted to make their first and second choice, then if the top vote getter was declared ineligible, his second choice votes could be used to determine the winner among other candidates. A new election would not be required.
Also good if no one is disqualified. You are more likely to get a winner more than half the people voted for, at least as a second choice. If there is a new election, whats to stop new candidates from getting in to replace the ones who lost and don't want to run in the new election? This could be a chance for Zizi to get back in and run in a smaller field, or Chris Owens could take a second look. A lot of things could happen with a new election. In the future, why can't they change the rules to simply say that a candidate cannot be certified to be on the ballot unless he lives in the district where he is running. If this had been the case, Eugene would have been disqualified when he turned in his petitions, he'd never have made the ballot, and we wouldn't be on this mess now. When you petition for a race, the address you list on the petition should be IN the district for which you are running.
(In the future, why can't they change the rules to simply say that a candidate cannot be certified to be on the ballot unless he lives in the district where he is running.)
Is this rule, that you can move between filing and election day, specific to special elections?
Larry: Almost the opposite; the rule, which is judge made, and therefore probabbly can not easily be changed, was probably intended to apply primarily to REGULAR elections, where there is almost two months between election and oath.
It's not the first time a candidate n NY state has won and denied his seat. For example, there were the five Socialist the legislature (illegitately) refused to seat in the 20s. They found them ineligle on some pretext, and a new election is held. That's what the law provides you do in cas4e of a vacancy. It's the law, Rwall. What you propose is not the law. And you still haven't answered my point about replacing a Democrat with a Republican? Would you really consider it Democracy to replace someone who got 70% with the loser who got 30% without holding another vote? Interesting irony that the very leaders who Mau Maued David Yassky, a white Jewish candidate, for running in a black district and later when called on the obvious racial attack back tracked saying it was not racial because what they meant was that he was an outsider who moved into the district to run for office—an opportunist carpetbagger. Then many of those same black leaders ran a guy for the city council seat vacated by the winner in the very same congressional district and he turns out not only to not live in the district but he did not even have the good sense to at least move into the district he was running in.. It would be poetic justice for the second place candidate to take office. anony 8:41, I think the importance of honoring the votes of voters who voted for legitimate candidates, and an election that was properly taking place except for one candidate, outweighs your concerns. It is not fair to throw out every vote for every candidate just because one candidate is declared ineligible. You are talking about one election. Tell the person who voted for one of the other candidates who followed the rules why their vote should be thrown out and they should have to go vote again? It isn't their fault and it isn't their candidate's fault. You shouldn't punish every candidate for the mistake of one candidate. A new election just rewards the candidate who is declared ineligible, because the contest is being held all over again so he/she can correct their mistake. If there is such precedent, I bet it was put in place by the party machines who want to make sure that elections have to be re-held if there is ever a problem with one of their nominees. Its an insider thing. It doesn't make it right. I am also not sure what you cite is really precedent. Some socialists in the 20's getting disqualified after the election because the B of E then didn't like socialists is hardly a model for what to do now. If Eugene is disqualified -- which is an open qestion to be decided in the courts (plural because there WILL be appeals) -- the likely scenario is a new vacancy and a new special election. It is also the sensible scenario, since voters may have made different choices had Eugene/1199 not been in the race. I reiterate my own previous calls for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and join with others who have made the same demand. IRV should certainly be utilized in primary and special elections, at a minimum, throughout New York State. We should be joining the many other progressive jurisdictions across the nation that understand the fairness and cost savings of this voting methodology. And, once again, if a vacancy is declared, rest assured that I will NOT be a candidate for City Council in the 40th Council District. I'm glad to see Mr. Owens agrees with IRV. The election he just lost, with four or five near equal candidates, is a case where it would have been particularly valuable.
With a second choice vote in place, Mr. Owenss' supporters (and supporters of others not in the top two) could have affected the outcome, which then might have been different. Or, more people might have given their first choice vote to Mr. Owens if they didn't have to worry about throwing their vote away. Or, we might have had the same winner, but she would have been elected with more support, thanks to the additional second choice votes of the eliminated contenders.
