BREAKING: Did a NY Republican Operative Threaten a Sitting Judge to Manipulate the U.S. Senate Election? TRANSCRIPT INCLUDED
BREAKING: Did a NY Republican Operative Threaten a Sitting Judge to Manipulate the U.S. Senate Election? TRANSCRIPT INCLUDED
SOURCE: Justice Brandon Lantry Allegedly Received 'A Call' From Felon John Haggerty on Cara Castronuova's U.S. Senate Bid and a Federal Judge's Write-In Order
By Dick LaFontaine and Richard Luthmann
Early voting began last week for New York State’s party primary elections. Over the weekend, emergency courtroom drama unfolded, centered on voters' rights to write in Cara Castronuova for the U.S. Senate.
Federal Judge Ramon Reyes issued a Decision and Order on May 9, 2024, allowing Republican voters the write-in option in the U.S. Senate Primary. The New York State Board of Elections, who originally made the suggestion to avoid constitutional issues, ignored the clear language of Judge Reyes’ Order, according to New York State Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry, sitting Sunday in Manhattan as the Emergency Elections Judge.
“I am noting on the record…that Judge Reyes explicitly stated that the supporters of Cara Castronuova will be able to vote at a primary election. But no primary election has been effectuated. It hasn't been effectuated by the New York State Board of Elections, which is a party to that action. And that was not done,” ruled Justice Lantry.
However, the jurist said he was without the power to issue any retraining orders in the U.S. Senate Election for technical and jurisdictional reasons. The result is that Castronuova votes appear to have been denied their right to vote - for the time being.
Ballot Brawl: Cara's Crusade for Justice in NY's Rigged System
To add to the intensity, the New York State Supreme Court proceedings were allegedly marred by ex-parte threats. Convicted felon John Haggerty, reportedly acting in his perennial role as a “hired thug” for NYS Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox, threatened to file a baseless judicial grievance against Justice Lantry for having the temerity of entertaining the “access to the ballot” petitions brought by dozens of Republican Party voters and Castronuova supporters, including political activist John Tabacco.
These allegedly “thuggish” actions, seen as part of a broader effort and pattern to frustrate Castronuova’s candidacy at every turn, have now taken a turn that smacks of judicial extortion.
Section 17-152 of the NY Election Law makes it a misdemeanor for two or more people to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
One of the legal bases of New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s guilty verdict against former President Donald J. Trump is exactly the Election Law § 17-152 statute.
Today, many are scratching their heads at how GOP operatives are alleged to have flagrantly disregarded the law regarding a U.S. Senate Election and the Order of a Federal Court Judge.
Following Judge Ramon Reyes’ Clear Directive
Federal Judge Ramon Reyes issued a clear ruling on May 9, 2024. After consulting with lawyers from the NYS Board of Elections, the New York Attorney General, and the New York State Republican Committee, Judge Reyes concluded that a write-in option was a viable remedy for Castronuova’s supporters. The ruling stated unequivocally:
“As Defendants noted on the record at the April 10 hearing, Plaintiffs may indeed campaign for the election of Ms. Castronuova in the Primary. Also, as Defendants also noted at the hearing, should Ms. Castronuova’s name not appear on the ballot, her supporters that wish to vote for her in the Primary may indeed write her name in.”
Based on the NYSBOE, the Letitia James’ AG Office, and NYS GOP lawyer John Faso’s representations that the write-in option was available, Judge Reyes denied Castronuova a place on the ballot.
EDNY Judge Ramon E. Reyes' Ruling Under Fire: U.S. Senate Election Ruling Draws Parallels to Dictatorships
On Sunday, John Tabacco appeared at a NYC early voting location as an aggrieved voter who attempted to write in Cara Castronuova's name but was denied ballot access. He highlighted the importance of this federal ruling, presenting an affidavit stressing Judge Reyes’ decision.
"We have a right to write in Cara Castronuova in the Primary Election," Tabacco declared, invoking Marbury v. Madison. "Where there is a right, there is a remedy."
NYSBOE’s Incompetence and Legal Violations
Despite Judge Reyes’ directive, the NYS Board of Elections failed to implement the write-in option effectively. Tabacco criticized their incompetence and possible legal violations.
"The Board of Elections has taken no steps whatsoever to adhere to the federal court's order," he stated.
He argued that this failure potentially violated Section 17-152 of the NY Election Law, which makes conspiring to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means a misdemeanor.
Tabacco was relentless in his critique of the NYSBOE’s actions. He argued that their failure to prepare a ballot was a direct violation of the court’s decision.
"Our remedy turns out to have no remedy if the ballots are unavailable," he argued.
Tabacco urged the Court to hold the NYSBOE accountable and ensure the availability of ballots.
Justice Lantry’s Ruling
Justice Brendan Lantry upheld Judge Reyes’ ruling, recognizing the necessity of providing a write-in option. He acknowledged the procedural difficulties but emphasized that the NYSBOE should have sought clarification from Judge Reyes rather than neglecting their duties.
"Judge Reyes explicitly stated that the supporters of Cara Castronuova will be able to vote at a primary election," Justice Lantry said.
