Yang v. New York State Board of Elections
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-03325
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Yang v. New York State Board of Elections, Judge Torres granted proposed intervenors’ motion to join the constitutional election case.
The order allows George Albro, Penny Mintz, Jay Bellanca, Traci Strickland, Emily Adams, Nestor Medina, Simran Nanda, Kathryn Levy, Jousha Sauberman, Cari Gardner, Stephen Carpineta, Nancy de Delva, and Ting Barrow to participate as plaintiff-intervenors in the case. It also requires the existing parties to litigate alongside them and directs the clerk to amend the caption.
What happened
Yang v. New York State Board of Elections involves claims that officials’ cancellation of the Democratic presidential primary violated constitutional rights. Individuals who had qualified for and been placed on the primary ballot as potential convention delegates filed the original case.
The court allowed 13 proposed plaintiff-intervenors to join under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). It found their motion timely, determined that intervention would not delay or prejudice the case, and concluded that their claims shared factual and legal questions with the original lawsuit.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the motion to intervene. The order did not decide whether canceling the primary violated anyone’s constitutional rights; it also directed the intervenors to appear at the scheduled hearing and instructed the clerk to amend the case caption.
The detailed version
- Yang v. New York State Board of Elections · No. 1:20-cv-03325
- Analisa Torres
- May 3, 2020
Background
Andrew Yang, Jonathan Herzog, Hellen Suh, Brian Vogel, Shlomo Small, Alison Hwang, Kristen Medeiros, and Roger Green sued Douglas A. Kellner, Andrew Spano, Peter S. Kosinski, Todd D. Valentine, Robert A. Brehm, and the New York State Board of Elections. They alleged violations of rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the New York State Constitution. The claims concerned the defendants’ decision to cancel the Democratic presidential primary.
On May 1, 2020, George Albro, Penny Mintz, Jay Bellanca, Traci Strickland, Emily Adams, Nestor Medina, Simran Nanda, Kathryn Levy, Jousha Sauberman, Cari Gardner, Stephen Carpineta, Nancy de Delva, and Ting Barrow moved to intervene as plaintiffs. The opinion states that, like most of the original plaintiffs, they had qualified for and been placed on the New York Democratic presidential primary ballot as candidates to be convention delegates pledged to a presidential candidate.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) permits a court, in its discretion, to allow a person to intervene when the motion is timely and the person has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. The court must also consider whether intervention would unduly delay the case or prejudice the original parties’ rights. The court noted that permissive intervention is interpreted broadly and is discretionary.
Analysis and Ruling
The court found the motion timely because it was filed within three days of the complaint and within four days of the decision to cancel the Democratic presidential primary. It also found that intervention would not delay or prejudice the parties because the case was at its earliest stage, the defendants had an opportunity to respond to the proposed intervenors’ arguments, and no deadlines or proceedings had to be changed.
The court further found that the proposed intervenors’ claims shared common legal and factual questions with the original action, specifically whether canceling the Democratic presidential primary infringed constitutional rights as voters and as potential delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
The motion to intervene under Rule 24(b) was GRANTED. The court directed the plaintiff-intervenors to appear at the telephonic hearing on the pending motion for emergency relief scheduled for May 4, 2020, directed them to provide appearance information to chambers, ordered the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 29, and directed the clerk to amend the caption. The opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.