Could have been any of the three. Each would have been a better result. In retrospect, I realize that the first paragraph of my previous post may be confusing. Allow me to rephrase: The fact that Candidate X received Y votes in Election Z does not mean that Candidate X would always receive the same number of votes in subsequent elections, no matter how similar the circumstances. If the voters have the opportunity to consider Dr. Eugene's residency -- and his campaign's management of the issue -- in a subsequent election, other candidates might do better. By the same taken, a candidate who finished third, fourth or fifth last time might have passed the candidate who finished second (however unlikely that seems at the moment) had the winner not been in the race -- or had not been as strong. We simply don't know how a past election would have ended with new information available to voters and we don't know how a new election would turn out, either, which is why there needs to be one -- if Dr. Eugene is disqualified to take his Council seat as a result of this particular election. The real answers are for the State Legislature to clarify this language immediately, and for IRV to be utilized as I stated earlier. There is a reasonable question as to whether, if a new special election is called, Dr. Eugene should be allowed to run in it. This new special election, at great taxpayer expense, would be taking place because of his mistake, or his lawyers mistake. The proper punishment for that ought to be that they have to sit out the new special election. Simply say that any new special election called under such extraordinary circumstances, can only be contested among the declared candidates for the original special election who were eligible for that election. This is after all not a new election, it is a replay of the previous election. This way you avoid the possibility of new candidates and the expense of new petitioning.
Rwall: you are an imbecile. If there's a vacancy declared, then a new election is held. That is the law. What you advocate may or may not be justice, but the law is crystal clear on that particular point (although not on residency)
Rwallnerny advocates substituting his one time only "equitable" solutions for the rule of law. If Eugene violated the law, then the solutionis to implement the law. Rwallnerny instead advocates solutions which have no bais in law, only in his personal vision of what is fair. Perhaps your solutions as the best ones, but they can't be implemented for this election. Only remedies embodied in the law can be implemented. And, anyway, the biggest problem with your "equiable" remedy is that it is subjected to equitable rebuttals also not based in law. For example, a possible equitable remedy, but not a legal one, would be to let the election stand. After all, Eugene residency, along with those of James and Sharpe , were all thoroughly aired during the course of the campaign. apparently, very few cared. The voters had the information, and they chose to ignore it. It seesm to me that if we are as interested as you are in elevating equity over the law, we should let the election stand. Me, I prefer the law. anony 1:18 if its the law, cite the law. We have seen that laws are always open to interpretation and revision. Particularly in cases of extraordinary circumstance such as this that may not have identical precedent. If the law is crystal clear, cite it. You may find the law is vaguer than you think it is. In any case, I know there will have to be a special election. My suggestions were what ought to happen in my opinion in an ideal world where you could do things in a totally just way. If Dr. Eugene runs again and wins, he is not being held accountable for his error. He is being allowed a do-over at the time and expense of taxpayers and the other candidates. Where is the justice in that? The justice would be that if he is deemed to have been ineligible for this election, he should be ineligible for the do-over. And actually in an ideal world, I'd see a way where the original election results could stand and Eugene could take office. Simply get all the other candidates to waive any objections to Eugene's residency issue and agree in writing that they don't want any new election, and get the city council to vote on seating Eugene. If the council members and the other candidates have no objections, the B of E could have the authority to rule an one-time exception to the rule. All would be just and there would be no need for the expense of a new election. In an ideal world where we need not get entangled in vaguely worded laws passed by corrupt machine politicians years ago to keep themselves entrenched in power. Dr. Eugene should end this farce, refuse the illgained seat and not run in the 2nd special election for the 40th seat. If the rerun is limited to those who actually live in the district,( 3 or 4 of the 11 candidates) we may finally get a Councilmember to represent us. The Ambassador would have no issue to run on if any residents of the district are on the ballot, so he too should step aside and be remembered as a loser who raised one issue during the race. If Eugene doesn't get the seat Toney may have a chance at reappointment to the community bd where he can continue his crusade for parks and playgrounds.
What do you all think would happen if G-d and Superman had a fight? What if it was a race, and The Flash also entered?
Why not give Dr. Eugene a break. I assume that because of his limited proficiency in the English language he didn't understand the residency requirement. I am however surprised that his patrons, the Clarkes, were so enthusiastic over finding a pliable candidate that they too didn't give a thought to residency.