Justice Lantry, emphasizing the NYSBOE’s failure, ruled that he was without jurisdiction to make an ultimate ruling given his limited scope, "There is no ballot available to be cast."
The jurist pointed out the Board's incompetence in handling the situation and underscored the need for adherence to Judge Reyes' decision. However, Justice Lantry stated that the matter should be returned to Judge Reyes for further resolution, indicating that the federal court was the appropriate venue for this ongoing dispute.
Allegations of ‘Thug-Like’ Tactics
A developing allegation involves John F. Haggerty Jr., whose controversial past and current activities have drawn scrutiny.
Haggerty is a convicted felon previously jailed for defrauding Michael Bloomberg of $750,000 and is currently under investigation for election fraud and forgery related to the 2022 gubernatorial campaign.
Castronuova's previous court filings suggest that Haggerty, representing the interests of the NYS GOP and the Queens GOP machine, was instrumental in submitting forged objections against her designating petitions. She said these actions were part of a calculated effort to leverage his political influence to disrupt her campaign.
The developing allegation is that Haggerty, once he got wind that Tabacco and other Castronuova voters were seeking to use early voting to write in the Republican U.S. Senate candidate of their choice in accordance with EDNY Judge Reyes’ Order, colluded to manipulate ballot access. The source alleges Haggerty threatened Justice Brandon Lantry with a grievance to the Commission on Judicial Ethics if he even entertained any voter write-in claims in the Republican U.S. Senate Primary.
“When they say that New York politics has a ‘sickness,’ John Haggerty is the poster child of that sickness,” said a well-known New York Democratic consultant under conditions of anonymity. “He has been convicted of lies and larceny, and he manipulates elections using methods that smack of extortion.”
A Republican insider wasn’t nearly as charitable.
“There's been collusion and conspiracy to defraud the electorate with expressed intent to get Cara Castronuova out of the U.S. Senate Race. Haggerty is the quarterback. Cara is the hot potato of election interference. The collaborators in this conspiracy range from Attorney General Letitia James, who accepted donations from Mike Sapriacone, to the BOE and the seniormost leadership and operatives of the NYS Republican Party. With tactics like fraud and forgery already perpetrated on [Castronuova’s] candidacy, I wouldn't put it past these guys to threaten a NY Supreme Court Judge. Cara threatens their entire racket because they know she will beat their guy and expose them,” the Republican insider said.
Castronuova’s camp has previously alleged that Haggerty’s intimate involvement as NYS GOP Chairman Ed Cox’s “hatchet-man” is central to understanding the scope and nature of the alleged electoral fraud and its connection to the GOP establishment and Cox’s U.S. Senate choice, Michael Sapriacone.
Sapriacone did not address the claims of collusion and forgery. However, in filed affidavits, Queens GOP Leader Tony Nunziato and NYC Board of Elections Supervisor Carl Aliviado claimed that convicted liar and larcenist Haggerty was trusted as their “agent.”
Questions also persist about whether Sapriacone was and is aware of Haggerty's role in NYS GOP operations and his own campaign.
“He doesn’t know what the F—- is going on,” opined the afore-mentioned Democratic Consultant.
Implications
The recent court hearing underscored the critical importance of upholding federal court decisions and ensuring voter rights. Judge Reyes' ruling provided a clear remedy for Castronuova’s supporters, yet the NYSBOE’s incompetence left many voters disenfranchised. Justice Lantry's decision to uphold the federal ruling while pointing out the board's failures marked a significant step towards ensuring electoral integrity.
“This is still an ongoing process proceeding with Judge Reyes. I would note that you said a few things Mr. Tabacco. I remember, there was one particular point when you said that, you know, what, whether you whether there's a remedy, I think that there certainly was a remedy, and perhaps still is, in that Judge Reyes issued this decision,” Justice Lantry said, pointing Tabacco and other Castronuova supporters to the federal court doorsteps.
The alleged actions of John Haggerty and his colluders may have serious legal implications. Section 17-152 of the NY Election Law allows any District Attorney or the NY Attorney General, Letitia James, the predicate to investigate, bring charges, prosecute, and convict the interlopers for conspiring to prevent Castronuova’s candidacy by unlawful means. Their alleged ex parte communications and attempts to intimidate Justice Lantry could be construed as extortion, further complicating their legal standing.
John Tabacco’s relentless pursuit of justice and voter rights, combined with Justice Lantry’s fair adjudication, highlighted the judiciary's crucial role in safeguarding democracy.
The case now likely returns to the federal court for further action, with the hope that the NYSBOE will finally comply with Judge Reyes’ clear directive.
We obtained a full transcript of the proceedings, published below.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
We're on the record. So at this point.
