Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Andrew Yang, Jonathan Herzog, Hellen
Suh, Brian Vogel, Shlomo Small, Alison
Hwang, Kristen Medeiros and Dr. Roger
Green, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

ECF CASE
CIVIL ACTION:

EMERGENCY
COMPLAINT
RELIEF UNDER FRCP 65(B)

SEEKING

v.
New York State Board of Elections
Defendant.

“A Republic, if you can keep it,” Dr. Benjamin Franklin
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Andrew Yang (“Yang”), Jonathan Herzog (“Herzog”), Hellen Suh (“Suh”),
Brian Vogel (“Vogel”), Shlomo Small (“Small”), Alison Hwang (“Hwang”), Kristen Medeiros
(“Medeiros”) and Dr. Roger Green (Yang, Herzog, Suh, Vogel, Small, Hwang, Medeiros and Dr.
Green, the “Plaintiffs”), bring this action both individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
alleging as for their Complaint against Defendant Board of Elections of the State of New York
(the “NYS BOE”), upon personal knowledge as to themselves and as to all other matters upon
information and belief, based on, inter alia, the investigation made by their attorneys signed
below, as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 20

1.

This action is brought on an emergency basis under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65 and seeks to establish the fundamental principle that in a democracy there is no
right more important than the right to vote.
2.

Due to the unprecedented and tragic nature of the Covid-19 pandemic, the New

York Democratic Presidential Primary, originally scheduled for April 28, 2020, was postponed
until June 23, 2020, so that it would coincide with numerous congressional, State Senate, State
Assembly and other local elections and therefore minimize the threat to the health and safety of
New York voters and election workers. These non-presidential elections are not being cancelled
by the NYS BOE, only the Presidential primary.
3.

Rather than allow New York Democratic Party voters to vote by mail (as the State

is allowing for congressional and other elections pursuant to Executive Order 202.15), on April
27, 2020, the New York State Board of Elections’ commissioners voted unanimously to cancel
entirely the June 23, 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary, while allowing the other elections to
continue.
4.

This unprecedented and unwarranted move infringes the rights of Plaintiffs and

all New York State Democratic Party voters, of which there are estimated to be more than six
million, as it fundamentally denies them the right to choose our next candidate for the office of
President of the United States.
5.

Moreover, each of the Plaintiffs, save Yang who was the candidate, were running

to be among the 274 pledged delegates representing New York State at the Democratic National
Convention where the party chooses its candidate. Denying each of the Plaintiffs the opportunity
to represent Yang at the convention when duly qualified under the New York Election Law is a
denial of their fundamental rights, as well the more than 20,000 New York registered Democrats

2

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 20

who signed petitions to nominate Yang and the Plaintiffs to appear on the April 28 (moved to
June 23) election ballot.
6.

Plaintiffs therefore seek to recover actual and other damages as well as

declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, together with court fees and costs, so as to reinstate
the New York State Democratic Presidential primary in a manner that is both safe to voters and
election workers.
PARTIES
7.

Each of the Plaintiffs herein is a Citizen of the United States over the age of

eighteen years.
PLAINTIFF ANDREW YANG
8.

Plaintiff Yang is a natural person who resides in New York County, New York.

9.

Yang campaigned for more than two years to become President of the United

States and has worked as a businessman, a social activist, and commentator.
10.

Yang is also a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.

11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a signed affidavit from Yang.

PLAINTIFF JONATHAN HERZOG
12.

Plaintiff Jonathan Herzog is a natural person who resides in New York County,

New York.
13.

Plaintiff Herzog is a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.

14.

Plaintiff Herzog is a candidate for delegate to the Democratic National

Convention to represent New York’s 10th Congressional District pledged to Andrew Yang. As
well, he is a candidate for United States Congress for the House of Representatives representing
New York’s 10th Congressional District.

3

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 20

15.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a signed affidavit from Herzog.
PLAINTIFF HELLEN SUH

16.

Plaintiff Hellen Suh is a natural person who resides in New York County, New

17.

Plaintiff Suh is a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.

