Yang v. New York State Board of Elections

Background

Andrew Yang, who had suspended his presidential campaign, and seven delegates pledged to him sued officials of the New York State Board of Elections and the Board itself. They alleged that removing Yang and other presidential candidates from the New York Democratic presidential primary ballot, and then canceling the primary, violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiff-intervenors were delegate candidates pledged to Bernie Sanders, and they joined the request for emergency relief.

New York had originally scheduled the Democratic presidential primary for April 28, 2020, then postponed it to June 23 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A state law enacted on April 3 authorized the Board’s party commissioners to omit presidential candidates from the ballot if they had announced that they were no longer seeking the nomination or had suspended or terminated their campaigns. On April 27, the Democratic commissioners removed ten candidates, including Yang and Sanders. Because Joe Biden was then the only remaining candidate, New York law treated him as nominated without an election, and the Board announced that the primary was no longer needed. The delegate candidates pledged to the removed candidates were also removed from the ballot.

Standing and Sovereign Immunity

The court held that the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors had standing. It found that they suffered concrete injuries because candidates and delegates lost the chance to compete and voters lost the chance to vote for candidates who represented their political views. The court also found that the injuries were caused by the commissioners’ resolution and could be addressed by restoring the candidates to the ballot and holding the primary.

The court held that claims against the New York State Board of Elections as a state agency were barred by sovereign immunity. For purposes of the preliminary-injunction request, the court therefore considered only prospective injunctive relief against the Board officials in their official capacities under the U.S. Constitution.

Preliminary-Injunction Standard

A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before a final judgment. The court required the plaintiffs to show irreparable harm, a clear and substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that the balance of hardships favored them, and that the injunction served the public interest. Because the requested order would change the existing situation by restoring candidates and requiring an election, the court applied the more demanding standard for a mandatory preliminary injunction.

Constitutional Analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a clear and substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the April 27 resolution violated their associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court applied the Anderson-Burdick framework, which balances the burden an election rule places on voting and political-association rights against the state’s justifications for the rule.

The court found that removing the candidates substantially burdened those rights. Although the presidential candidates’ names appeared on the ballot, the primary also determined which pledged delegates could compete for places at the Democratic National Convention. Delegates could influence the party platform and party governance, and voters could use the election to support delegates sharing their views. The court emphasized that the candidates had suspended their campaigns before the new statutory removal authority took effect and had expected their names to remain on the ballot.

The defendants argued that canceling the primary would reduce COVID-19 risks, election staffing needs, polling-place needs, and costs. The court recognized public health as an important state interest but found that cancellation would advance that interest only to a limited extent. It noted that voters could request absentee ballots, many other elections would still occur on June 23, and the state had time to take safety measures. The court therefore concluded that the defendants’ justifications did not support the burden imposed on the plaintiffs’ political-association rights.

The court also found irreparable harm because, without relief, the primary would not occur, the candidates and delegates would not appear on the ballot, and voters would lose the opportunity to vote for them. The balance of equities favored the plaintiffs because their loss of constitutional voting and associational rights was concrete and immediate, while the state’s asserted costs, although significant, were costs it had undertaken by regulating and holding the primary. The court found a strong public interest in protecting First Amendment rights and allowing an election to proceed when it could be conducted safely.

Relief and Disposition

The court granted the preliminary injunction to restore the situation that existed immediately before the April 27 resolution. In its conclusion, the court ordered Douglas A. Kellner, Andrew Spano, Peter S. Kosinski, Todd D. Valentine, and Robert A. Brehm, in their official capacities, to reinstate to the Democratic primary ballot all presidential and delegate candidates who were duly qualified as of April 26, 2020, and to hold the primary election on June 23, 2020. The ruling was a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment on all claims.