John Tabacco
Are we allowed to take a screenshot of this? Me and you - us sitting next to each other?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
[Laughter]
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
We're on the record, Mr. Tabacco. So it is 2:38 p.m. Joined at this time again, we have the Clerk, we have the Court reporter. At this time, it's different Mr. Tabacco along with Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan has just made his appearance in a professional capacity not in a legal capacity, okay. And as Executive Director of the New York City Board of Elections. I apprised my Ryan that we have an application by several voters who are seeking to vote in a contest and I'm using that word, although I'll hear from Mr. Ryan, primary contest today. And so far, we've heard from Mr. Tabacco, along with Laura Schmidt, and Shawn Alito.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
We took a pause to allow Mr. Ryan to review the documents that Mr. Tabacco had submitted. And I believe Mr. Ryan has had sufficient time to review that. And so I'm just going to, I'm not sure Mr. Ryan, if you've had an opportunity to speak to your colleague, Miss Evans. I'm just gonna paraphrase and just kind of set the stage. And we'll take it from there.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
So there's this ruling, this ongoing case in the Eastern District, Judge Reyes, denied the temporary injunction. And, you know, there were arguments by several counsel. There was counsel for the New York State Board of Elections. There was counsel there for I believe it was the NYRSC right. It was John Faso, right, who represented who was also an attorney there. And Mr. Tobacco representatives, himself pro se, as well as did the Senate candidate, Cara Castronova.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
In the oral argument, on that particular motion, there were certainly submissions made to the Court in terms of the ability to write in a candidate. And I was particularly interested in reading it, because after hearing the arguments from Mr. Tabacco, I was particularly interested in reading it. Because I was wondering as to whether or not it spoke to the ability to write it in a general election, which we all have, right in any particular circumstance, as opposed to being able to write in in the primary election.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
And what the Court said, at least from what I see is that you have the ability to write in in a primary election, which which I found it to be interesting. In the earlier part of the decision, it makes reference to the provision of election law that allows for opportunity to ballot processing, and then ultimately, ultimately a write in process. But then in the dates of the decision, and in towards the conclusion on page 29, I believe it is, the judge says that [Castranuova's] supporters have the ability to write her in and that's on page 29.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I'm realizing that I actually forgot to note something in the beginning, which I said to myself, I would say, which is that I did note that I do know Mr. Tabacco. We are known to each other. I'm also going to note that I know Mr. Ryan to each other. So this is...
John Tabacco
It's a Nunc pro Tunc.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
[Laughter]
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Somewhat, I'll call this an adversarial proceeding, although it's not where I think all three, the judge and both sides are on Staten Islanders here in Manhattan. So I digress. So, Mr. Ryan, do you have a position at this point as to Mr. Tabacco's application?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
The City Board of Elections has no position. We were not a party to the action. And for contests like this akin to Governors, or Presidents, United States Senators, the local boards of election, do not certify the ballot. The State Board of Elections certifies the ballot. So we didn't have a hand in this process at any at any juncture. Up until now that we're being asked to, to weigh in. I I was provided information by the State Board from the State Board of Elections and did have a conversation with the State Board of Elections on my on my way here to get some clarification as to what their position is. And I could offer that if the court desires.
John Tabacco
I wouldn't want that.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Right. It's not the City's position. They certainly have a position.
John Tabacco
With all due respect to Commissioner Ryan, any attestations he would make here on the record as to what he thinks the New York State Board of Elections may say, I don't think are helpful. And I did serve a notice the New York State Board of Elections that I intended to appear here today. And just like in our New York State Court of Appeal case, the New York State Board of Elections declined to appear at that case. And my assumption is they've declined to appear today. I've also noticed the Attorney General. I respect Commissioner Ryan and his views on what New York City's role may or may not be in this. If you go back further in the transcript, and it wasn't part of my case, but Mr. Ryan said that they have no standing whatsoever in you know, these national races and, you know, President, but actually Congressional Races within the City, if they cross two municipalities, they go to the state. So there are there's, in this case, we've argued that New York City is a subsidiary of New York State, they don't like to make that association and attest to the voters that they're all individual. But the New York State Board of Elections has oversight over New York City, they run the investigations into all the counties, when there are investigations, they approve the budgets that are used, they approved the machines that the cities and municipalities could select from. So there's certainly more than an independent relationship. There's more than enough stuff. And you know,
John Tabacco
He should speak on behalf of the State Board or an argument against it?
John Tabacco
I don't think he should speak on behalf of - the State Board is not represented today. So my my feeling is that my respected Commissioner shouldn't have to weigh on on what they might say they were asked to be here and they're not.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Right. Just take a minute and record two things. Mr. Tabacco is referring to Mr. Ryan a couple of times as Commissioner, I think that's respectful in terms of his prior role as Commissioner. I decline to say that. Though both sides are known to me, I find no conflict. The third thing I wanted to know is that just no photographs. I know you said that a moment ago.
John Tabacco
No, no, no, no, I just went to shut my mind put my phone on Do Not Disturb,
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
I, I took no offense by Mr. Tobacco, referring to me by my former title, as opposed to my current title of Executive Director. But I just for one little minor point of clarification, the City Board of Elections has a role in accepting and passing on the petitions for congressional races. But this state, this Senate District is the entire state. And that ballot, my shorthand way of explaining that was simply meaning to say that the state certifies the ballot for the contest in question.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I want to get right. To the right to the meat of what we have to discuss here. So it's I have a very narrow scope today. Right. I'm not here, that ruling on this contest. Overall, there is an ongoing matter in the Eastern District before Judge Reyes. The scope of this proceeding is voters in New York County. Right, whether or not they're able to cast a ballot in particular election. What's clear to me is how unclear is this ruling was in the Eastern District, that I'll say it like that. I know that Judge Reyes notes in his decision, admittedly, right, that the election law was relatively new to him. Right.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
With that said, the ruling by the Court specifically page 29 says here and I'm just going to pull it up again. It says here: "Also as defendants also noted at the hearing should miss Castronovo his name not appear on the ballot for supporters that wish to vote for her in the primary and the wards are may indeed write her name in." And so it explicitly says that they name write her name it. Now there's there's two things that are mechanically difficult here, right. So one there wasn't a primary that has been - there is not a primary at this juncture where voters with Boards of Elections around the state of New York have have have drafted ballots have called in poll workers for that have given ability for people to vote in this in this particular contest, even though this jurist says that at a primary election, voters would be able to write her name in. So you don't have a ballot prepared, correct, Mr. Ryan?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
That is correct. We would have received that contest certified from the State Board of Elections.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Right, right. So tell me if you can tell me mechanically, from from that. So in a general election, right after somebody has won that contest, somebody is certified the winner?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Yes.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
In a traditional in a traditional primary contests where there's two candidates on the ballot, or let's say there's one candidate on the ballot, and there's an opportunity to ballot somebody's name gets written in that person gets more, and there's a and there's a primary contest winner. Right. In that context, you certifying wonder winner? Correct?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Right.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Or in a sstatewide contest, they certified the winner, the State Board?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Generally speaking, the way to force the primary would if it doesn't happen during the normal course would be the process of the opportunity to ballot. But that occurs for the general election, not for the primary election. So the primary matters are concluded the opportunity to ballot petitions are being handled now.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Do you mean you mean independent nominating petitions?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
I'm sorry, independent nominee No. But the opportunity to bet your right would be for the primary. I'm sorry, I confused, independent nominating an opportunity to vote.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I conflate those two, sometimes myself. So the independent nominating petition is separate. Right. And that's actually one. One note I made to myself is to what extent I'm not sure to what extent this decision by Judge Reyes affected the decision by Mr. Tobacco and perhaps Miss Castronuova not to do an opportunity to ballot petition because of his ruling that you had the ability to write her in, right, or write in a candidate for that Senate race. I'm not gonna speculate into that, but I am not gonna I'm just going to know that, that that's perhaps something that the petitioners thought of.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
And I'm also not sure to what extent this position that was that was conveyed by the defense, or I should say the respondents in that action affected the Judge's decision overall. So that we're I know, the Judge cites says that the defendants admit that she may have the ability, people have the ability to do a writing in his primary election. I'm not sure to what extent that affected Judge Reyes' his decision. But again, I'm not going to speculate as to that. That's, that's something that either the that's that can be addressed with him.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I will note again, I know, Mr. Ryan, you're not here on behalf of the State Board of Elections. I really think that would what would have been appropriate here, in light of that ruling, and right at that decision is for one of the parties and the action. Really, specifically, the Board of Elections to get clarification would be to, to have reached out to the Court, whether it's through some form of motion to re argue to get clarification, because quite honestly, this is now causing this - I'll use the word quagmire right now - that we're in right now is because of this language in there, which is, I believe, not consistent with the New York State Election Law. But perhaps, and again, perhaps Judge Reyes might have it might have been a factor for Judge Reyes and considering constitutional claims.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
But with that said, Mr. Ryan - a pointed question. So, again, the scope of this proceeding is limited is their inability for the City Board of Elections to give some form of provisional or affidavit ballot, to allow these individuals to vote. And so that that can be presented to a court of competent jurisdiction, perhaps, perhaps this current action in the Eastern District or another action this upcoming week.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
I think the most straightforward way that I could say it is there is no ballot prepared for this contest. It doesn't exist.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Understood.
John Tabacco
Your Honor.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Just one second Mr. Tabacco. I definitely want to hear you on that. The reason why I was asking about certification, rights, is the court, the Eastern District or court of competent jurisdiction, can order a primary. It doesn't have to be on this date. Right. So allow me to speak on this, but I'm just gonna put this on the record. Okay. But I know that one of the items of relief that Mr. Tabacco notes that he's seeking, which again, is I'm not I'm not ruling on I'm not going to order a primary tonight. Right. And that's not I have not given an opportunity for different parties to be heard. And there's already an action pending on this issue. So but I guess my my thought process is, this is something that certainly should be considered by Judge Reyes the situation today as to whether or not he's going to honor primary in the coming months in this matter. So with that said, Mr. Tobacco, I know you wanted to say something.
John Tabacco
Okay, one thing I did want to point out and I was trying to let the Executive Director and yourself, you know, thoughtfully communicate, but you did say you didn't want to speculate. We argued that part of the irreparable harm was based on the timing of the circumstances. We argued to all judges so far, that Cara Castronuova was unhappy with the state party's leadership, and everyone in the race, including the most sane people I know said no Republican can beat Kirsten Gillibrand. But if we can beat the party's candidate in the primary, that's a win for the people. So Cara's specific intention was to qualify and run in a primary to challenge our party's leadership. Should she have won? Yes, I personally thought she could be the best candidate to give Kirsetn Gillebrand run for money. Somewhere deep inside me. I believe both parties feel the same. That's why I'm in this predicament I am today with Cara Castronuova. But you are right at one point, when we got this ruling, we're pro se but we have friends who are lawyers who read stuff from and said, hey, you know what, the judge de facto ordered a right in special election. He did not say may have. He said he said "Indeed can vote in a primary."
John Tabacco
So the judge, my argument to you is judge in his order that they didn't ask to go back. We didn't ask to go back. So the time for complaining about going back for - to me - them is over. The judge ordered a de facto writing ballot in this case is how I read it personally, I'm not a lawyer. But it's informed consent along with the defendants who provided him the information, I provided that to Your Honor, in the transcript that they actually took leave to check with their clients and came back to the judge and said, yes, in fact, her supporters can write him in in the primary.
John Tabacco
So all parties when you say people aren't noticed, I wrote this down. When you say people aren't noticed to be here today, and you're in a very narrow scope, I would disagree with that. Respectfully, Your Honor, because I noticed everyone in the Court of Appeals case that we had in another jurisdiction and a validating petition, both the Board of Elections and the attorneys, and the Attorney General's Office declined to appear. So you can't go into a bunch of cases and decline to even appear to defend your position, and then get some standing to have to appear here when I noticed them. So I want you to please consider that they're, they're not here.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I guess what I meant to say or what I was, what I was really thinking is that this is not this is not that form of special proceedings. A much more narrow, special proceeding. And in my in my position is and I believe that the law dictates is that right now, I'm here when when there's a primary election, right, to determine whether or not somebody is eligible to vote in that election. We often that often happens, because it's actually quite rare. But what we'll have is people who, you know, are saying or being rejected at poll site because they don't they're saying that they don't live at the location or they're not registered in the appropriate party, or something along those lines. And what I'm saying is that this this particular action, I believe, belongs in Supreme Court or in the Eastern District and an action whether it's through an order to show cause or through a summons and complaint, that that would seek the type of relief that you're seeking.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
And so that's, that's, that's what I'm saying with notice to those parties, but not that you did not Oh, okay. I am taking notice of the fact that you know this letter to the Attorney General, you did advise that you intended to vote here today. And that's what you've done. And I going to note something else for Mr. Ryan's benefit. Before you were here, I know Mr. Tobacco doesn't live in New York County, right. But there is no contest in Richmond County whatsoever. So there is not a place where he could have voted anywhere in Richmond County. And nor I don't think that there's a jurist to sign because there's no contest.
John Tabacco
All correct. That was my thought you're on. I do want to say you were on the money because I did tell Cara, 'Hey, in the worst case,' and we talked about it a lot, said, 'the judge basically said, there's going to be a writing so you can be written in and if we have the grassroots support, you got 15,000 signatures, maybe you'll get 15,000 signatures in a write in capacity.' So we did rely on that. And we filed an amended complaint. And we were using all of our remedies in the federal case. But when you say you have a narrow scope, you said it was your view that potentially the judge did not was not reliant on the fact that Ms. Castronova could be written in. That may not have been all that informed his lengthy decision.
John Tabacco
And I would I would just submit that you said - it's on page 28 - towards the conclusion. And he basically, if you asked me says, well, yes, the process is burdensome. Yes. Our Eastern District has ruled that the whole Town-City thing is unconstitutional, but it's still on the ballot. Yes, it takes hours. Yes, you will be challenged. Yes, this will all happen. It's tough. But at the end of all days, you are not irreparably harmed. And you have not been foreclosed any rights. You have no constitutional right as a candidate. But we the people here before you and in Queens, and in Suffolk County today, and in Mineola and Madison County, people going asking for these ballots, we as voters, we do have a right. And when the Judge says you can be written in all these people here today, we're actually in the courtroom as spectators for that hearing. Okay. Everyone read the decision, because we've been sharing it with our followers and supporters. So in my view, that was his constitutional catch-all, Your Honor. So maybe you usually getting people out of district or who they're not in the voter rolls and those that's kind of the affair, that usually happens in these hearings. But this is a Supreme Court hearing. Right? Yeah. Okay. The constitutional issues that you're looking at, and the context that the judge ruled this, to me it was his catch-all, that even if all this stuff is really hard, and maybe some of its even unconstitutional, you're not dead. Because I'm going to let people write you in.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
This is an virtual appearance or what not. I think maybe you misheard me, I'm agreeing with you that I believe that that appears to me. That's something that the judge relied on in making a decision.
John Tabacco
Oh. Okay. I wrote it down. I'm sorry. I thought you said he didn't rely on it. Oh, that scared me.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
This is why I like to be in person. So I know that that's that's what's apparent to me is that it seems like certainly, certainly a factor whether it was the Judge's determinant factor. I don't know, I'm not going to read his mind. I'm not going to speculate. But I but it appears to me based off of his decision, that it was certainly a factor that he considered. I think it was the last factor that he noted before making his decision in there data as to why he did not grant the temporary injunction. So and perhaps it's a factor that he may be considering in the ultimate relief that you're seeking. Because it's since you said the case is still ongoing. But again, I believe that the Judge Reyes has to make that determination.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
So you know, really where Mr. Ryan is explained to me that there is not about available, I asked him just to know Mr. Ryan, can you just put on the record what what goes into the format, creating a ballot and whether or not you're able to create ballot today or before Tuesday, as to as to what that process involves?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Alright so I'll say it as briefly as they possibly can. But if anyone is familiar with the ballot along the top and the bottom and the sides, there are a series of dashes, those are called timing marks. First of all, this in this particular matter, the state would have to certify a ballot, they'd have to tell us what that certified ballot is. We would then have to put it into our system with the with the timing marks appropriately. Because those timing marks what they do is they create a series of axes, blind to the voter But there's a meeting point where that oval meets in those columns, right?
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Maybe a little bit more broad. Right.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
All right, but but the point is, once that's all done, we then have to test those ballots. And the point that I was making is we have to test those ballots to make sure that those axes line up with the ovals so that the candidates get appropriate credit for the vote because the ballot readers don't see you as your name. They see you as column one, row 10. If that makes more sense, so there was a reason for me to say that. So all that has to happen ahead of time, it's not just typing a name on a piece of paper and saying here's a ballot. Okay, you're wanting to scan a ballot into a scanner. That's what has to be done.
John Tabacco
Your Honor, I will point you to a case that both you and Mr. Ryan probably know well, a 2009 Second Department case Tabacco v. Vitucci. They ordered me restored to the ballot the day before Election Day. And the Board of Elections was hereby ordered to print ballots and do it by hand. Okay. So that was in 2009. And it happened. So there is case law that the Board has the resources and the wherewithal to respond to a court order to print ballots overnight - I'm the case law for it. In fact, just full disclosure, Commissioner Ryan, at that time, voted to have me removed from the ballot.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
That was two years later. [laughter]
John Tabacco
In any event, in any event, I don't I understand where they're coming from, but technology has advanced since 2009.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
It's a fair point, Mr. Tabacco, the difference there is here is that it's also I'd say, two, it's that we're in the middle of an election. Right. So we're in the middle of this election, and this this this time period. And also, obviously the scope, city council, the city council race was the fact that
John Tabacco
That was a City Council race Your Honor.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Okay, yeah. And versus the state of New York. So, but but I'll note that this the scope, the issue of that we're the middle of the election is another concern, even if they were able to create these ballots and distribute them in a timely fashion. We now have a situation where there is a - I'll use the word presumptive nominee at this point, since it's still a pending action - that's chosen by the New York State Republican Committee. But, um, but the extent to which this would notice needs to be provided to them.
John Tabacco
They were noticed they would notice they were noticed.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Understood. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Tabacco. Okay. Mr. Ryan, anything else you want to add?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Oh, no. I mean, unless..
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Mr. Tabacco, anything further?
John Tabacco
Just in closing, you said, we're in the middle of an election, I would, you know, pause it to the court. Should we be in the middle of an election, when there are people all around the state trying to vote for a candidate and they can't? So I understand. You know, Commissioner Ryan, what was the early voting turnout up till yesterday as a percent of New York City voters?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Well, we were over 40% of the statewide total.
John Tabacco
No, I'm serious. I would like to get it on the record. In the early voting for the primaries here in New York City. What's the you guys report? The turnout? I think every day, right.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
If you give me a second, I might have
John Tabacco
I think online?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Yeah, I have it online. But I might have I might have an email.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
This is across this is across party base?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Pardon?
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
This is I'm saying there's probably other Republican and Democratic primaries.
John Tabacco
I'm just asking for the total vote with total voter turnout for early voting in New York City.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Let me see. Yeah, I know I have a here it is. So the total number as of day seven, which would have been yesterday, right? Yes. All right. So no. Friday, I have it as of Friday. I don't have it through yesterday. Readily available was 33,078.
John Tabacco
Okay. 33,000.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
And that's out of all of the eligible voters for the primary in the five boroughs. So that would not be a subset of the 4.3 million voters would especially like, there's an entire borough that's cut out, right. Staten Island has no contests presently. So you know, it's a small number. Well, I think we can all agree on that.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Is it less than 1% Mr. Ryan?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
I think so. I mean, I would certainly be I would certainly say that I, without the specific numbers in front of me, I can avert that it's less than 1%. Looks like it's I mean, it looks like it to me.
John Tabacco
Okay. Just on that back and forth. So what is one? What are we saying that the total turnout as of Friday was about 1% of voters eligible?
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
It's again, I know that Mr. Ryan doesn't have all the data.
John Tabacco
Approximately one.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
I feel more comfortable saying low turnout, as opposed to ascribing a percentage to it. Since I don't have the numbers in front of me. And I recognize that I had been sworn in
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I'm not going to compel you, Mr. Ryan, to commit perjury.
John Tabacco
But, Your Honor.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Mr. Ryan wasn't asked to be prepared today with with all the different facts and figures, people are asking for a specific.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
So now, if this is at all helpful, as of the close of business yesterday, which would have been the eighth day of early voting, the cumulative turnout was 38,236.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Okay.
John Tabacco
Okay. Very good.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
And you will describe that as low turnout, correct?
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
It's low turnout, I'm certain that there was over 2 million voters that were eligible, potentially Citywide.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
The Court will take judicial notice that 33,000 of over 2 million are early voters.
John Tabacco
Yeah. Okay. All right. So Right. So when, you know, you mentioned the limited scope. And, you know, where there is a right, we people who are here and other places, we have a federal court judge who was ordered that we should go and write our candidate and as a remedy to what we thought were unconstitutional things that were done. So our remedy is to write it in. And then it's like, you know, the doctor sends you to the pharmacy to get the remedy to what you need. And when you go there, the pharmacist says we don't have that for you.
John Tabacco
So the right, it turns out has no remedy, Your Honor. And at Mr. Ryan's own admission, nearly 99% of the state could care less - of the city could care less - about early voting. So you know, to assert some potentially large complication to the Executive Director. There's only you know, 30,000 people plus that have even showed up so far. So I think if you wait, I think they call it the balance of equities, in a narrow scope, you could restrain the Board of Elections from continuing to go forward with this election, until they've determined a fair remedy to be offered in accordance with the federal court's ruling.
John Tabacco
And I think in 2022, they had a problem with the lines, they push back some of the primaries still till August. I believe that restraining them at least from going forward and certifying candidates or holding an election where there's a whole bunch of people, many want to come talk to you, Your Honor - who cannot vote.
John Tabacco
Now. It's known we're in America, we've had all these problems. I saw this morning, Executive Director, some of your folks down in the BMCC in Manhattan, actually instructed a voter who's a Republican voter, she told them she was a Republican. They instructed her to write in a Senate candidate on a US Congressional ballot, because there was a right and spot on it. So your people allowed a known Republican, she disclosed herself as a Republican. And they handed her an affidavit ballot with Dan Goldman and someone else on it that had a write in spot and told her that she could write in a candidate there. She sealed the envelope. She turned it in, she went back to them and say, hey, I want that back. That was screwed up. I'm a Republican, I shouldn't have done that. They said, You can't have it back. You've already filed it and they were unprofessional. But in a time where this, you know, I would suggest someone in your office may file a false document with you today. Knowingly. So the whole thing the Board's supposed to do, Your Honor, I think is avoid confusion to the voters. You said that it's unclear. The Executive Director here has said that they have no answer for this because some of those guys upstate should have done it.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I'll take I'll take I'll take back the word unclear. I think that it's Judge Reyes' decision here certainly takes into - factors in this assertion by the respondents by the defendants in his analysis, right? So he he certainly factored this in whether it was the determinative factor, I don't know, right? But, I can certainly say that it appears that it was relied upon by Judge brass in his decision, because he cited it in this decision, right? So with that said, I noticed the tracking you said, you're asking me at this juncture to stop a race from continuing.
John Tabacco
Not this race. There is no race as as we now have. Yeah.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
There is no race going on. I can't stop a primaries that's not happening. Because right now, there is no primary happening right now. And so I have no, I have no reason to stop. Right. Even if it wasn't the scope of the proceeding, I don't have that authority. There's there's no, there is no, there's no reason to stop in reality. So I think this is still an ongoing process proceeding with Judge Reyes, I would note that you said a few things Mr. Tabacco. I remember, there was one particular point when you said that, you know, what, whether you whether there's a remedy, I think that there certainly was a remedy, and perhaps still is, in that Judge Reyes issued this decision. I think certain clarification should have been sought from from Judge Reyes. I think that certain clarification, if you're telling me this is still an ongoing proceeding, can be sought from Judge Reyes, on this particular issue. And you can certainly order this transcript. Okay. Because between, as noted, or I should say, there are there, I know, Mr. Ryan, if you want to speak on this, certainly feel free to jump in. But the primary under federal law did not have to happen by today. And so, you know, Judge Reyes still has the authority to order a primary in this matter.
John Tabacco
But I believe he has, Your Honor. That's what I'm saying. I believe that he has and the Board of Elections has taken no steps whatsoever to adhere. They were in the room, they gave the advice, they came back, they took they took leave to come back to the judge with it. So look, our feeling is we're not we have a process in place in the federal court that we're going by we got a Decision and Order that said, you may and can vote, right in Cara, we are people and many others across the street state are trying to do what the judge said. I believe that in the narrow scope that you're discussing, and I'll ask you for your consideration, that you could certainly instruct them to follow the Federal Court's order and print some ballots overnight. I've given you given you a case law on that. And further, on Tuesday, they're going to try to certify someone for the US Senate who I think will will be very badly tainted. And I don't think anyone really cares about that stuff these days.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Mr. Ryan does the State Board certifying the Republican nominee following this Tuesday, and that already been done?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Following the certification of Tuesday's election.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
But there is no primary?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
So, candidates that do not have a primary remain in a state of limbo until the election is certified. And then once the election is certified, those candidates that did not run in a primary are then included in that certification. So we still have to go through all of the steps necessary to count the votes for all the contests that are actually on the ballot. And then, so think of it maybe the best way to think of it is in the same way that a party candidate that doesn't have a primary officially becomes a member of the county committee or the state committee or whatever - after the certification of the election.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I understand.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Yeah, so what will happen is will certify our election, right. All of the other counties will certify their election and we then submit that data to the State Board of Elections. And then after that is all done then they have this certification process. And their Commissioners would have to meet to separately certify the contests that are under their umbrella, and this would be one of them. Now out, you know, if there were a subsequent order, you would have to in order for it to meet federal law, just so that we're clear, it would have to be conducted and certified in time to have the military and overseas ballots 45 days before the general election. So that's your window, that you're looking at 45 days backwards from the general election, backwards to a point that an election could be conducted and certified. So it's some time past June, and sometime before September, which was why the September primary was bumped back to June by a federal court order.
John Tabacco
Okay. And we seem to have this ping pong effect between well, that maybe you could do that in the federal and maybe you can do, you know, go reconsider and an update again. But in my view, we've been told many times by the federal court that this is a New York State issue. So we've basically run the traps of doing everything we possibly can. Okay. We've gone to federal court, we've gone to state court, we've exhausted all our remedies in state court. Now we're relying on a ruling that's before you.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
As to whether or not you can cast the vote at this juncture.
John Tabacco
That's right. That's right. So I mean, I'm, what I would say is our my request to you is, until such time that myself and 1000s of other similarly situated voters can have their voice heard in an election, which is 17th amendment on the federal race like a Senate, that I think they should be restrained from moving forward with any primary or provide a ballot. And until then they can't certify a candidate.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Because there is no primary happening right now. What I think what you're saying is that they should not be certifying the election at this juncture.
John Tabacco
They certainly should not be certifying the candidate for US Senate, if our people are ordered by the Court to go write her name in, and then the Board of Elections at the State has not prepared the counties with the proper information. Then I would say that, yeah, the State should be ordered to provide the copies of the ballots as ordered by Judge Reyes. I don't, I'm not I'm sorry, I'm pro se. But I don't know why I would have to go back and ask him if he's sure what he told me was an Order. You know, I'm usually good at understanding Orders. It's amazing. We have to do this right. Like, I have a write in candidate for US Senate.
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
And as a ministerial agency, Your Honor, we would certainly follow whatever orders, you know, from any court of competent jurisdiction. That's that's our job to do that. You know, but just keep in mind that this doesn't only affect New York City, this is this is a statewide application.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I appreciate it. So I did both both both sides, and I appreciate Mr. Tabacco, all of your arguments. My my concern, I'm just telling you what it is. It's not whether -
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I'm going to make these following rulings. That as that the matter of 24 CV 02428, Tabacco, the New York State Board of Elections, New York State Board of the New York State Republican Party and Edward Cox, that that matter is pending in federal court, and it's still an active matter. I believe that a application to stay the certification belongs in that court since that is the court that's hearing this case. I have no ability, Mr. Tabacco, to order at the Board of Elections at this juncture to create about, okay. Mr. Ryan, you're informing me that you can not create a ballot today? Correct?
NYC Board of Elections Director Michael J. Ryan
Correct.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
There is no ballot for me to be able to allow Mr. Tobacco, Miss Schmidt or Miss Alito to vote. The ballot doesn't exist. Okay. And so, that is the ruling of the Court at this juncture. Okay. I'm gonna note -
John Tabacco
What was the ruling? Well, I didn't was that a ruling?
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
I'm still ruling. This transcript can be ordered. Okay. I am noting on the record again, that Judge Reyes explicitly stated that the supporters of Cara Castronuova will be able to vote at a primary election. Okay. But no primary election has been effectuated. It hasn't been effectuated by the New York State Board of Elections, which is a party to that action. And that was not done. So I'm here now, on the last day of early voting, and there is not an ongoing primary.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
The jurist who is responsible, who is responsible for this matter, is Judge Reyes. An application may be made to him to stay the certification of the election, and to order a new primary date. Okay, that's, that's the jurist, before whom this actually belongs. I am denying the application to cast a ballot today, since there is not a ballot available to be cast. And that is the ruling of the Court,
John Tabacco
So we're getting denied. So now we would have to go to New York State Court Appellate Division to overturn this decision, or come back to you with an order to show cause? Is that what you're telling me?
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
So, so, so.
John Tabacco
Because you're you're basically what you're doing is we just got kicked from federal court and told this, these are all state matters. And now we're at the state court, again, trying to follow the order of the federal court. And now you're telling us to go back to him. So I want to - there's an urgent emergency nature to this, in my view. And if you don't think there is then I would imagine if there's no primary underway, and I know, your acumen in electoral law, United States, American citizen voters are being deprived of an opportunity that was guaranteed and ordered to them by a federal court judge, these are all things we're supposed to hold near and dear in our life. To go down and write the person in. The Board of Elections says, well, we didn't do that. So now you're telling us go back to the other judge, and tell them to “double secret” tell the Board of Elections to make a ballot up for us because they didn't - Mr. Ryan, and the New York State Supreme, whatever the special part is “I'm not sure you knew what you were talking about. So can you re-clarify?” And then you're basically ruling against people here from all different counties who wish to cast a vote today.
N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry
Thank you. Thank you.
John Tabacco
All right. Thanks. Thank you, Executive Director.