18.

Plaintiff Suh is a candidate for delegate to the Democratic National Convention to

York.

represent New York’s 10th Congressional District pledged to Andrew Yang.
19.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a signed affidavit from Suh.

PLAINTIFF BRIAN VOGEL
20.

Plaintiff Brian Vogel is a natural person who resides in Monroe County, New

21.

Plaintiff Vogel is a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.

22.

Plaintiff Vogel is a candidate for delegate to the Democratic National Convention

York.

to represent New York’s 25th Congressional District pledged to Andrew Yang.
23.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a signed affidavit from Vogel.

PLAINTIFF SHLOMO SMALL
24. Plaintiff Shlomo Small is a natural person who resides in Queens County, New York.
25. Plaintiff Small is a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.
26. Plaintiff Small is a candidate for delegate to the Democratic National Convention to
represent New York’s 5th Congressional District pledged to Andrew Yang.
27. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a signed affidavit from Small.
PLAINTIFF ALISON HWANG
28. Plaintiff Alison Hwang is a natural person who resides in Nassau County, New York.

4

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 20

29. Plaintiff Hwang is a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.
30. Plaintiff Hwang is a candidate for delegate to the Democratic National Convention to
represent New York’s 4th Congressional District pledged to Andrew Yang.
31. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a signed affidavit from Hwang.
PLAINTIFF KRISTEN MEDEIROS
32. Plaintiff Kristen Medeiros is a natural person who resides in Suffolk County, New York.
33. Plaintiff Meideros is a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.
34. Plaintiff Meideros is a candidate for delegate to the Democratic National Convention to
represent New York’s 1st Congressional District pledged to Andrew Yang.
35. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a signed affidavit from Medeiros.
PLAINTIFF DR. ROGER GREEN
36. Plaintiff Dr. Green is a natural person who resides in Ulster County, New York.
37. Plaintiff Dr. Green is a registered New York State Democratic Party voter.
38. Plaintiff Green is a candidate for delegate to the Democratic National Convention to
represent New York’s 19th Congressional District pledged to Andrew Yang.
39. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a signed affidavit from Dr. Green.
DEFENDANTS
40. Defendant New York State Board of elections is an agency of the New York State
government within the New York State Executive Department responsible for
enforcement of the election laws.
41. The NYS BOE has its principal place of business in the County of Albany, New York
with an address of NYS Board of Election, 40 North Pearl Street, Suite 5, Albany, New
York 12207, also with an office at 200 Varick Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10014.

5

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 6 of 20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
42. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331
(federal question), §1343(a)(3) (equal rights) and §1343(a)(3) (right to vote)
43. Venue is proper in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a
substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims have occurred in this
District.
44. Venue is further properly laid in the Southern District of New York because Defendants
reside, are found, have agents and transact business in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1391.
45. Resolving this case in federal court is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient
resolution of this controversy. The federal court dispute resolution process presents fewer
case management difficulties, and provides the benefit of single adjudication, economy of
scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. The damages suffered by
Plaintiffs, from diverse and distant geographic locations throughout the state, are
relatively small financially as compared to the expense and burden of individual
prosecution of the claims asserted in this litigation. Thus, absent the Court exercising
jurisdiction over this dispute, it would not be feasible for Plaintiffs to redress the wrongs
done to them in a timely and efficient manner at State Courts (which are primarily closed
at present time due to the Covid-19 pandemic). It would also be grossly inefficient for the
judicial system to preside over such large numbers of individual cases (thousands of
delegate candidates, tens of thousands of registered voters who signed petitions, and
millions of voters who are being denied the right to vote). Further, litigation presents the
potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would greatly magnify the delay

6

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 7 of 20

and expense to all parties and to the judicial system. Finally, state court action presents an
opportunity for bias as the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, has judges
appointed by the Governor. Therefore, this dispute between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant NYS BOE is most appropriately resolved through this federal court.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
46. The Coronavirus disease 2019 (“Covid-19 or the Coronavirus”) has caused unimaginable
tragedy and death. It is a serious disease caused by a virus that was first identified in
Wuhan, Province, China in December 2019.
47. As of April 27, the Coronavirus has caused more than 211,000 deaths throughout the
world, infecting more than 3,041,000 people throughout the world. In New York City
alone, Covid-19 has caused to date more than 17,000 deaths. More than 1,600 have died
in Nassau County, more than 1,100 have died in Suffolk County, more than 100 people
have died in Monroe County, and there have been 24 deaths in Ulster County.
48. Due to the novel nature of Covid-19, governments have been issuing “Stay-at-home” and
other orders so as to protect individuals from the spread of the disease.
49. Plaintiff’s in no way by this action seek to undermine the health and safety of New York
voters or election workers, but rather seek to uphold their fundamental rights under the
Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York.
ABOUT THE JUNE 23, 2020 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
50. The New York State Democratic presidential primary was originally scheduled for April
28, 2020.

7

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 8 of 20

51. Each of the Plaintiffs qualified to be a candidate for this election under the requirements
of the New York Election Law, Yang for the office of President of the United States, and
each of the others as Delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention from
various Congressional Districts throughout the State pledged to support Andrew Yang.
52. The party delegate selection rules are complicated, but basically allow for candidates to
send delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee (originally
scheduled July 13-16, and now postponed until August 17-20 due to the Covid-19
pandemic) if such candidate receives at minimum 15% of the vote in a Congressional
District. Delegates at the convention then select the nominee for the party’s candidate to
become the next President of the United States and help shape the party’s rules and
platform.
53. Each of Yang, as candidate for President, and the other Plaintiffs, as candidates for
Delegates, worked tirelessly throughout the cold winter months of January and February
2020 to secure signatures from NY registered Democrats so as to secure access to ballot
under the New York Election Law. All in, Yang secured more than 20,000 signatures
throughout the state and each of the other delegates secured hundreds, if not thousands, of
signatures working with other delegates so that they could be candidates for delegates to
the convention.
54. The same applies to efforts made by campaigns for other presidential candidates and their
pledged delegates.
55. The April 28, 2020 primary was then rescheduled to coincide with the June 23, 2020
federal and state elections so as to protect the safety of voters and election works during
the pandemic (Executive Orders 202.12).

8

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 9 of 20

56. An action taken by the Governor of New York to help stop the spread of the disease was
Executive Order 202.15, which provided in relevant part, allows New York voters to vote
by mail if they request an absentee ballot:

•

Section 8-400 of the Election Law is temporarily suspended and hereby modified
to provide that due to the prevalence and community spread of COVID-19, an
absentee ballot can be granted based on temporary illness and shall include the
potential for contraction of the COVID-19 virus for any election held on or before
June 23, 2020.

•

Solely for any election held on or before June 23, 2020, Section 8-400 of the
Election Law is hereby modified to allow for electronic application, with no
requirement for in-person signature or appearance to be able to access an absentee
ballot.

57. In other words, Executive Order 202.15 allows any NY registered voter eligible to vote
on June 23, the right to apply for an absentee ballot electronically and then to vote by
mail if they so choose to exercise their right.
58. On April 24, Governor Cuomo announced that he will issue another Executive Order
mandating that the New York State Board of Elections automatically mail every New
Yorker a postage-paid application for an absentee ballot. “We’re making great progress
to flatten the curve [of new cases] and decrease the spread of infection, but we don’t
know when this pandemic will end and we can’t put democracy on hold.”
59. Despite the Governors words, Defendant NYS BOE is doing worse than putting
democracy on hold, it is partially cancelling democracy by cancelling the presidential
primary.
60. Despite the Governor’s orders, on April 27, 2020, the NY State Board of Elections, by
unanimous vote of its commissioners, declared that the New York Presidential Primary

9

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 10 of 20

would be cancelled entirely, nevertheless allowing the “down ballot” federal
congressional and state elections to continue.
61. By allowing the other elections to continue, and cancelling the Presidential primary,
Defendant NYS BOE is:
a. Disenfranchising millions of New York voters by not allowing them to express
their preference for candidates that duly qualified for ballot access under the NY
Election Law, specifically for the office of President of the United States and the
party positions of Delegates to the Democratic National Convention
b. Disenfranchising tens of thousands of New York voters that signed pursuant to
the NY Election Law to nominate Yang as candidate for the office of President of
the United States and the other Plaintiffs named herein for the Party position of
Delegate to the Democratic National Convention;
c. Disenfranchising hundreds of persons similar to the Plaintiffs herein who intended
to run for delegate pledged to Yang or some other candidate in the NY
Democratic Presidential primary;
d. Suppressing voter turnout as voters will have less incentive to vote if they cannot
cast a vote for the highest office in the land, and thereby negatively impact
challenger candidates such as Herzog;
e. Creating ambiguity for the Democratic National Convention – how will New
York’s 274 delegates for the national convention be chosen this summer, despite
the clear rules for how promulgated by the party and the NY Election Law; and
most importantly,

10

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 11 of 20

f. Creating a bad precedent for our current President to suspend the November 2020
election as the current President can make the same argument as the Defendant,
namely, that it is too dangerous to vote as no one can accurately predict when it
will be 100% safe, if ever again in the future of humanity, to leave one’s house, or
touch an object, such as an election ballot, that could be contaminated with the
Covid-19 virus.
62. Upon information and belief, despite what Commissioner and NY State Democratic Party
Co-Chair Douglas A. Kellner called “frivolous” (aka allowing the presidential primary),
it would be frivolous to not allow it. In other words, upon information and belief, despite
there being a “presumptive nominee” it will cause chaos and confusion and irreparable
harm to cancel the New York Democratic Presidential Primary.
63. On April 27, 2020, the Bernie Sanders campaign called the decision by
Defendants “an outrage, a blow to American democracy” and suggested that New
York should lose its delegates entirely. Sanders, like Yang did in February of this
year, suspended his campaign in April but never asked for his name to be taken
off the ballot.
64. Losing delegates, and losing the right to vote, is quite simply an outrage that is
illegal and will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff and New York voters. It will
cause candidates like Yang and the Plaintiff delegates to lose influence at the
party’s convention, and the possibility, even if remote, of winning the nomination
to be the candidate for President.
65. As part of Defendant’s justification for cancelling the election, they cited that
there are only contested “down-ballot” elections in 42 of New York’s 62 counties,

11

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 12 of 20

and therefore in the twenty counties with no down- ballot elections, the election
can be cancelled entirely, thereby minimizing the risk of spreading the novel
Coronavirus.
66. The counties that do not have down-ballot elections are mostly upstate New York
and represent a small fraction of total voters.
67. It is widely known that in these districts where these counties where there are no
down-ballot elections, the threat of the coronavirus is less prevalent.
68. Defendant’s justification based on health grounds have no legitimate logic or
reason, rather it is believed they acted capriciously to favor the presumptive
nominee, Joseph Biden (who has 1,305 delegates, where 1,991 are needed to win
the nomination) and to suppress voter turnout in the local elections where many
party-establishment would be favored by low voter turnout.
69. This action is done by emergency as the next NYS Board of Elections
Commissioners meeting is not scheduled until May 27, 2020, which will not
allow sufficient time for the State to prepare for the June 23 election if the April
27 decision is to be overturned by administrative action or appeal.
70. Defendant Board Co-Chairman Douglas Kellner said the primary cancellation was a
"very difficult decision," but claimed state law allows for removing candidates from the
ballot when they have suspended their campaigns, as Sanders and Yang have done and,
further, endorsed presumptive nominee Joe Biden.
71. The Defendant acted under the color of law, but such law, if passed, violates the
constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of New York, as

12

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 13 of 20

it denies voters due process and denies voters the right to vote, and therefore must
be invalidated removing the authority for the Defendant to take the actions
complained of herein.
72. Neither Yang nor the other Plaintiffs, after working tirelessly to secure their
names on the ballot, asked the Defendant to remove their names from the ballot.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1st and 14th Amendments, U.S. Const. Amend I and XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. 2201,
2202
UNDUE BURDEN ON AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE
73. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs
of this Complaint.
74. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
75. Defendant’s April 27 decision to cancel the Presidential primary violates Plaintiffs’ equal
protection of the laws in that it arbitrarily denies them the rights they secured under the
NY Election Law as qualified candidates. Equally, it denies them the right to cast their
votes for duly qualified candidates.
76. Any law that purports to give Defendants the authority to cancel the election violates the
Fourteenth Amendment.
77. The Defendant has neither a compelling interest, important interest, or even a legitimate
interest for cancelling the June 23 election, especially because they are allowing other
federal and state election to occur on the same date, therefore invalidating their argument
that the decision was made for health and safety reasons.

13

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 14 of 20

78. Defendant has failed to protect the voting rights of Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated candidates and New York State voters.
79. The Defendant’s decision to cancel the election will subject Plaintiff Yang and the other
Plaintiffs to unequal treatment under the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution, based on the arbitrary and capricious nature of their decision, and not
based on any actual set of facts (i.e. if their decision was truly motivated for public health
and safety, they would also cancel the other federal and state elections on the same date).
80. The Defendant has violated and will continue to violate the Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection rights of Plaintiffs if the June 23, 2020 presidential primary election is
permanently cancelled.
81. Under the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, a court considering a challenge to a state
election law must carefully balance the character and magnitude of injury to the First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against “‘the precise
interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,’
taking into consideration ‘the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden
the plaintiff’s rights.’” See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (quoting
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983)).
82. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is reasonable to take precautions to allow for safe
voting, but such decisions cannot arbitrarily pertain to some elections and not others.
83. Defendants cannot provide any colorable justification as to why they cancelled the
presidential primary and not other federal or state primaries. By doing so, Defendants are
attempting to create a dangerous precedent.

14

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 15 of 20

84. By allowing voters to vote absentee by mail, it is not sufficient for Defendants to argue
that by cancelling elections entirely in twenty counties where there are no federal or state
primaries on June 23, where the threat of the novel Coronavirus is minimal as compared
to the other 42 more densely populated districts where federal and state elections will still
take place.
85. It is clear Defendant’s action to cancel the presidential primary is an ill-conceived
political decision, rather than a rational decision to protect voter and worker health and
safety (especially given that everyone can vote by mail due to Covid-19).
86. In summary, the challenged law (granting Defendants authority to act) and the challenged
decision by Defendant to cancel the election, as applied to and during the extraordinary
conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, are unconstitutional infringements upon the
voting rights of Plaintiffs, un-supported by a state interest sufficient to justify the
resulting burdens on the right to vote, and thus, these laws violate the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14th Amendments, U.S. Const. Amend XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
87. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs
of this Complaint.
88. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the states from
depriving “any person of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law.” U.S. CONST.
amend. XIV, § 1. Determining which protections are due in a given case requires a
careful analysis of the importance of the rights and the other interests at stake. See
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976); Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of City of

15

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 16 of 20

L.A., 806 F.3d 1178, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015). Courts must first consider “the nature of the
interest that will be affected” by the government’s action as well as the “degree of
potential deprivation that may be created” by existing procedures. Nozzi, 806 F. 3d at
1192–93. Second, “courts must consider the ‘fairness and reliability’ of the existing
procedures and the ‘probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards.’” Id. at
1193 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343). Finally, courts must consider “the public
interest, which ‘includes the administrative burden and other societal costs that would be
associated with’ additional or substitute procedures. Id. (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at
347). Overall, “due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the
particular situation demands.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334, (quotation and citation
omitted).
89. Defendants action, maintaining some elections and cancelling Plaintiff’s, must comport
with due process, which it is does not.
90. “When an election process ‘reache[s] the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,’
there is a due process violation.” Fla. State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522
F.3d 1153, 1183 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574, 580 (11th Cir.
1995))
91. Cancelling Plaintiff’s election, but allowing others to occur on the same day, it is clear
Defendant’s action is fundamentally unfair and unjust and illegal. The nature of the
interest at stake in this case, namely the right to vote and to have that vote count, is the
most sacred liberty interest of all because it preserves all other basic civil, human,
economic and political rights.

16

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 17 of 20

92. But the challenged law enabling the Defendants to act (NY’s State Budget Law) and the
challenged decision of the Defendant’s on April 27, 2020 threaten to deprive Plaintiffs
and all New York voters of this right. Considering the tragedy and risk presented by the
novel Corornavirus, Defendants must take caution, as they nonetheless have by allowing
voters to cast their ballots in the June 23, 2020 election by mail, but the challenged law
and action by Defendant, as applied under the extraordinary conditions of the COVID-19
pandemic, are entirely inadequate in all other respects in that they cancelled Plaintiff’s
election but not others, and allowing the presidential primary to continue and coincide
with other federal and state elections scheduled for the same would protect voters’ and
Plaintiff’s rights with minimal burden to the State, the challenged laws violate Plaintiff’s
procedural due process rights.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NY STATE DUE PROCESS, RIGHT TO VOTE,
DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
New York State, Constitution1821, Article 2
93. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs
of this Complaint.
94. The challenged law and the action by Defendants violate Plaintiff’s rights under the New
York Constitution under Article II.
95. Defendant actions violate Plaintiff’s right to vote, and provide no justifiable reason to
allow the election for certain representatives in government (congressional, State Senate,
State Assembly) and not others, arguably more important (Presidential).
96. Defendants’ actions are arbitrary and whimsical and provide no justification or valid
reason.

17

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 18 of 20

97. Moreover, Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s due process rights under the New York
State Constitution, as amended.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Judgment
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202
Lack of Authority for Defendants to Act
98. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs
of this Complaint.
99. Defendants action denies Plaintiff’s their most basic and important right as Americans:
participating in democratic elections.
100.

Defendant’s action defies logic and valid reason as it allows certain elections to

continue, while cancelling Plaintiffs’ election, which is fundamentally unjust.
101.

Plaintiffs therefore seek a declaration from this Court that Defendants not only do

not have the authority to cancel the Presidential primary given the extraordinary
circumstances, but have a duty to maintain the election to simultaneously protect both the
right to vote for Plaintiff’s and the right for Plaintiff’s to appear as candidates on the June
23 ballot.
102.

Plaintiffs request this extraordinary remedy for the June 23 election, considering

the unprecedented emergency caused by COVID-19 pandemic and how it is being dealt
with for elections occurring on the same date, that Plaintiff’s rights, the unequivocal right
to vote, the right for due process and equal protection under the law, must be enforced
and upheld in an indiscriminatory and non-arbitrary manner.

18

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 19 of 20

REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and pray that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
a. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained under Rule 65(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
b. On Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution, actual or statutory damages, whichever is greater, as the Court deems
appropriate in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. On Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for denial of Plaintiff’s right to procedural due
process under the 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, actual or statutory damages,
whichever is greater, as the Court deems appropriate in an amount to be determined at
trial;
d. On Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for denial of Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process
and right to vote under the NY State Constitution, actual or statutory damages, whichever
is greater, as the Court deems appropriate in an amount to be determined at trial;
e. On Plaintiff’s first through fourth causes of action, an order enjoining Defendants from
cancelling the New York Democratic Presidential Primary on June 23 and reinstating the
same;
f. Costs for this action; and
g. That the Court use its inherent powers to grant such other and further relief as it deems
just and proper at law and in equity to vindicate the claims brought forth in this action by
Plaintiffs;

19

 Case 1:20-cv-03325 Document 1 Filed 04/28/20 Page 20 of 20

Dated: April 28, 2011
Respectfully submitted,

By: _/s/ Jeffrey M. Kurzon_____
Jeffrey Mead Kurzon, Esq.
Bar No. JM3388
Jeff@Kurzon.com

KURZON KOHEN LLP
305 Broadway, FL 7
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 212-203-8918
www.Kurzon.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20