I'm thrilled to have 2 city council members representing Canarsie. Maybe now we'll finally get the respect we deserve. Yvette - when you run for Senate you'll get my vote for masterminding this.
Clearly the rules need changing to clarify the residency issue. I mean as the rules stand, Eugene could be living in New Jersey or San Diego or East Timbuktu, and as long as he moves in to the district he's running in by the time the votes are certified, he can take office. This doesn't serve the constituents of the district. This is the kind of rule that seemingly could have been put on the books for the convenience of incumbents, so that if their districts are re-drawn at any time and suddenly they don't live in the district anymore, they have up until the votes of the next election are certified to move. Eugene has a long history in this district, he raised his kids in this district. I don't understand why he couldn't move in when he signed his lease, unless he didn't want to live in the district again if he didn't get the job. Which would make him a "fair weather" resident. "I'll only live in your neighborhood at this time if you elect me" Doesn't sound right.
2,008 voters pulled the lever for Eugene, more than those who voted for James and Sharpe combined. Putting aside for a moment the fact that Eugene is actually NOT ineligible, Mathieu won because the voters knew him better than the others and knew what they were doing. Let's honor their choice. Everything else is just semantics and intellectual game playing. Eugnee is a fraud. After the election, h first said he was looking for an partment which changed to I have a lease and will move in within 10 days which changed to I moved in and I forget when.
See www.ny1.com which is today's top story. This man should resign, not run again and the appropriate prosecuters at the state and county level should investigate if any laws were broken. The City should investigate if there are grounds to sue him. As Tenessee Williams wrote, " there is strong smell of mendacity around him" Yvette has lot of explaining to do, Eugene was her horse that she endorsed to fill her vacancy. What kind of respect does she have for us and competence in general? And the other candidates, you should all take a refresher course in communicaitons and learn the fact that regardless of what the law requires, voters are extremely interested in who lives in their district and who does not. I did not know that Eugene did not live in the district and James just moved in and Sharpe still does not live in the district. LETS GET A REAL 40TH PERSON ELECTED! "I mean as the rules stand, Eugene could be living in New Jersey or San Diego or East Timbuktu, and as long as he moves in to the district he's running in by the time the votes are certified, he can take office." Jees, you just say what you want without regard to the facts. To run, he had to be a registered voter in the City of New York. Let's list the facts about the candidate's residencies:
My original post questioned the fact that how could you hold a special election when 1/2 the candidates didn't even live in the district they were running for? Now that the election is over, let's not forget that the person who will fill this seat must run again in a general election come September. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the law state that if the person running for a general district election must live in the district for at least a YEAR?! So even if by some miracle Eugene is appointed, he's in NO WAY eligible to be a candidate come September. That would also eliminate James, Sharpe, and Hamilton. I truly feel that Eugene should be disqualified and I hope a decision is made not to hold another election, but to elect the next eligible candidate by default. And from what I can tell, based on votes and residency......that person is JOEL TONEY. Brooklyn DJ - Sorry the district resident who would win by default if the non residents were excluded is Harry Shiffman who outpolled Joel Toney who is also a resident
THE 1 YEAR REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO ELECTION IS FOR STATE OFFICE HOLDERS NOT CITY. THE LAW NEEDS CLARIFYING. THAT IS THE NOT BIG PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS WHY DID NOT THE OTHER CANDIDATES MAKE THIS AN ISSUE? WHY WAS NOT THIS BROUGHT OUT IN THE LOCAL PRESS, WHAT EVER WE HAVE AND WHY DID YVETTE PICK A HORSE AND NOT PROVIDE A STABLE? If as New York 1 reports the Dr. can't remember the day he moved into his present apartment in the 40th district he has a very severe problem with short term memory and is incapable of serving in elective office. I moved to Brooklyn almost 40 years ago and to my present address almost 30 years ago and I, at my advanced age, still clearly remember the dates. If he can't remember something that occured between February 1st and February 25th it's pretty sad. Maybe he can make public the records from Con Ed and BUG that show when his service was turned on, or the mail forwarding request from the post office. Maybe Yvette knows the date. What is the point? the Dr. is not a Dr., never licensed anywhere, not a resident, and his story changes by the day, the man is corrupt before he is even sworn in.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg