Tucker v. Board of Elections in the City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-03111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tucker v. Board of Elections in the City of New York, Judge Caproni scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ request to stop absentee-ballot printing.
The plaintiffs, the New York City Board of Elections, and the other defendants were affected by the court’s scheduling and filing directions. The requested order concerned absentee-ballot printing and distribution for the 73rd State Assembly District Democratic primary.
What happened
In Tucker v. Board of Elections in the City of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court for an emergency order stopping the New York City Board of Elections from printing and distributing absentee ballots for the June 23, 2020 Democratic primary in the 73rd State Assembly District.
The plaintiffs said the Board had told them that military ballots needed to be distributed by May 8 and that other absentee and special ballots would be printed soon afterward. They argued that printing the ballots before the court considered their request for a preliminary injunction could harm their rights to vote effectively and associate politically with their chosen candidate, Cameron Koffman.
Judge Valerie Caproni did not grant or deny the requested emergency order in this text. Instead, the court directed the parties to appear for a telephone hearing on May 7, 2020, and set a deadline for defendants to submit a response.
The detailed version
- Tucker v. Board of Elections in the City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-03111
- Valerie Caproni
- May 5, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs submitted a letter responding to the court’s order to show cause. They requested a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to preserve the existing situation until the court could consider their request for a preliminary injunction.
The requested order would have directed the New York City Board of Elections to stop printing and distributing absentee ballots for the June 23, 2020 Democratic primary election in the 73rd State Assembly District. According to the plaintiffs’ letter, the Board’s general counsel had informed them that military ballots were being printed and had to be distributed by Friday, May 8, 2020. The general counsel also said that absentee and special ballots would be printed as soon afterward as practicable.
Plaintiffs’ Position
The plaintiffs argued that, without an order stopping ballot printing, their constitutional rights to cast their votes effectively and to associate politically with Cameron Koffman, their candidate of choice, could be irreparably harmed before the court considered their preliminary-injunction motion. The letter relied on the statement that temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions use the same standards in the Second Circuit.
Court’s Action
Judge Valerie E. Caproni directed the parties to appear for a telephone hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on May 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The court directed the plaintiffs to distribute the order to the defendants immediately. It also stated that defendants wishing to respond before the hearing should do so by 5:00 p.m. on May 6, 2020, and directed defense counsel to file notices of appearance as soon as possible.
This text does not state that the court granted or denied the temporary restraining order. It records the court’s scheduling and procedural directions concerning the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.